The United States’ securities regulator could completely u-turn its approach to crypto enforcement, depending on a key election in the United States in 2024, according to former SEC official John Reed Stark.
In an Aug. 13 tweet, the former SEC Office of Internet Enforcement chief predicted that a Republican President could drastically shift the crypto-regulatory tide, including the potential resignation of SEC chief Gary Gensler.
There are currently a number of Republican candidates in the running. Former-President Donald Trump remains the most popular candidate among Republican voters, followed in a distant second by Florida Governor Ron de Santis and then by South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
Should a Republican be elected as President, according to Stark, Gensler would likely be replaced by crypto-friendly Hester Peirce — often referred to as “Crypto Mom.”
Will the SEC Approve Any Of The Recent Bitcoin Spot ETF Applications?
People often ask for my opinion on whether the SEC will approve any of the recent spate of bitcoin spot ETF applications, which is an interesting and important question.
Stark noted Peirce’s history of dissent and opposition to many of the regulator’s crypto-related enforcement, and explained that if Peirce were to become the head of the SEC:
“The world should expect that most U.S. SEC crypto-related enforcement and most crypto-related SEC disruption would grind to a screeching halt.”
Stark also drew attention to the increasing polarization of crypto regulation within the SEC and U.S. politics more broadly.
When Stark first began writing about crypto in 2017, he said that a diverse scope of politicians held the same viewpoint, with then-President Donald Trump, Secretary Hilary Clinton and Congresswoman Maxine Waters all agreeing that crypto was a “dangerous and horrific plague.”
On the other side of the fence, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has made a number of concerted efforts to crack down on all forms of crypto in the country, going as far as forming an “anti-crypto army” as part of Senate re-election campaign.
Until such a time when a Republican sits in the oval office, Stark said it was unlikely that the regulator would become any more friendly towards crypto, predicting that the SEC will reject the current swathe of spot Bitcoin ETFs for a range of “compelling” reasons.
Citing an Aug. 8 Better Markets SEC Comment letter, Stark shared that spot Bitcoin markets have a history of artificially inflated trading volumes, are highly concentrated within the hands of a few actors and rely on a small group of select entities to maintain the Bitcoin network. This reportedly leaves investors “extremely vulnerable” to manipulation by bad actors.
Better Markets letter to the SEC, recommending a rejection of spot Bitcoin ETF products. Source: Better Markets
Despite a number of industry heavyweights from the world of traditional finance, such as BlackRock and Fidelity lodging applications for a spot Bitcoin ETF product, Stark believes the SEC will eventually reject all of the outstanding filings.
There will be much to chew over at the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meetings this week.
Central bankers and finance ministers will descend on Washington for its latest bi-annual gathering, a place where politicians and academics converge, all of them trying to make sense of what’s going on in the global economy.
Everything and nothing has changed since they last met in October.
One man continues to dominate the agenda.
Six months ago, delegates were wondering whether Donald Trump could win the November election and what that might mean for tax and tariffs. How far would he push it? Would his policy match his rhetoric?
Image: Donald Trump. Pic: Reuters
This time round, expect iterations of the same questions. Will the US president risk plunging the world’s largest economy into recession?
Yes, he put on a bombastic display on his so-called “Liberation Day”, but will he now row back? Have the markets effectively checked him?
Behind the scenes, finance ministers from around the world will be practising their powers of persuasion, each jostling for meetings with their US counterparts to negotiate a reduction in the tariffs set by the Trump administration.
That includes our own chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who is still holding out hope for a trade deal with the US – although she is not alone in that.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:27
Could Trump make a deal with UK?
Are we heading for a recession?
The IMF’s economists have already made up their minds about Trump’s potential for damage.
Last week, they warned about the growing risks to financial stability after a period of turbulence in the financial markets, induced by Trump’s decision to ratchet up US protectionism to its highest level in a century.
By the middle of this week the organisation will publish its World Economic Outlook, in which it will downgrade global growth but stop short of predicting a full-blown recession.
Others are less optimistic.
Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, said last week: “Our new growth projections will include notable markdowns, but not recession. We will also see markups to the inflation forecasts for some countries.”
She acknowledged the world was undergoing a “reboot of the global trading system,” comparing trade tensions to “a pot that was bubbling for a long time and is now boiling over”.
She went on: “To a large extent, what we see is the result of an erosion of trust – trust in the international system, and trust between countries.”
Image: IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva. Pic: Reuters
Don’t poke the bear
It was a carefully calibrated response. Georgieva did not lay the blame at the US’s door and stopped short of calling on the Trump administration to stop or water down its aggressive tariffs policy.
That might have been a choice. To the frustration of politicians past and present, the IMF does not usually shy away from making its opinions known.
Last year it warned Jeremy Hunt against cutting taxes, and back in 2022 it openly criticised the Liz Truss government’s plans, warning tax cuts would fuel inflation and inequality.
Taking such a candid approach with Trump invites risks. His administration is already weighing up whether to withdraw from global institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank.
The US is the largest shareholder in both, and its departure could be devastating for two organisations that have been pillars of the world economic order since the end of the Second World War.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Here in the UK, Andrew Bailey has already raised concerns about the prospect of global fragmentation.
It is “very important that we don’t have a fragmentation of the world economy,” the Bank of England’s governor said.
“A big part of that is that we have support and engagement in the multilateral institutions, institutions like the IMF, the World Bank, that support the operation of the world economy. That’s really important.”
The Trump administration might take a different view when its review of intergovernmental organisations is complete.
That is the main tension running through this year’s spring meetings.
How much the IMF will say and how much we will have to read between the lines, remains to be seen.
It’s no great surprise that members of a Labour MPs’ LGBT+ WhatsApp group would be raising concerns about the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the trans community.
But the critical contributions reportedly made by some of the group’s higher-profile ministerial members highlight the underlying divisions with the Labour Partyover the issue – and point to future tensions once the practical implications of the judgement become clear.
Messages leaked to the Mail on Sunday allegedly include the Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle writing “the ruling is not as catastrophic at it seems but the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] guidance might be & there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting”.
Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant reportedly replied he “agreed” with another MP’s opinion that the EHRC chair Baroness Falkner was “pretty appalling” when she said the ruling would mean trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:10
Gender ruling – How it happened
Government sources argue these messages are hardly evidence of any kind of plot or mass revolt against the Supreme Court’s ruling.
But they still raise uncomfortable questions for a party that has been on a tortuous journey over the issue.
Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to introducing self-identification – enabling people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis – a position dropped in 2023.
Back in 2021, Sir Keir Stamer said the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield was “not right” to say “only women have a cervix”. But three years later he acknowledged that “biologically, she of course is right”.
Duffield, who now sits as an independent, is asking for an apology – but that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from a government keen to minimise its own role in changing social attitudes to the issue.
The Conservative position on this has also chopped and changed – with Theresa May‘s support for gender self-ID ditched under Boris Johnson.
As the Conservatives’ equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch led the UK government’s fight against Scotland’s efforts to make it easier to change gender – and she’s determined to punch Labour’s bruise on the issue.
This weekend, she’s written to the cabinet secretary calling for an investigation into a possible breach of the ministerial or civil service code over a statement made by the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in response to the ruling, which said “we have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.
The Tories claim this is false, because last summer Ms Phillipson herself gave an interview in which she suggested that trans women with penises could use female toilets.
Ms Phillipson has been approached for a response.
Her comments, however, are entirely in keeping with the government’s official statement on the judgement, which claims they have “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” and welcomed the ruling as giving “clarity and confidence for women and service providers”.
The government statement added: “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
The Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) push to isolate crypto markets and its controversial recommendations on DeFi and stablecoins is “dangerous” for the entire financial system, warns the head of a blockchain investment firm.
“Many of their recommendations and conclusions — perhaps due to a mix of fear, arrogance, or ignorance — are completely uninformed and, frankly, dangerous,” CoinFund president Christopher Perkins said in an April 19 X post, referring to the BIS’ April 15 report titled “Cryptocurrencies and Decentralized Finance: Functions and Financial Stability Implications.”
BIS recommendations exposes TradFi to risks of “unimaginable scale”
“Crypto is not communism,” Perkins said, pushing back against the BIS’ call for a “containment” approach to isolate crypto from traditional finance and the broader economy.
“It’s the new internet that provides anyone with a connection access to financial services,” Perkins said. “You cannot control it anymore than you control the internet,” he added.
Perkins warned that a containment approach to crypto would expose the traditional financial system to massive liquidity risks “of unimaginable scale,” especially when the crypto market operates in real-time, 24/7, while traditional financial markets shuts down after trading hours.
“If implemented they will cause–not mitigate–the systemic risk they seek to prevent.”
Perkins pushed back against the BIS’ claim that DeFi presents significant challenges, arguing instead that it represents a “significant improvement” over the “opacity” and imbalances of the traditional financial system.
Responding to the BIS’s concern about the anonymity of DeFi developers, Perkins questioned its relevance:
“Sorry, but when was the last time a TradFi company published a list of its developers? Sure, public companies provide a degree of disclosures and transparency, but they seem to be dying off in favor of private markets.”
Perkins also critiqued the BIS’s concern around stablecoins that it could lead to “macroeconomic instability in countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.”
“If there is demand for USD stablecoins and it helps improve the condition of anyone in the developing world, perhaps that is a good thing,” Perkins said.
Perkins wasn’t alone in criticizing the controversial report. Lightspark co-founder Christian Catalini also weighed in, posting a series of critiques on X that same day. Catalini summed up the report with the analogy:
“Think: writing parking regulations for a fleet of self‑driving drones — earnest work, two technological leaps behind.”