Cryptocurrency ownership should not be subject to securities regulations, according to a specialist.

notSatoshi1971 · 2026-02-13T14:01:02+00:00

An American lawyer challenges the broad application of stock regulations to cryptocurrencies, arguing that merely holding digital assets for potential appreciation shouldn't trigger securities laws. This raises crucial questions about how authorities classify digital assets and the impact of overly restrictive regulations on innovation and individual holders.

notSatoshi1971

2026-02-13 14:01:02

Abstract generation in progress

An American lawyer questions the overly broad application of securities regulations to the cryptocurrency sector. According to NS3.AI, Teresa Goody Guillen states that simply holding digital assets in the hope of future appreciation does not constitute a regulated investment and should not be subject to the strict requirements outlined by federal securities law.

The legal argument presented by this specialist is based on a fundamental distinction: passive possession with a speculative intent does not generate sufficient economic interest to trigger the securities regulatory framework. This position aligns with previous warnings issued by Ripple to the SEC, cautioning against excessive regulation driven solely by speculative considerations rather than investor protection.

This controversy raises critical questions about how authorities should classify digital assets. Industry players fear that an overly restrictive interpretation could hinder innovation and unnecessarily impose administrative burdens on individual holders. The evolution of this jurisprudence could redefine the boundaries of what can legally remain outside traditional regulatory oversight.

View Original

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.