The establishment of the Crypto Reserve is among the most trivial of issues. The Executive Order does not authorize the US Government to buy bitcoin. Essentially all it says is that, to the extent that the Government comes into possession of bitcoin, as a result of criminal enforcement activities, the holding of those assets should be centralized and the sale should be conducted in a way to maximize the return to the Government.

This Executive Order is less significant than it appears. As a matter of substance, all it says is that to the extent that the United States Government obtains Bitcoin as a result of bringing enforcement actions, it should have a considered policy as to whether to maintain or dispose of the Bitcoin, and how to dispose of them. In other words, if the Government comes into a big pile of Bitcoin in an enforcement action, it shouldn't dump them all at once and crash the market.  

Reacting to the Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank crises, the bank regulators acted forcefully and decisively amid uncertainty (two of Mr. Barr's principles.) They assured depositors at the failed banks that neither they nor the depositors at any other bank would lose money. But the regulators did so at significant cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund and raised the expectation that all future bank failures will be treated in the same fashion. 

This is not to say that the bank…

The argument that FINRA exercises governmental authority, and does so without being subject to the legal restraints that would apply to the government itself, is neither a novel argument, nor a trivial one. (See, e.g.  by former SEC Commissioner and Professor Roberta Karmel.)

Since the creation of FINRA, (originally the NASD), the strength of the argument that FINRA is effectively an arm of the Government (through the SEC's power over it) has only grown. The Exchange Act now…