Crypto-enthusiasts should be mindful that not even Commissioner Peirce, who might generally be regarded as the most supportive of the current financial regulators to crypto markets, believes that (i) digital assets require their own special regulator or (ii) all stablecoins are outside of the securities laws. Proponents of a better and clearer regulatory approach to digital assets need to be realistic and to be respectful of genuine policy interests, including taxation, financial stability,…

Very few new banks are chartered in the United States and the burdens of bank regulation are substantial (often for good reason). It is hardly surprising that fintechs in the crypto business are not clamoring to be regulated as banks, just as it is not surprising that digital asset firms are not seeking out the SEC for no-action relief. If the regulators want crypto or digital firms to approach them seeking to be regulated, the regulators will have to provide a motivation for these firms to…

The SEC's new guidance facilitates the ability of activists to engage in proxy fights as to matters that are not material to a company, so long as the matters are judged to be of "social" interest. This seems unlikely to produce happy results.

Presumably the SEC majority believes that such fights will produce social outcomes that they support. Perhaps that will be the case, but it is not a foregone conclusion, as witness the recent election results. In light of the election, one may…

The tone of the report is surprisingly supportive of stablecoins, recognizing them as a product that can compete perhaps very successfully against credit cards.  It is disappointing that the report did not make a clearer distinction between what might be considered "true" stable coins; i.e., coins backed by dollars (or another fiat currency) ultimately held at a bank and other coins that may be backed by other financial assets the value of which is not inherently stable, and which…