To encourage the development of crypto technologies, Chair Gensler should be far more explicit as to which products he believes are NOT securities and why. Otherwise, there is simply the assumption that the SEC will consider any product a security and, therefore, there is no benefit in asking the SEC's view.

This is not to suggest that none of the crypto products trading on the market are, in fact, securities. Recent news involving suggests that the SEC's position, insofar as the…

This enforcement action makes a somewhat questionable use of the term "supervision." One ordinarily thinks of "supervision," in the broker-dealer context, as referring to the direction and control by a "principal" at a broker-dealer of other employees of the broker-dealer. That seems not to have been the issue here.

The associated persons whose conduct motivated the enforcement action did not "supervise" customers, at least in the sense in which the word is ordinarily used. Rather, it…

There could hardly be a greater contrast in regulatory philosophies than there is between Chair Gensler and Commissioner Peirce. While Ms. Peirce is currently on the losing end of 3-2 votes, her remarks and dissents are significant in that they emphasize the possibility of individual autonomy and an acceptance of an individual's willingness to take risk. In the best of all possible worlds, there might be some possibility for reconciliation of such opposing views, but these speeches suggest…

Setting to the side the SEC's alleged failure to explain itself, the relevant legal precedent at issue here is not ; it is (holding that demand notes sold to retail investors are securities). The security at issue in this case is not the USD Coin (which is probably not a security at all); it is the loan of the asset to Coinbase. In short, the SEC would almost certainly assert that Coinbase is offering unsecured interest-bearing "notes" to retail investors; the fact that the retail investors…