According to a new bill proposed by US Senators, CFTC will oversee Crypto instead of the SEC. Is that a win?

Just now documents have been shown of a bill by US Senators that would also influence crypto. According to the bill the regulator for commodities, CFTC, will be overseeing Bitcoin and other crypto assets instead of the current “kind of” assigned oversee-er, SEC. Is that now really better?

While we may all have enough of the constant bullshit the SEC has been talking into crypto and the fact that they don’t know what to do themselves as they showed in court with XRP. Also their constant denial of Bitcoin Spot ETFs that is senseless. It may be better to have someone else but not them regulating Crypto.

The CFTC is basically assigned to regulate commodities just as the SEC is assigned to overlook securities. Happily for Crypto they have im the past been more crypto-friendly than the SEC with their statements. Offering a innovative regulation that still protects crypto from being over-regulated. Now obviously they are internally just as or a bit less corrupt than the SEC but maybe for Crypto they would be the better out of this two bad ones.

View Source

25 thoughts on “According to a new bill proposed by US Senators, CFTC will oversee Crypto instead of the SEC. Is that a win?”

  1. Well, I think it’s a win for retail. If it’s a commodity, you can hold it without being an accredited investor or a broker right?

    Reply
  2. **If it’s passed unchanged, you mean. Still way too early to speak of this as a done deal. [Regardless](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/03/stabenow-boozman-bitcoin-cftc-bill/):

    >The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would take the leading role in overseeing the two largest cryptocurrencies and the platforms where they are traded under a new bill from Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.). Oversight of the remaining cryptocurrencies would be divided between the SEC and the Securities and Exchange Commission, though the process for making those determinations is not yet clear. […]
    >
    >Stabenow and Boozman said the two agencies need to share oversight responsibilities and coordinate how to do so. “We’re not defining what a security is,” Stabenow said. “I have great confidence in Chairman Gensler to be able to use his authorities… We’re not trying to get beyond our jurisdiction.”

    …so the SEC would still be involved, potentially regulating most cryptos that aren’t BTC/ETH. As for early reaction:

    >The proposal is drawing positive early reviews from the industry — and at least one consumer advocate. Blockchain Association executive director Kristin Smith in a statement said she was encouraged to see “the bipartisan desire to give the CFTC the clarity it needs to oversee crypto spot markets.”
    >
    >And Todd Phillips, director of financial regulation and corporate governance at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, called the Stabenow-Boozman proposal “a great bill.”
    >
    >“It provides a regulatory structure around crypto commodities without taking away authority from other agencies, like the SEC,” he said in an interview. “It specifically requires the registration and regulation of brokers, puts in place investor protection rules and puts up a framework around this market to ensure investors aren’t taken advantage of.”

    Reply
  3. >The crypto industry has been pushing for either a federal agency or Congress to create a clear definition of “digital commodity” or a digital security, which could give companies greater clarity on when and how they must register with the CFTC or the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bill doesn’t provide that definition. The CFTC would have some ability to define digital commodities, and the bill appears to still defer to the SEC on what a security is.

    >Much of the bill is dedicated to detailing how digital commodity brokers would be treated similarly to their traditional finance counterparts.

    It doesn’t really do what you say it does, OP. It only really pertains to maybe Bitcoin and Ether. Even then it gives SEC the authority to fight those if they choose.

    Reply
  4. There’s a petition out there to remove Gensler from the SEC. Sign it. That corrupt POS is working for the big guys, couching it in “protection” for consumers. Garbage pile guy, needs to GO!

    Reply
  5. This is a huge win for crypto! Crypto does not fit into the SEC’s world as they handle things like stocks assets that are clearly defined and have a track record. Crypto is as much about the future as it is about what is out there now. The CFTC while not the perfect fit is much better as they deal with evolving things (commodity future contracts) that move almost 24/7

    Reply
  6. OP is wrong. The bill is about Bitcoin which is the only coin being considered as commodity. All other shitcoins, including ETH, will probably be considered securities.

    Reply
  7. Tldr:

    Yes. Cftc are way more logical and fair in their approach to crypto than the sue happy easily bribed pricks at the sec

    Reply
  8. I think this shows that the powers that be are still trying to figure out wtf to do with crypto… so…maybe that is good? …maybe that is bad?

    Idk my bff, Jill?

    Reply
  9. It would be a massive win. Gensler’s (SEC) approach is to provide as little clarity as possible and sue as many organizations as possible and ultimately to make it so that only accredited investors (aka rich people) can participate. Many SEC rulings end up boiling down to *give us money and only let rich people participate going forward*.

    Reply
  10. I find this very amusing that they want to label Bitcoin and Ethereum only as commodities but not the rest of Cryptocurrencies. When in fact most of the Altcoins are Hard Forks and Soft Forks of Bitcoin and Ethereum. They run on the same Technology POW or POS which makes them all the same. SMFH this people have no idea what they are dealing with and now they think they know how to regulate it. Cryptoverse is a totally new asset class and it should be treated as such by itself.

    Reply

Leave a Comment