The legal duel between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Kraken, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, looks like another misguided attempt by the SEC to exert control over an industry that fundamentally challenges an outdated regulatory playbook. 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’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
The lawsuit isn’t just a repeat of the SEC’s past failures. It’s also a glaring example of regulatory overreach that fails to grasp the essence of cryptocurrency. It mirrors the agency’s actions against Coinbase, which mark a pattern of aggressive regulation that is both ineffectual and counterproductive. In its case against Coinbase, the SEC allegations similarly involved operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The approach fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cryptocurrency exchanges.
Unlike traditional securities exchanges, platforms like Kraken offer a diverse range of digital assets that do not fit neatly into the securities framework. This misclassification by the SEC reveals a lack of understanding of the unique characteristics of cryptocurrencies, which function as decentralized assets, often with utility or currency-like features rather than conventional securities.
One of the most striking issues is the absence of technological neutrality — the principle that regulatory frameworks should apply equally to all forms of technology, without favoring or penalizing any particular one. By forcing cryptocurrencies into the traditional securities mold, the SEC is not only misapplying laws but also showing a clear bias against digital assets. This lack of neutrality not only hinders innovation but also unfairly targets platforms that are striving to work within the regulatory landscape.
The aggressive stance of the SEC risks driving innovation and business away from the U.S. to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions. This phenomenon, known as regulatory arbitrage, could result in the U.S. losing its position as a leader in technological innovation. The crypto industry is global, and excessive regulation in one country simply pushes businesses to relocate, taking their economic benefits and innovations with them.
The Kraken lawsuit is set to become another example of the SEC’s failure to successfully regulate the crypto industry, akin to the outcome of its actions against Coinbase. This repetitive cycle of aggressive and misinformed regulation is not only futile but also harmful to the credibility of the SEC. It sends a message that the regulatory body is more interested in flexing its regulatory muscle than in understanding and adapting to new technological paradigms.
The case isn’t just an isolated legal battle. It is indicative of a broader issue within the U.S. regulatory framework’s approach to cryptocurrencies. The SEC must move beyond its current, outdated tactics and engage with the crypto industry in a more informed and constructive manner. Regulation is necessary, but it must be reasonable, well-informed, and designed to foster innovation, not stifle it.
It looks the SEC is set for another resounding defeat, which will serve as one more reminder of the need for a new approach by regulators.
Daniele Servadei is the 20-year-old founder and CEO of Sellix, an Italian e-commerce platform that has processed more than $75 million in transactions for more than 2.3 million customers worldwide. He’s attending the University of Parma for a degree in computer science.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Sue Gray has resigned from her position as Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, Number 10 has announced.
Ms Gray has instead been appointed as the prime minister’s envoy for nations and regions.
Morgan McSweeney, the party’s former campaign director who masterminded July’s election landslide, will replace her as the prime minister’s chief of staff.
Ms Gray said that while it had been “an honour to take on the role of chief of staff”, it had become clear that “intense commentary around my position risked becoming a distraction to the government’s vital work of change”.
“It is for that reason I have chosen to stand aside, and I look forward to continuing to support the prime minister in my new role.”
The prime minister thanked Ms Gray – who famously authored the report into parties in Downing Street during the pandemic – for “all the support she has given me, both in opposition and government and her work to prepare us for government and get us started on our programme of change”.
“Sue has played a vital role in strengthening our relations with the regions and nations. I am delighted that she will continue to support that work,” he added.
Tensions over Ms Gray’s role reached a crescendo when her salary of £170,000 – £3,000 more than the prime minister – was leaked to the BBC in an apparent attempt to damage her politically.
The broadcaster also reported more junior staff were disgruntled they were not being paid more than what they received when Labour was in opposition – despite now occupying more senior government roles.
Government ‘thrown into chaos’
A Conservative Party spokesperson described the latest moves in Downing Street as “chaos” and questioned who was running the country.
“In fewer than 100 days Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government has been thrown into chaos – he has lost his chief of staff who has been at the centre of the scandal the Labour Party has been engulfed by,” they said.
Sir Keir Starmer has now gone full circle. At lunchtime he replaced Sue Gray, the former civil servant whose appointment has caused him endless pain, with Morgan McSweeney.
While the elevation of his campaign chief was widely welcomed, this is nevertheless a curious move.
Mr McSweeney was his very first chief of staff back in opposition in 2020 and for the first 14 months of his leadership, until he was moved after the botched reshuffle of 2021.
Cabinet members and Labour MPs must hope second time around he will be a better fit.
In doing so, the prime minister is in effect admitting very big personnel mistakes, forced to act eventually because of complaints from every side around him that the situation had become untenable.
At its heart, Ms Gray – who was known in Whitehall as the consummate fixer – had to go because nothing felt like it was being fixed.
She was in charge of preparations for government, but when 5 July arrived they appear scant and progress from there was slow.
But blame for this should lie not with her but with Sir Keir.
If there had been enough due diligence on the appointment, some of these problems might have been anticipated.
“Sue Gray was brought in to deliver a programme for government and all we’ve seen in that time is a government of self-service.
“The only question that remains is: who will run the country now?”
One Labour insider told Sky News that the current leadership “spent years saying how it was time to professionalise the party – but this chaos with Keir Starmer seems remarkably similar to the chaos with Jeremy Corbyn”.
They pointed out that Mr McSweeney previously served as Sir Keir’s chief of staff between 2020 and 2021 before being moved on to his campaign role.
In a major announcement on Sunday, Sir Keir also announced a shake-up of his entire Downing Street operation following disquiet at how the party handled rows over freebies and donations, as well as its decision to axe winter fuel payments for most pensioners.
Vidhya Alakeson and Jill Cuthbertson have been promoted to deputy chiefs of staff, while Nin Pandit has been appointed as Sir Keir’s principal private secretary.
Meanwhile, former journalist James Lyons will join from TikTok to lead a new strategic communications team.
The prime minister said he was “really pleased to be able to bring in such talented and experienced individuals into my team”
“This shows my absolute determination to deliver the change the country voted for,” he added.
One source told Sky News that the news of Ms Gray’s departure came on Sunday after plans for the reorganisation announcement on Monday were leaked to the media.
Her advisory role will be to support Sir Keir and the cabinet in delivering on its devolution agenda.
One former senior adviser in Number 10 told Sky News that “without the authority of the prime minister and the proximity to him, this ‘envoy’ role will not be a serious position in government”.
The government is bringing in guidance around donations because the public’s expectations are “so much higher” for Labour than for the Tories, a minister has said.
Peter Kyle, the science secretary, insisted that despite the continued backlash over the freebies row that has engulfed Sir Keir Starmer’s government, “none of the rules had been broken”.
He told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips that the reason the government was bringing forward a new set of principles – as announced by the prime minister last week – was because ministers were “trying to meet the expectations that the public have”.
“We had a previous set of leaders in our country, a previous government that was just flouting the rules, breaking the rules and lowering the standards,” he said.
“We focussed so much on the rules that what we didn’t do – and we now know we have to do – is take what the public are thinking about what happens within the rules.”
“What we’re trying to do is adapt to what are the expectations – because expectations of this Labour government are so much higher than they were of the previous government, for understandable reasons.”
Challenged on whether the government was in fact “trying to meet the expectations that you yourself set” when criticising the Tories in opposition, Mr Kyle sought to draw a distinction by arguing that the Tories had broken the rules by not declaring some donations.
Sir Keir announced a new set of principles for political donations following weeks of criticism after he and his top team accepted tens of thousands of pounds worth of freebies from wealthy donors.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:11
Starmer: It’s ‘right’ to repay gifts
While all the gifts had been declared, opposition parties have accused Labour of hypocrisy, given they vowed to “clean up politics” if they entered government.
Alongside the new set of principles, the prime minister also confirmed he had paid back more than £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality received since taking office – including the cost of six Taylor Swift tickets, four to the races, and a clothing rental agreement with a high-end designer favoured by his wife, Lady Victoria Starmer.
His decision to cover the cost of some gifts and not others – the prime minister also received work clothing donations worth £16,200 – has prompted a debate over what donations it will now be considered acceptable to receive.
Asked whether “accepting free football tickets or club nights in Ibiza” was “on or off” under the new guidance, Mr Kyle replied: “Everything is declared. We will stick to the rules.
“We’re updating the rules so that it reflects the expectations that we believe the public has of us post election.”