U.S. lawmakers argue SEC accounting policy undermines safe crypto custody

[Hydrogen]

Two Republican lawmakers who have been central to the United States Congress’ continuing efforts to regulate cryptocurrency are questioning policies governing how financial firms handle crypto accounting in the country.

U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who has authored crypto legislation, yesterday (2 March) sent a letter to several banking agencies asking how they’re dealing with a controversial Securities and Exchange Commission note asking financial institutions to keep customers’ crypto holdings on their own balance sheets.

The letter to the Federal Reserve and other U.S. banking agencies criticized the Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121, SEC’s move last year.

Since it would force regulated banks to reject crypto custody as something that comes with significant capital requirements, the measure could deny millions of Americans access to safe and secure custodial arrangements for digital assets.

In their letter, the lawmakers argued that a recent decision in the Celsius bankruptcy (which classified all of Celsius’ customers as unsecured creditors and thus at the back of the line to recover their assets) highlights the legal risk of effectively forcing customer custodial assets to be placed on the balance sheet.

The letter asked the banking agencies about whatever interactions they had with the SEC on this issue, as well as whether the SEC’s position conflicts with their own policies.

SEC’s actions being questioned

Fed Chair Jerome Powell already stated last year that the central bank was evaluating the SEC’s directive, which changes longstanding practice for digital assets that customer assets would be kept off a financial firm’s balance sheet.

In June last year, five Republican senators, including Lummis, sent a letter to the SEC expressing their concern that the bulletin was a regulation disguised as staff guidance and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

SEC commissioner Hester Peirce expressed similar concerns in March 2022, shortly after the bulletin was released, noting that it was the manner in which the change was made rather than the accounting determination itself that she objected to.



https://ambcrypto.com/u-s-lawmakers-argue-sec-accounting-policy-undermines-safe-crypto-custody/

....


Interesting topic. With not many details or analysis available. It would seem not everyone agrees with actions the SEC has undertaken to regulate cryptocurrency. While the response has been slow. Some in positions of power and authority are beginning to question and criticize. Not certain whether this will amount to anything or make a difference in SEC proposals to regulate stablecoins and other markets. But it seems that there could be some division and conflict brewing.

I wonder how the general public and youth demographics feel about these issues. Do they support the SEC. Or do they stand on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Please share your thoughts on this.

[1715657494]

1715657494

[1715657494]

1715657494

[EarnOnVictor]

Sometimes, some of these regulators are overbearing in their approach, especially if they do not like a thing. This is personal, it should not be viewed professionally. The long-standing digital law should not stop or be bent in the case of cryptocurrencies, therefore SEC should be reasonable. It's good there are now voices against it since the US is a perfect democratic country where no tyranny is allowed in any sector.

I know that crypto will always survive no matter the level of critics and haters of any disguise.

[buwaytress]

To note, it shouldn't be seen as something special -- the SEC regularly gets pushback and backlash outside of Bitcoin/crypto, and usually it becomes visible when a politician decides to weigh in (and no surprise, because they're directly affected).

Since it would force regulated banks to reject crypto custody as something that comes with significant capital requirements, the measure could deny millions of Americans access to safe and secure custodial arrangements for digital assets.

This is tough for me to read. No one is denying anyone safe and secure custodial arrangements -- except the banks. If you can't keep a balance sheet along with the capital required, how is that safe and secure? If I wanted (for some reason) to ask a bank to secure my Bitcoin, then I better be prepared to ask them to prove they are indeed securing it (and backing it with capital), and not using it as leverage (like FTX and everyone else did/does), no?