While many of the punishments imposed by the SEC and FINRA may seem excessive (for example, fines imposed for recordkeeping violations that did no harm), it sometimes seems that the punishments imposed on individuals who do actual damage to retail customers are too lenient. Query: what possible justification can there be for misstating a customer's objectives? Why should the punishment be less than it would be for outright theft of the client's money?

The new FAQ is quite meaningful, insofar as it permits broker-dealers to participate in the creation of ETPs that hold crypto. It also gives ready market capital treatment to bitcoin and ether, subject to a 20% haircut.  

By contrast, the 2019 SEC Joint Statement on custody—and its withdrawal—are not particularly meaningful, since the Statement was wholly impractical to implement and few firms—if any—relied on it. The 2019 Statement served more as a pretense for the former…

As Chair Pham's remarks indicate, and to her great credit, Chair Pham was a significant critic of enforcement over-reach during the prior Administration. See, e.g., .

Of course, the CFTC is not the only regulator that may have been guilty of enforcement overreach during the prior Administration. See, e.g, .

This is a very good comment letter, discussing not only issues directly relevant to broker-dealers, but asking questions as to the treatment of custodial and voting obligations of investment advisers, the treatment of digital assets under the Uniform Commercial Code as implemented in the various states and the recordkeeping obligations of transfer agents

The letter, which is very supportive of digital assets, echoes one assertion of former Chair Gensler: that regulations should strive…