👀 家人們,每天看行情、刷大佬觀點,卻從來不開口說兩句?你的觀點可能比你想的更有價值!
廣場新人 & 回歸福利正式上線!不管你是第一次發帖還是久違回歸,我們都直接送你獎勵!🎁
每月 $20,000 獎金等你來領!
📅 活動時間: 長期有效(月底結算)
💎 參與方式:
用戶需爲首次發帖的新用戶或一個月未發帖的回歸用戶。
發帖時必須帶上話題標籤: #我在广场发首帖 。
內容不限:幣圈新聞、行情分析、曬單吐槽、幣種推薦皆可。
💰 獎勵機制:
必得獎:發帖體驗券
每位有效發帖用戶都可獲得 $50 倉位體驗券。(注:每月獎池上限 $20,000,先到先得!如果大家太熱情,我們會繼續加碼!)
進階獎:發帖雙王爭霸
月度發帖王: 當月發帖數量最多的用戶,額外獎勵 50U。
月度互動王: 當月帖子互動量(點讚+評論+轉發+分享)最高的用戶,額外獎勵 50U。
📝 發帖要求:
帖子字數需 大於30字,拒絕純表情或無意義字符。
內容需積極健康,符合社區規範,嚴禁廣告引流及違規內容。
💡 你的觀點可能會啓發無數人,你的第一次分享也許就是成爲“廣場大V”的起點,現在就開始廣場創作之旅吧!
SEC generated record confiscated income in 2022: why it is crucial for crypto
While the SEC states its mission is to protect investors, there are questions about its methods and motives. This piece unravels the SEC’s structure, balance sheet, and notable interactions with cryptocurrency entities, providing an insightful and comprehensive look at a complex issue.
Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.
Hailed as a beacon of free market principles, the cryptocurrency market is going through an intriguing phase. It’s an era where the invisible hand of the market meets the tangible fist of regulation
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sits at the eye of this storm. The regulator finds itself walking a tightrope – protecting the interests of investors while navigating the rapidly evolving crypto landscape
The irony, however, lies in its self-serving approach to defining securities and enforcing fines. Is the SEC protecting investors or padding its balance sheet? Let’s dive deeper.
SEC’s hunger for enforcement
Before we go further, let’s decrypt the organization of the SEC. The regulator operates under a committee led by the chairman, currently led by Gary Gensler, and four members, directing the operations of several departments, offices, and sub-regional offices
At the heart of this bureaucratic behemoth are the Enforcement and Examination departments, a duo that seems to dominate all others in importance.
Take a look at SEC’s funding, and you’ll see a spicy cocktail of the financial budget, transaction, and application fees, and here’s the cherry on top – confiscated income
It’s fascinating that if there are no victims to compensate, this forfeited income fuels the investor protection fund, the whistleblowers, and SEC’s investigative apparatus. If that doesn’t pique your curiosity, you must be a bot!
SEC’s balance beam act
From a financial standpoint, the SEC is rather thriving. According to its annual report, for the 2022 fiscal year, the total assets of the SEC surged from $12.2 billion to $14.1 billion, an uptick of a cool $1.9 billion
Most of these assets were composed of confiscated income. Now you’re seeing why enforcement actions are so crucial, aren’t you?
In a brilliant stroke of financial ingenuity or frightening reality, the confiscated income has become a “pillar income” for the SEC
Is it any wonder then that the net expenditure of the Enforcement and Inspection divisions is the highest, tallying to $1.75 billion, or 65% of the total spending?
More importantly, these expenditures translated into a 9% increase in enforcement actions from the previous year. After all, who wouldn’t love a good old enforcement action to inflate the balance sheet?
Rewards and enforcement: more than just a coincidence?
The spoils of these enforcement actions have not gone unnoticed. In the 2022 fiscal year alone, the SEC dispensed a whopping $229 million as rewards among 103 whistleblowers. For an organization keen to ramp up its headcount from 4,685 to 5,139, these figures reveal its strategic priorities.
One of the case studies from this ‘enforcement bonanza’ involves Coinbase, the crypto trading behemoth. In a quirk of fate, the regulator alleges that Coinbase was operating unlawfully while trading in registered securities despite having an SEC-approved IPO
This could be a genuine attempt to protect investors or another enforcement maneuver to boost SEC’s revenue.
SEC and the crypto paradox: a look into the Coinbase case
Meanwhile, a new chapter in the history of cryptocurrencies unfolded in March 2023 when the US government, under the supervision of the SEC, used Coinbase to sell a significant amount of bitcoin (BTC)
This operation marked a peculiar paradox where the SEC, which routinely positions itself as a regulator, used a crypto exchange platform to facilitate a hefty profit.
The transaction involved liquidating 9,861.17 BTC, worth $217 million at the time of sale. This substantial bitcoin volume was part of a larger cache of 50,000 seized during the notorious Silk Road bust. This online black market dealt with illegal transactions, primarily through crypto.
Interestingly, the government also stated that the remaining seized BTC would be liquidated over time via public listings, implying an ongoing engagement with cryptocurrency platforms such as Coinbase.
However, the actions of the SEC present a perplexing contradiction. While it leverages Coinbase as a reliable platform to facilitate the sale of significant amounts of seized cryptocurrency, it also closely scrutinizes and regulates the same platform’s operations.
You might also like:
SEC vs Coinbase and new lawsuit: history of the years-long battle The situation raises some critical questions. Can the SEC continue to utilize Coinbase for these lucrative transactions while simultaneously scrutinizing its operations as potentially illegal? Isn’t there a contradiction in leveraging a platform one regulates for profit?
For the sake of investor protection, industry growth, and maintaining public faith, the SEC needs to clarify its stance and address any perceived double standards
The road ahead: striking a balance
The road ahead is uncharted and full of potential pitfalls. As the cryptocurrency space continues to evolve, so must the SEC’s approach to regulation
The SEC must adopt a more proactive approach, crafting comprehensive guidelines for cryptocurrencies and related products. This would provide much-needed clarity to innovators and investors, reducing the risk of future enforcement actions
Additionally, the SEC must ensure its enforcement actions are genuinely protecting investors rather than serving as a mechanism to pad its balance sheet.
As such, the onus is on the SEC to strike the right balance, ensuring that its regulatory actions protect investors without stiffening the industry’s innovative potential.
You might also like:
The SEC and crypto regulation: Why the delay in rulemaking?