United States regulators including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have ongoing civil cases against major cryptocurrency firms including Binance, Coinbase, and Ripple, but not every company has been subject to the same treatment.
Gary Gensler, serving as SEC chair since 2021, has been widely criticized by many lawmakers and industry leaders for a “regulation by enforcement” approach to crypto companies and offerings. Some of the cases have ended up in federal courtrooms to determine what may qualify as a security in the United States, and not all judges’ decisions have necessarily been favorable to the regulator.
The commission filed a lawsuit against Ripple in December 2020 over XRP as an allegedly unregistered offering, but received a partial summary judgment in July that the token was largely not a security. Coinbase, which seemed to expect legal action ahead of the SEC’s lawsuit filed in June, targeted the regulator in response to its case, claiming the exchange tried to “come in and register” without success or proper feedback.
Prometheum, a crypto firm which gained a lot of media attention in June following co-CEO Aaron Kaplan testifying before the House Financial Services Committee on digital asset regulation, received approval from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority as a special purpose broker-dealer (SPBD) for digital asset securities in May. Some of the firm’s subsidiaries, which also deal in digital assets, have successfully registered with the SEC.
“Prometheum was purpose-built to comply with federal securities laws and create the first digital asset security trading platform subject to those laws including investor protection rules,” Kaplan told Cointelegraph.
Kaplan’s approach would seem to suggest that certain firms like Coinbase, Binance, and Ripple launched services in the U.S. with the intention of trying to change existing regulations. Major players have sometimes lobbied for legislation favorable to crypto firms: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has been a regular presence in Washington DC and encouraged users to back political candidates in support of pro-crypto policies.
According to the Prometheum co-CEO, certain crypto companies “have been working to rewrite or amend existing laws in their favor and to the detriment of retail investors”, speculating that the current frameworks are incapable of dealing with digital assets. Many industry leaders and lawmakers have echoed similar concerns, claiming crypto firms in the U.S. have an uphill battle in recognizing what digital assets qualify as securities.
Four key proposed bills could redefine digital asset regulations. @Prometheum remains at the forefront with plans to offer regulated trading & custody of digital assets. Read more about the crypto bills at Cointelegraph: https://t.co/vxfdDSxPsu#DigitalAssets
Kaplan hinted the fact that Prometheum was able to obtain a SPBD license was evidence that regulatory compliance was at least possible. However, the approval has led to calls to investigate the firm by advocacy groups including the Blockchain Association and crypto-minded members of Congress.
“We are concerned that the [SEC] granted Prometheum a ‘sweetheart’ deal in exchange for support of the Commission’s policy goals, or that Prometheum is leveraging personal connections with the Commission to gain an unfair advantage in the market,” said the Blockchain Association in July. “Most significantly, we are concerned that Chair Gensler is using Prometheum and the SPBD licensure process as a means to thwart congressional efforts toward legislation by continuing to spread the false narrative that the law is already clear with regard to digital asset securities.”
Kaplan added:
“From the moment Prometheum received its SPBD license, there was a seemingly concerted effort by various industry associations and lawmakers to discredit the more than 6 years of hard work we have put in to build our company.”
It’s unclear if Prometheum’s approach will work for existing players in the space in an effort to sidestep enforcement actions, or for up-and-coming projects aware of the regulatory challenges in the United States. David Hirsch, head of the SEC’s crypto enforcement division, reportedly said at a Sept. 19 conference that though the commission was currently embroiled in several civil lawsuits, it would continue to bring actions against firms it saw as violating U.S. securities laws — including decentralized finance projects.
Gensler will be testifying before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Sept. 27 in a hearing on SEC oversight. According to a Sept. 22 memo, lawmakers will question the SEC chair on matters including policies on digital asset custodial activities and expansion of the commission’s authority over crypto firms.
Sir Keir Starmer has talked up the US-UK relationship after a White House meeting with Joe Biden, but questions remain over Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles.
Speaking before the “long and productive” meeting held in the White House on Friday, Sir Keir said the two countries were “strategically aligned” in their attempts to resolve the war.
Afterwards, he skirted around questions regarding Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, saying: “We’ve had a long and productive discussion on a number of problems, including Ukraine, as you’d expect, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, talking strategically about tactical decisions.
“This isn’t about a particular decision but we’ll obviously pick up again in UNGA (UN General Assembly) in just a few days’ time with a wider group of individuals, but this was a really important invitation from the president to have this level of discussion about those critical issues.”
Decisions loom for Ukraine’s key Western allies as Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently increased pressure on them to permit his forces to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory.
More on Joe Biden
Related Topics:
However, despite repeated calls for a decision, the West has so far resisted green-lighting the use of the missiles.
Two US officials familiar with the discussions said they believed that Sir Keir was seeking US approval to let Ukraine use British Storm Shadow missiles for expanded strikes into Russia, according to Reuters news agency.
Advertisement
They added that they believed Mr Biden would be amenable.
The president’s approval would be needed because Storm Shadow components are made in the US.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Military analyst Sean Bell looks at how serious Putin’s threats could be
But when speaking to journalists after the meeting, Sir Keir was repeatedly pressed on the long-range missile question but evaded giving a firm decision.
“This wasn’t a meeting about a particular capability. That wasn’t why we got our heads down today,” he said.
The US has been concerned that any step could lead to an escalation in the conflict and has moved cautiously so far, however, there have been reports in recent days that Mr Biden might shift his administration’s policy.
It wasn’t much, but it’s a start
There wasn’t much to say at the end, but it’s a start.
Both sides in these discussions had spent some time playing down expectations and the Americans were insistent their stance wasn’t changing on Ukraine and long-range missiles.
“Nothing to see here” seemed to be the message.
Only, there clearly was – a glance at the headlines gave that the lie.
It’s not every day a Russian president threatens war with the West.
The UK and US were discussing a change in strategy because they must – anything less would be a dereliction of duty for two leaders pledging a commitment to Ukraine’s fight.
Just ask Kyiv’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Following the meeting, Sir Keir Starmer said they’d talked tactics and strategy.
It will have had missiles, range, and Russian territory at the heart of it.
That is the material change in strategy demanded by Ukraine and supported widely among its backers.
A plan discussed by both sides of the special relationship will now be floated to other, allied nations in an effort to build a coordinated coalition behind a change in strategy.
And they’ll do it against the clock.
There is the unpredictability of the war itself in Ukraine and no less certainty surrounding the political battle at home.
A Trump victory in November’s US election would change the picture – here and there.
Vladimir Putin previously threatened the West, warning that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike inside Russian territory would put Moscow “at war” with NATO.
Speaking to Russian state television, he insisted the decision would “significantly change” the nature of the war.
He added: “This will be their direct participation, and this, of course, will significantly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict.
“This will mean that NATO countries, US, European countries are at war with Russia.
“If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
There remains some scepticism within the US over the impact that allowing Kyiv to unleash long-range missiles would have.
US officials, according to Reuters, have pointed out that Ukraine already has the capability to strike into Russia using drones, and while US missiles would enhance that they are too costly and limited in number to change the overall picture.