Original author:Kaori
On July 15, 2024, local time, former US President Donald Trump has selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate for the 2024 election. Vance has repeatedly supported the cryptocurrency industry during his political career and has previously publicly opposed the SEC.
Earlier this year, Vance led several other Republican senators in writing a letter to Gensler expressing the SEC’s concerns about the enforcement action against cryptocurrency mining company Debt Box. On May 16, Vance joined 60 senators in voting in favor of revoking the SEC’s controversial SAB 121 accounting rules, a set of policy proposals that would prevent U.S. banks from custodial crypto assets.
Related reading: "Trump's selection of running mate J.D. Vance is not simple, Silicon Valley VC + crypto allies "Buff" blessing"
It can be said that the election of J.D. Vance will bring stronger political impetus to the development of the cryptocurrency industry.
J.D. Vance was speaking at Remedy Fest, a private conference hosted by Y Combinator and Bloomberg on February 28. He said that "Gary Gensler's approach to regulating blockchain and cryptocurrency seems to be the exact opposite of the way it should be."
The following is an excerpt from the speech:
If there was a worst person, who I think, at least on a substantive disagreement, I'm sure is a good person, it would be Gary Gensler. So Gary Gensler is almost the exact opposite of what I think.
I have two issues with Gary, one of which is that I think he wants to inject too much politics into the U.S. securities business. But in some ways, the more fundamental issue, or at least the issue that is most relevant to this meeting, is that Gary's approach to regulating blockchain and cryptocurrencies is almost the exact opposite of the right approach.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but the question the SEC seems to be asking when regulating crypto is, is this a useful token? If it is a useful token, they seem to want to ban it. If it is a useless token, they don’t seem to care.
I tend to think we should be the other way around here, right? I worry about financialization. I worry about whether, frankly, a lot of the crypto stuff is fundamentally fake.
But if a token does have utility, that's the kind of thing where you know, of course you regulate it, of course you be careful about how consumers interact with it. But you don't want to just take those things away.
What I really worry about is that the newest challengers to the incumbent giants of social media in 2024 will need some blockchain technology to make their business work, and perhaps they will need a verification-enabled token.
When I talk to friends who are still in venture capital, the companies they are most excited about are companies doing real things in the communications space in the 21st century, 2024 to be exact, and these companies often rely on high-utility tokens for things like verification. If we can’t make verification possible, then we make it very difficult to challenge the incumbent giants in this space.
Original link