The professors' conclusion is consistent with, and arguably goes well beyond, the recent decision by the Court in , which found that the SEC lacked jurisdiction over sales of the relevant digital asset in the secondary market and even some of the primary sales. (See also, , discussing the Ripple decision.) 

In the brief, the professors make a strong argument that the SEC does not have the broad jurisdiction that it asserts over digital assets. Whether this District Court decides…

Ordinarily, a trade association might be expected to raise significant cross border issues as to international regulatory recommendations. In the case of crypto, the U.S. regulators are relatively hostile to the product, as compared to regulators in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the industry hopes that the recommendations of foreign regulators will spur the U.S. regulators into allowing some path forward.

The reason that investors lost faith in SVB is because there was a sudden realization that high interest rates meant that many banks may have material losses in their portfolios, not all of which losses were disclosed. This is not the first time that a jump in interest rates hurt banks. But acknowledging that as a major part of the problem would require the Senators to acknowledge that more regulation is not necessarily the solution to the problem.

As with the  brought by regulators in connection with the use by firms of WhatsApp and similar messaging services, it is difficult to justify the penalty amounts imposed. There is no evidence that the use of new communications technology was for any fraudulent purpose. So while enforcement actions were clearly appropriate, the fact that the SEC and the CFTC between them imposed more than $500 million in penalties in the instant cases (and $1.8 billion in the previous action) seems…