The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept its first crypto task force on March 21 to discuss the regulations that ended in a consensus that Crypto needs regulatory clarity in the US despite the different views among the panel members.
Panel members varied from Crypto proponents to skeptics and the session were aimed at long -term debates, including the classification of digital assets and the limits of existing securities in tackling decentralized technologies.
Lawyers defended decentralization as a meter to determine whether a token is a security. At the same time, skeptics argued that the current definition works by the Howey test, because the SEC won more movements than lost.
The event meant a tone shift of the SEC under former chairman Gary Genler, who often characterized most crypto -tokens as effects and continued enforcement actions against large companies.
Legal definitions and scope of securities legislation
Discussions have extended to which characteristics of digital assets, if present, another treatment under the Act justify. Crypto proponents of the event suggested that, apart from the question of whether something is a security, the more relevant question can be whether certain effects exempt exemption deserve.
Proponents argued that a possible differentiator is the degree of control exercised by Empenten, a concept that better records the decentralized nature of many blockchain networks.
Lee Reiners, a lecture fellow at the Duke Financial Economics Center, said that all panel members agree that Bitcoin (BTC) is not safety because it is sufficiently decentralized.
However, he added that drawing a line to determine whether something is sufficiently decentralized or an investment contract is impossible, referring to a report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that diventralization divides by spectrums based on various aspects.
Investor risk and legal authority
Skeptics of the crypto industry showed contrasting perspectives. Former SEC Honwervantation Officer John Stark and the most vocal critic claimed that the responsibility of the agency is to protect investors who buy digital assets.
In addition, crypto critics argued that the Howey test remains a sufficiently legal norm and that the Track Record of the SEC of Success Success confirms its interpretative authority. Stark suggested that the framework is not necessary to reinvent the framework.
Despite these divisions, the participants generally agreed that clearer definitions and regulatory consistency would benefit the industry and the supervisory responsibilities of the SEC.
The round table represents the first in a series of efforts to modernize the position of the desk on cryptom markets and at the same time balance the protection of investors with technological innovation. It signals the start of the reassessment process of the regulator.