Regulation
SEC Insider Reveals Reason Why Agency Eased SAB 121 For Select Entities
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49bd9/49bd9604da1269c7734cca287b7e02a9209ee4a9" alt=""
Recently, certain banks and broker-dealers received exceptions from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to custody crypto assets. This revelation comes despite the standing guidelines of Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121. Hence, netizens were questioning the actions of the agency and now there is an answer to this ‘bias.’
Why SEC Relaxed SAB 121 Rule For Banks & Brokerages?
The SAB 121 rules remain unchanged according to an SEC spokesperson. For context, SAB 121, issued by the SEC, outlines the accounting and disclosure obligations for companies holding crypto assets on behalf of customers. The guidance is primarily concerned with ensuring that customers’ crypto assets are protected and accounted for appropriately.
This comes handy particularly in scenarios of financial distress like bankruptcy or resolution. Meanwhile, FOX journalist Eleanor Terrett’s inquiry revealed that specific broker-dealers and custody banks have demonstrated to the SEC staff that their operational models differ significantly from those outlined in SAB 121.
According to the spokesperson quoted by Terrett:
“Certain broker dealers and custody banks have sufficiently demonstrated to SEC staff that their fact patterns are different from those described in SAB 121…such as ensuring that customers maintain ownership of their assets even in the case of a resolution or bankruptcy.”
These entities have managed to assure the SEC that they can maintain customer ownership of assets even under adverse conditions. Thus, they earned exceptions to the stringent requirements of SAB 121.
Furthermore, Terrett disclosed that the SEC’s accounting staff, who are responsible for SAB 121, have conducted private discussions with these financial institutions. These discussions, it appears, were not communicated to the SEC Commissioners. These Commissioners are now working to understand the substance of these conversations.
Also Read: GOP Whip Tom Emmer Accuses SEC Chair of Harassment
Industry Backlash On These Exceptions
While the U.S. House continued to hold President Joe Biden’s veto on the anti-SAB 121 bill, the SEC made the above-mentioned landmark decision. The U.S. regulator introduced a new method allowing banks and brokerages to exclude their customers’ crypto holdings from their balance sheets. Banks must, however, ensure that they manage all related risks effectively.
This decision was a positive development in response to the heated debate in Congress over the controversial crypto-accounting guidelines. According to a source at the SEC, the agency’s staff has begun providing guidance on specific arrangements that allow banks to avoid listing crypto holdings as liabilities on their balance sheets.
Popular banks have been in discussions with the SEC over the past year. Hence, they received approval to omit crypto assets from their balance sheets, provided they ensure customer asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. However, the SEC requires banks to implement additional safeguards and internal controls to protect these holdings.
This move ignited significant backlash from the crypto industry for the supposed “bias.” VanEck’s Head of Digital Assets Research, Matthew Sigel, lauded the latest move but also pointed out the flaws. In a post on X, he wrote, “Good news (albeit still a horrific process that now favors big guys vs. repealing SAB121 which would have set a level playing field).”
Furthermore, Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long, who has been expressing frustration toward discrimination in obtaining Fed masteraccounts, also chimed in. She wrote, “SEC leadership extracts revenge on the #crypto industry (one day after Ro Khanna’s White House session) by giving the big banks special ‘exceptions’ from #SAB121, while sidelining #crypto companies still subject to it. How are progressives OK with such corporate favoritism?”
Also Read: Stacks Price Soars 9% As SEC Ends Probe On Bitcoin Layer 2 Developer
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
US SEC Faces Backlash as Bybit Hack Highlights Lack of Oversight
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b73bd/b73bd9820616032d39da6df5fe444376e3c39ec2" alt=""
John Reed Stark has pointed out that one of the causes of a rising risk in crypto security is the US SEC cutting back on enforcement activities. This includes a latest attack on crypto trading platform Bybit which compromised and stole $1.5 billion belonging to customers.
The attack, which analysts describe as the largest crypto heist in history, has raised concerns about the lack of regulatory safeguards protecting investors.
US SEC Criticized as Bybit Hack Highlights Security Gaps
According to a recent post on X, Stark criticized the US SEC’s decision to roll back enforcement actions against cryptocurrency platforms. He pointed out that Bybit’s security breach is a direct consequence of weak regulatory oversight, leaving investors unprotected against sophisticated cyberattacks.
The attack on Bybit has been linked to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking collective known for targeting cryptocurrency exchanges. Analysts at blockchain forensics firm Elliptic reported that the group has stolen billions in crypto over the years, using complex laundering methods to fund North Korea’s missile programs. Without strict cybersecurity requirements enforced by the US SEC, exchanges remain vulnerable to such threats.
EX SEC John Reed Stark added,
“For crypto-exchanges, there’s no regulatory oversight; no consumer protections; no net capital requirements; no licensure of individuals; no US audits, inspections or examinations; no segregation of customer funds; no insurance, no cybersecurity requirements; no transparency; no accountability; no SEC/FDIC/OCC/etc. engagement and the list goes on”
Bybit’s $1.5 Billion Hack Exposes Risks
The Bybit hack has sparked concerns about the broader security risks in the crypto industry. Crypto exchanges lack oversight, unlike traditional financial institutions. They have no mandatory audits, capital reserves, or customer asset protection.
Bybit has responded by securing bridge loans to cover losses and working to recover the stolen assets. However, experts remain skeptical about the likelihood of successful recovery. This incident underscores how the absence of SEC enforcement leaves crypto investors exposed to large-scale losses with no regulatory safeguards.
With the US SEC pulling back from crypto-related investigations and enforcement, investors are left without key protections. The lack of insurance, consumer safeguards, and oversight mechanisms means that customers impacted by breaches like the Bybit hack have limited options for recovering their funds.
As the US SEC changes its regulatory stance, critics raise concerns. They argue that offshore crypto exchanges may still operate with weak security. This regulatory gap increases the risk of further large-scale hacks, placing investors at continued financial risk.
The US SEC decision to halt enforcement actions has sparked debates on crypto regulation. Ongoing cases against major exchanges are now on hold. Some industry participants see reduced oversight as a way to promote innovation. Others warn it increases risks of fraud, security breaches, and financial instability.
Following the recent crypto hack, Bybit has launched a $140 million recovery bounty to track and reclaim stolen funds. The exchange is offering rewards to individuals or organizations that provide information leading to the identification of hackers.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
Ripple Vs SEC Lawsuit May Take Longer To Settle Than Coinbase, Expert Warns
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4207/e4207720545f594599b64ea1d0c520d8d121a48c" alt=""
Ripple vs SEC lawsuit: The legal battle between Ripple and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may take more time to resolve than the ongoing case involving Coinbase, legal experts suggest.
With a ruling already in place and other procedural complexities, experts believe that Ripple’s case faces a different set of challenges compared to Coinbase’s recent settlement.
Ripple Vs SEC Lawsuit May Take Longer To Settle
After the US SEC disclosed plans to drop the Coinbase lawsuit, speculations and debate have taken a turn on the potential of the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit outcome and when. However, legal experts have noted the Ripple lawsuit may not be as smooth as Coinbase case. One major factor making the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit more complicated is the ruling already handed down by Judge Torres. According to the filings, Ripple had been ordered to pay a $125 million penalty as part of the settlement with the SEC.
Subsequently, according to experts, the firm’s options now include the possibility of requesting a penalty reduction, which would require both parties to reach an agreement. Legal expert Sherrie, in a recent conversation on X, noted that while a settlement may be reached, it is unlikely that the separation of sales, as stipulated by Judge Torres, would be altered.
Any request to reduce the penalty, she said, would need to be carefully considered by both Ripple and the SEC. Additionally, a request to dismiss the appeal would mean that the original ruling by Judge Torres remains in effect.
“It’s more complicated for Ripple, given the existing ruling. The penalty would still stand unless both parties agree to a reduction,” Sherrie stated.
Ripple Cross-Appeal and Timing Considerations
Ripple vs SEC lawsuit involves more layers due to its cross-appeal, which must also be taken into account. Legal analysts suggest that the timing of Ripple’s upcoming filing—scheduled for April—may be pivotal in determining the case’s trajectory.
Ripple’s request to extend the filing deadline to April 16, 2025, gives further credence to the idea that a resolution may take longer than anticipated. As Ripple’s legal team moves forward with the appeal, both Ripple and the SEC will have to consider how to approach the next steps. As Ripple works toward securing an agreement or a potential settlement, it may continue to assess the possibility of lowering the penalty.
“Ripple’s next filing deadline is in April, which gives both parties more time to negotiate,” said legal expert Bill Morgan.
Ripple lawsuit Appellate Court’s Role
The involvement of the Appellate Court could also extend the timeline for resolving the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit. The court has a panel of three judges who will review and hear the case, a process that takes additional time compared to the procedures of a District Court. This contrasts with the process seen in the Coinbase case, where a settlement was reached more quickly, possibly due to the absence of such complications.
Eleanor Terrett, a FOX journalist, noted that the SEC may also choose to seek an agreement with Ripple at the district court level. The judge overseeing the case, Torres, retains jurisdiction until August 2025, and any changes to the terms of the ruling would require her approval.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty with the Ripple case. The SEC’s next steps are unclear, and any decisions may need Torres’s approval,” said Terrett.
Jeremy Hogan also suggested that Ripple vs SEC lawsuit might take longer to resolve due to the multiple steps involved in the appeal process.
“This isn’t just a straightforward case of settlement or dismissal,” Hogan remarked
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
ConsenSys Submits Letter to SEC on DeFi Rule Amendment Concerns
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04605/04605995b373f391ef6876325300932a3aaa1b15" alt=""
ConsenSys has submitted a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) expressing concerns about the proposed amendments to the definition of “exchange” under U.S. securities laws. The letter, addressed to Commissioner Hester Peirce and the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, requests the removal of the rulemaking from the regulatory agenda.
ConsenSys Challenges US SEC Proposed DeFi Rule Change
According to a recent submission, ConsenSys has urged the SEC to withdraw its proposed rule that expands the definition of an “exchange” to include decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms. The company argues that the amendments exceed the SEC’s legal authority.
ConsenSys asserts that the proposed rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by improperly broadening the regulatory scope. Additionally, the company claims that the rule conflicts with the U.S. Constitution by imposing regulatory obligations on decentralized protocols that do not fit the traditional definition of an exchange.
SEC’s proposed amendments on DeFi exchanges received substantial opposition during the 2022 comment period. ConsenSys referenced prior submissions made in April 2022 and June 2023, reinforcing its position that blockchain-based systems should not be categorized as traditional financial intermediaries.
The submission to Hester Peirce’s task force comes just weeks after the launch of a dedicated website outlining its role in establishing clear crypto regulations. The new platform provides a way for industry participants, including ConsenSys, to submit input and engage with regulators.
Concerns Over US SEC’s Statutory Authority
Moreover, ConsenSys maintains that the SEC lacks the statutory authority to extend the definition of an exchange to blockchain-based systems. The company argues that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines an exchange as an entity that provides a centralized market for securities transactions. The proposed rule, according to ConsenSys, improperly expands this definition to cover decentralized protocols.
The submission points out that DeFi platforms operate differently from traditional financial exchanges. Rather than facilitating transactions in a centralized manner, these platforms rely on smart contracts and peer-to-peer networks. ConsenSys warns that regulating these decentralized technologies as securities exchanges would create compliance burdens that are incompatible with their structure.
Consequences On Blockchain Innovation
The letter also warns that the amendments could negatively affect blockchain development and DeFi adoption. ConsenSys states that the proposed rule could discourage innovation by imposing regulatory uncertainty on blockchain developers and users.
The crypto company contends that the amendments could force decentralized platforms out of the U.S. market. By treating DeFi protocols as regulated exchanges, developers may face increased legal risks, reducing the incentive to create blockchain-based financial services within the country.
In its submission, the crypto company has expressed willingness to discuss the issue further with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. The company emphasized the importance of ensuring that blockchain regulations align with technological realities and legal constraints.
ConsenSys reaffirmed its stance that the SEC’s proposed rule should be removed from the regulatory agenda. With the new Hester Peirce Crypto Task Force, there is hope for ConsenSys and other blockchain firms facing regulatory scrutiny.
Most recently, the pro-crypto task force influenced the decision to pause the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance for 60 days. The review of cryptocurrency regulations may lead to clearer guidelines, potentially benefiting DeFi platforms.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
-
Altcoin18 hours ago
BTC, ETH Drop As $566M Liquidated Amid Bybit Hack
-
Market17 hours ago
FTX Survey Shows Crypto ReInvestment and Possible Bias
-
Market24 hours ago
XRP Whales Decline As Price Remains Consistently Below $3
-
Altcoin22 hours ago
Will XRP Price Hit $300 If US SEC Calls Off Ripple Lawsuit?
-
Market21 hours ago
SEC Ends OpenSea Investigation, No NFT Securities Action
-
Altcoin21 hours ago
Analyst Identifies Key Support For Cardano Price Bullish Momentum
-
Market20 hours ago
Solana Price Shows Recovery Signs as Bearish Pressure Eases
-
Market19 hours ago
Onyxcoin (XCN) Technical Indicators Hint at Major Breakout
✓ Share: