The SEC is facing yet another setback in a recycling lawsuit against Kraken.
The legal battle between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Kraken, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, appears to be another misguided attempt by the SEC to regulate an industry that fundamentally challenges an outdated regulatory book. The agency's lawsuit, filed in November, accuses Kraken of operating as an unregistered securities exchange.
The lawsuit isn't just a repeat of the SEC's past failures. It is also an example of regulatory overreach that fails to understand the nature of encryption. It reflects the agency's actions against Coinbase, which is an ineffective and ineffective regulatory framework. In the lawsuit against Coinbase, the SEC's charges similarly involve operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally understands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
The lawsuit isn't just a repeat of the SEC's past failures. It is also an example of regulatory overreach that fails to understand the nature of encryption. It reflects the agency's actions against Coinbase, which is an ineffective and ineffective regulatory framework. In the lawsuit against Coinbase, the SEC's charges similarly involve operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally understands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
Related: Expect Some Crypto Companies to Collapse Due to Bitcoin Halving
Unlike traditional securities exchanges, platforms like Kraken offer a variety of digital assets that don't exactly fit into a security framework. This misclassification by the SEC reflects a failure to understand the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies that function as decentralized assets, often with utility or currency-like characteristics rather than conventional securities.
One of the most striking issues is the lack of technology neutrality – the principle that regulatory frameworks should apply equally to all types of technology without favoring or penalizing any one. By forcing cryptocurrencies into the mold of traditional securities, the SEC is not only misapplying the rules, but showing a clear bias against digital assets. This lack of neutrality not only stifles innovation, but also unfairly targets platforms that strive to operate within the regulatory landscape.
The SEC's aggressive stance threatens to drive business away from the US and into more crypto-friendly jurisdictions. This phenomenon, known as regulatory arbitrage, could cause America to lose its leadership position in technological innovation. The crypto industry is global, and excessive regulation in one country can easily push businesses to relocate, taking their economic benefits and innovations with them.
Related: 3 Things Driving Ethereum and Bitcoin in the Next Bull Market
The Kraken case is set to be another example of the SEC's failure to successfully regulate the crypto industry, similar to the outcome of its action against Coinbase. This repeated cycle of belligerence and misinformation is not only pointless, but also harmful to the integrity of the SEC. It sends a message that the regulatory body is more interested in flexing its regulatory muscles than understanding and adapting to new technological developments.
The case is not just an independent legal battle. It's indicative of a broader issue in the US regulatory framework's approach to cryptocurrencies. The SEC has moved beyond its current, outdated approach and needs to engage with the crypto industry in an informed and constructive way. Regulation is important, but it must be reasonable, well-understood and designed to foster innovation, not stifle it.
The SEC appears set for another stunning defeat, which serves as one more reminder of the need for a new approach by administrators.
Daniele Servadei is the 20-year-old founder and CEO of Celix, an Italian e-commerce platform that has served more than 2.3 million customers worldwide in transactions worth more than $2.3 million. He is studying Computer Science at the University of Parma.
This article is not intended for general information purposes and should not be construed as legal or investment advice. The views, ideas and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
