Even with this extension and potential change in scope, nearly all investment adviser clients are already captured by current AML/CFT regulations when they open bank and brokerage accounts, or invest in mutual funds and other investment products, through which they and/or the adviser implement investment decisions in the course of their relationship. It is unclear how much protective value would be added by an additional layer of screening conducted by the investment adviser.

The SEC’s choice to dismiss this case now is part of a larger trend by the SEC in favor of increased retail participation in a broader range of potentially illiquid assets that, despite their illiquidity risks, could offer the benefits of diversification and enhanced returns and that generally support the SEC’s goals with respect to capital formation. That trend is separate from any merits argued in this case in response to Loper or regarding the scope of the SEC’s statutory authority.

Stablecoins are supposed to be stable, and it is an acknowledged problem if and when they're not. However, if the primary purpose (indeed sole purpose) of stablecoins really is to store value and facilitate payments, and emphatically not to seek to generate returns, then it makes sense that stablecoins are not securities, even if they may have certain risks that may be similar to securities risks. There are plenty of other risky things people can buy, hold, sell, lose or discover to be…

For decades or even centuries, different financial products and non-financial products have been invented, upgraded, redesigned, used, and forgotten; some flourished and many failed. Through it all, different regulators at the federal and state levels tried their hand to protect consumers, regardless of what the thing was or what technology was used. 

There is no reason an appropriate allocation of regulators and regulations cannot be worked out for the myriad forms of digital…