Coin Edition -
- Bill Morgan says SEC’s classification of crypto still as securities hinges on offering and sale context.
- Industry leaders clash over the need for clearer SEC guidelines to navigate the crypto regulatory landscape.
- Morgan also said that registration of tokens will be a good regulatory solution.
Ladan Stewart, a former SEC crypto litigation leader argued that the SEC’s determination of whether a cryptocurrency is a security is contingent upon the context of its offering and sale. Stewart added that while certain crypto assets may show some characteristics similar to traditional securities their classification ultimately depends on the specifics of their distribution.
However, Stewart’s view was met with opposition from Rebecca Rettig, chief legal and policy officer at OxPolygon Labs, and Lewis Cohen, co-founder at DLx Law LLP. Rettig said that there is ambiguity created by the SEC’s approach and the necessity for more transparent regulatory frameworks.
Cohen supported these sentiments, calling for greater clarity to foster innovation and growth within the industry.
The debate extended as the famous legal figure and crypto enthusiast Bill Morgan took to social media to share his opinion. Morgan challenged the notion that cryptocurrencies should be automatically classified as securities instead proposing that registration could serve as a viable solution to regulatory concerns.
Not great logic from an attorney who had been on the SEC v Ripple case. The token itself is not the security but you should register the token. This is the SEC’s thinking. The token represents the security. The SEC’s ideal outcome is a court accepts its theory that because… https://t.co/Q1KmRdaDjn— bill morgan (@Belisarius2020) April 17, 2024
This conversation highlights the challenge faced by regulators and industry stakeholders alike in establishing coherent and effective regulations for the cryptocurrency market.
Morgan is an active participant in the crypto regulation space and frequently engages with the community on social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). In a recent post, Morgan pointed out that the applicant’s lawyer must inform the court of any argument or fact that the defendant might present, even if it does not support the applicant’s motion. This obligation extends even to the facts or arguments known to the applicant’s lawyers, which the defendant could present if it had the opportunity to oppose the motion.
The post SEC’s Approach to Crypto Ambiguous; Debate Among Industry Leaders appeared first on Coin Edition.