I think you mean "Gary gensler" right? According to his understanding, he sees that Bitcoin has some characteristics of securities and therefore it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Does Bitcoin need the approval of that authority to survive? No, Bitcoin worked without SEC consent all this time.
Do we need SEC approval to grow fast? Yes, by obtaining this approval, these assets will grow very quickly in a short time.
The real issue is that Gensler is going completely nuts. The SEC is doing everything imaginable to put the "security" label on a token/coin in order to make a certain project or protocol (e.g. Bitcoin) be subject to their authority.
https://beincrypto.com/sec-extrajudicial-industry-sweeps-crypto-sector-tom-emmer/https://beincrypto.com/crypto-regulation-enforcement-addressed-during-gensler-speech/The two articles explain the problem very well. They are even tricking projects out of their jurisdiction into responding to so called sweep letters, hoping for mistakes on behalf of the respondents in order to then crack down on them. The first article says that the SEC then publicly threatened projects that refuse to provide the requested information voluntarily (I quote from the article): "Those failing to respond to supposedly voluntary information requests would, in the words of the SEC, face a “bloodbath.”"
The thing is that the requested information in those sweep letters is not to be provided as per the law if I understood the article correctly. It is just a means to put pressure onto those projects in order to provide info that could later on be used against them.
The SEC has never been particularly crypto friendly, but am I wrong saying that Jay Clayton was not as aggressive as this dude? When they publicly admit to be performing extrajudicial action against a particularly industry, how is that to be stopped from getting out of control if not by US authorities themselves?
