It's funny though - as someone who has been watching the SEC attack crypto, I very much have felt the opposite. I realize this industry is not universally loved, but at least for the sake of the discussion believe (1) there are serious people who see value in this technology (2) these serious people are not looking for no regulation - ra…
It's funny though - as someone who has been watching the SEC attack crypto, I very much have felt the opposite. I realize this industry is not universally loved, but at least for the sake of the discussion believe (1) there are serious people who see value in this technology (2) these serious people are not looking for no regulation - rather regulation that acutally makes sense for the technology at hand (e.g. not requiring properties that are fundamentally at odds with how the technology works) (3) the condemnation of the SEC has been bipartisan both in the courts and from legislators (please go look up the cases they've lost and the rebukes they've gotten - inclusive of shuttering the SLC office when they misrepresented facts to a court)
Personally, I've been frustrated on the SEC's unwillingness to work with folks who want to be good actors, or give clarity - and I had the feeling of "FAFO" when Chevron happened.
What are the bounding constraints on regulators who fail to provide clarity to external participants, accelerate rulemaking to avoid input from the public, routinely mischaracterize everyone in the industry as "hucksters, scam artists, fraudsters, ponzi scheme[r]s"?
From the gov't I can empathize with you feeling like you're mired by rules and regulations, but on the outside we do not have the weight of infinite tax dollars behind us to fight lawsuits from agencies that won't even provide clear rules folks can abide by.
Imho if bureaucrats want more responsibility (and I want an outcome oriented gov't!) it needs to be coupled with personal accountability and responsibility.
It should not be the case that an agency like the SEC can lose so many court cases (and be called arbitrary and capricious by the courts!) - causing millions of legal fees for an industry, because of one chair's personal vendetta. Maybe that accountability only happens at some leadership level - but I don't see how you can have one (which costs the bureaucrats nothing since its public funds, but is insanely expensive for private individuals and companies) without the other.
There's a tension here - you want to give more agency for folks to actually have an impact, but what recourse would you suggest for the people who are affected when a regulator decides to exert more power outside the bounds of the law?
I think that’s where elections come in - if there’s a change in leadership/direction then the freedom granted to gov would translate to faster change to reflect that. As is the incoming admin likely had no illusions about the difficulty they’re about to face - imagine if it was easier for them to implement stated goals and objectives.
Elections are unfortunately slow - and especially for agency positions they can have tenure that extends past an election (so what is the accountability for someone who abuses their role and power?)
4-5 years worth of lawsuits (free for the agency with tax dollars, bankruptcy/devastating for private entities) is not a reasonable outcome imho.
Personally I'd be much more onboard with giving more agency more remit - if there was more democratic checks on their power and some form of personal accountability for leadership (this may already exist - but if you are losing tons of court cases in a regulation by enforcement scheme this is an abuse of our tax dollars; if you're getting rebuked as arbitrary and capricious by judges even more so)
And to be clear - I think there's a bunch of routine stuff which I think is unobjectionably good for folks to have more efficiency, I guess I'm just stuck at how do you protect against the downside case? To me it doesn't even feel like a hypothetical given the last four years
It's funny though - as someone who has been watching the SEC attack crypto, I very much have felt the opposite. I realize this industry is not universally loved, but at least for the sake of the discussion believe (1) there are serious people who see value in this technology (2) these serious people are not looking for no regulation - rather regulation that acutally makes sense for the technology at hand (e.g. not requiring properties that are fundamentally at odds with how the technology works) (3) the condemnation of the SEC has been bipartisan both in the courts and from legislators (please go look up the cases they've lost and the rebukes they've gotten - inclusive of shuttering the SLC office when they misrepresented facts to a court)
Personally, I've been frustrated on the SEC's unwillingness to work with folks who want to be good actors, or give clarity - and I had the feeling of "FAFO" when Chevron happened.
What are the bounding constraints on regulators who fail to provide clarity to external participants, accelerate rulemaking to avoid input from the public, routinely mischaracterize everyone in the industry as "hucksters, scam artists, fraudsters, ponzi scheme[r]s"?
From the gov't I can empathize with you feeling like you're mired by rules and regulations, but on the outside we do not have the weight of infinite tax dollars behind us to fight lawsuits from agencies that won't even provide clear rules folks can abide by.
Imho if bureaucrats want more responsibility (and I want an outcome oriented gov't!) it needs to be coupled with personal accountability and responsibility.
It should not be the case that an agency like the SEC can lose so many court cases (and be called arbitrary and capricious by the courts!) - causing millions of legal fees for an industry, because of one chair's personal vendetta. Maybe that accountability only happens at some leadership level - but I don't see how you can have one (which costs the bureaucrats nothing since its public funds, but is insanely expensive for private individuals and companies) without the other.
There's a tension here - you want to give more agency for folks to actually have an impact, but what recourse would you suggest for the people who are affected when a regulator decides to exert more power outside the bounds of the law?
I think that’s where elections come in - if there’s a change in leadership/direction then the freedom granted to gov would translate to faster change to reflect that. As is the incoming admin likely had no illusions about the difficulty they’re about to face - imagine if it was easier for them to implement stated goals and objectives.
Elections are unfortunately slow - and especially for agency positions they can have tenure that extends past an election (so what is the accountability for someone who abuses their role and power?)
4-5 years worth of lawsuits (free for the agency with tax dollars, bankruptcy/devastating for private entities) is not a reasonable outcome imho.
Personally I'd be much more onboard with giving more agency more remit - if there was more democratic checks on their power and some form of personal accountability for leadership (this may already exist - but if you are losing tons of court cases in a regulation by enforcement scheme this is an abuse of our tax dollars; if you're getting rebuked as arbitrary and capricious by judges even more so)
And to be clear - I think there's a bunch of routine stuff which I think is unobjectionably good for folks to have more efficiency, I guess I'm just stuck at how do you protect against the downside case? To me it doesn't even feel like a hypothetical given the last four years