Home / Business and Politics / The Crypto Industry is Under Constant Scrutiny, but Whom Do Regulatory Agencies Protect?

The Crypto Industry is Under Constant Scrutiny, but Whom Do Regulatory Agencies Protect?

The crypto industry has faced significant regulatory oversight in the past 6 to 12 months, but regulators have not been kind (to say the least). Last week, Coinbase announced that the SEC plans to take legal action against the company if they launch the LEND product (which would allow users to earn 4 percent on USDC stablecoins). This move from the SEC is very bizarre and unclear.

The question arises as to what motives lie behind the SEC? Numerous crypto enthusiasts will readily say that regulatory agencies like the SEC are heavily influenced by traditional financial institutions. Why else would they take such outrageous legal actions against American crypto companies? Financial powerhouses have an existing hierarchy of political power, significant lobbying resources, and the entire traditional financial system behind them. They are the sharks in a school of fish, at the top of the food chain. And unfortunately, as pathetic and unfair as it may be, these regulatory agencies wield significant power and can cause serious short-term damage to the entire crypto ecosystem if allowed to enact draconian laws and pressure the industry to essentially ‘adapt or die’.

What is actually ironic and, in a way, sad is the fact that American politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren refer to the crypto ecosystem as a new ‘shadow bank’. Such statements indicate an extremely poor level of education, but most likely politicians do not even want to learn how blockchain works and deliberately use catchy phrases in media addresses.

– Cryptocurrencies are used only by criminals and terrorists. Bitcoin is nothing more than another bubble, like tulip mania – just some of the common expressions.

The real shadow bank is the opaque, closed, and unfair traditional financial system that exists solely to enrich a few at the expense of many. Meanwhile, DeFi is decentralized, transparent, open, permissionless, and allows everyday people to break free from the chains of centralization. But of course, the current powers do not want that; they want to keep your money in a ‘safe’ bank account that earns a miserable interest rate of 0.1 percent per year while inflation erodes your savings and everything around you becomes more expensive.

The funniest thing about all this is that no one in the crypto ecosystem is asking for such laws, nor are they asking these agencies to ‘protect’ them. From the perspective of many crypto companies, regulatory clarity and cooperation are the only things that matter. What is even more unusual is the current state of the crypto market where the SEC may have its hands full with frauds, rug-pulls, and Ponzi schemes, but they prioritize after honest companies like Coinbase and Uniswap Labs. So, it is not really about protecting retail investors; it is about intimidation tactics and stifling innovation so that current institutions can maintain their positions of power for as long as possible.

I think what politicians and regulators are mistaken about is the data on how large the crypto ecosystem is now. The crypto community is no longer small and niche. Research, surveys, and data speak for themselves. In June at the Hanfin Fintech conference, the main news was that in the small country of Croatia, investments in the stock market and cryptocurrencies were equal this year. Trading volumes on crypto exchanges are growing exponentially, and there is a strong possibility that crypto volume will surpass that of the stock market, especially if Bitcoin reaches and exceeds its previous peak of $64,000 again. I believe that the discussion around the American infrastructure law was a wake-up call for politicians and regulators not only in the U.S. but globally.

At the end of the day, if the U.S. continues down this path, individuals and companies will literally just leave the country and go to increasingly crypto-friendly states. A strong advantage in the crypto industry is its exceptional mobility and global reach.

The dispute between Coinbase and the SEC is a good example of why the financial regulatory system needs fixing. It is not hard to conclude that the existing package of financial laws, which the divided, dysfunctional American Congress seems unable to update for the technological reality of the 21st century. Worse still, this stalemate leads to a default stance on macro and monetary policy that maintains a low-interest-rate environment.

There is justification in the frequent frustrations of the crypto community regarding the lack of clear agency guidelines. There are real innovative opportunities within cryptocurrencies to provide valuable, secure, and useful products, if only policymakers would devise an appropriate regulatory framework.

This does not mean that there should not be regulation of centralized custodial entities like Coinbase, which have fiduciary duties to their clients in a way that fully decentralized crypto projects do not. But using a blunt instrument of securities law, created back in 1933 when people could not even dream of the technology we use daily today, is counterproductive, especially when the crypto industry has tools for storing and trading assets that offer greater security and transparency than the intermediary financial system for which these laws were primarily designed.

What we need is visionary legislative restructuring. And for that, we need appropriate political and regulatory bodies to recognize that blockchain technology is itself transformative and that, through permissionless power and open-source innovation, it has the potential not only to drive economic growth but also to promote financial inclusion and address economic imbalances.

Also, consider this: Why do people invest in cryptocurrencies? One reason is that many see an alternative to the expansive monetary system that pays zero interest rates, fuels inflation, and drives an ever-widening gap between privileged investors with access to growing financial assets and those who do not.

If you cut off the latter group from a proposed product like Coinbase’s, all that remains are options for the former, whose wealth meets ‘accredited investor standards’, ensuring them privileged access.

The question arises as to whom regulatory agencies actually protect? You draw your own conclusions.

{embed_digitalno_izdanje}{/embed_digitalno_izdanje}