The regulatory stance of the US SEC on digital assets is dividing the financial establishment. JPMorgan, Citadel, and SIFMA have clearly articulated their criticism of the SEC’s crypto working group and warn against a dangerously lenient approach to regulating tokenized securities and decentralized finance projects.
Traditional financial players criticize SEC regulatory model
Recent discussions between established financial institutions and the SEC reveal deep differences in assessing market risks. JPMorgan, one of the largest investment banks, Citadel, the influential hedge fund empire, and SIFMA, the umbrella organization of the American securities industry, express fundamental criticism of the current SEC approach. They argue that overly generous exemptions from established securities laws could have destabilizing consequences.
Investor protection and market integrity at risk
Concerns focus on specific risks: the $19-billion recent crypto crash demonstrates the vulnerability of digital markets to extreme fluctuations. Experts fear that a permissive SEC approach to DeFi platforms could further exacerbate this vulnerability. Investor protection could come under pressure if regulatory exemptions weaken necessary safeguards and market participants are exposed to significant risks they cannot adequately address.
Congressional negotiations continue to stall
In the Senate, negotiations over a comprehensive crypto market structure law are stalled. The legislature is grappling with conflicting positions: on one hand, progressive crypto advocates demand substantial exemptions for DeFi protocols, while traditional financial players push for stricter regulation. This polarization is further intensified by debates over banking incentives for stablecoins, with unclear long-term implications for market confidence and innovation.
The SEC’s approach thus becomes a test of a more fundamental question: How can regulators promote innovation in decentralized financial models without compromising established safety standards?
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
SEC approach to tokenized securities faces massive resistance
The regulatory stance of the US SEC on digital assets is dividing the financial establishment. JPMorgan, Citadel, and SIFMA have clearly articulated their criticism of the SEC’s crypto working group and warn against a dangerously lenient approach to regulating tokenized securities and decentralized finance projects.
Traditional financial players criticize SEC regulatory model
Recent discussions between established financial institutions and the SEC reveal deep differences in assessing market risks. JPMorgan, one of the largest investment banks, Citadel, the influential hedge fund empire, and SIFMA, the umbrella organization of the American securities industry, express fundamental criticism of the current SEC approach. They argue that overly generous exemptions from established securities laws could have destabilizing consequences.
Investor protection and market integrity at risk
Concerns focus on specific risks: the $19-billion recent crypto crash demonstrates the vulnerability of digital markets to extreme fluctuations. Experts fear that a permissive SEC approach to DeFi platforms could further exacerbate this vulnerability. Investor protection could come under pressure if regulatory exemptions weaken necessary safeguards and market participants are exposed to significant risks they cannot adequately address.
Congressional negotiations continue to stall
In the Senate, negotiations over a comprehensive crypto market structure law are stalled. The legislature is grappling with conflicting positions: on one hand, progressive crypto advocates demand substantial exemptions for DeFi protocols, while traditional financial players push for stricter regulation. This polarization is further intensified by debates over banking incentives for stablecoins, with unclear long-term implications for market confidence and innovation.
The SEC’s approach thus becomes a test of a more fundamental question: How can regulators promote innovation in decentralized financial models without compromising established safety standards?