The post SEC Current Stance Follows China’s Past Action Says Key Figures Associated With Ripple appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
The recent announcement by Consensys highlighting the SEC’s decision to close its investigation into Ethereum has sparked mixed reactions from key figures in the cryptocurrency space. Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer, has offered valuable insights into the SEC’s decision to close the Ethereum investigation while calling it a big win for ConsenSys.
However, Alderoty has raised important questions about how Ethereum transactions are regulated. He specifically asked whether these transactions should be considered securities, highlighting ongoing uncertainties in the regulatory environment.
A big win for Consensys, though questions remain. Does this mean the SEC thinks Consensys’ offers and sales of ETH are not securities transactions and/or that ETH itself is not a security? What will Gensler say if now asked? What is the status of MetaMask and staking? This is…
— Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) June 19, 2024
Moreover, alderoty’s remarks also raise concerns about Ethereum-related projects such as MetaMask and staking. He says clear rules are needed in this area too.
Doubts Cast on Transparency
Joining the fury, Neil Hartner, a software engineer at Ripple Payments, has expressed skepticism regarding the transparency of the SEC’s investigative process. Hartner’s remarks suggest a perceived lack of openness surrounding the SEC’s actions, with implications of a predetermined agenda.
He raised suspicions that the SEC may have strategically closed the investigation shortly after initiating it, prompting questions about the integrity of the regulatory process and its potential impact on market dynamics.
Remember when China used to alternately ban and unban bitcoin just to manipulate the market for their oligarchs?
— David "JoelKatz" Schwartz (@JoelKatz) June 19, 2024
SEC Following China’s Past Action
Meanwhile, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer David Schwartz highlighted a curious similarity between the SEC’s recent actions and China’s past treatment of Bitcoin. He referenced China’s strategy of periodically banning and then unbanning Bitcoin, which was widely speculated to be aimed at influencing the market to benefit certain wealthy individuals in China.
By drawing this comparison, Schwartz suggested that the SEC’s inconsistent regulatory approach might similarly favor specific players within the cryptocurrency market, potentially impacting market dynamics in unpredictable ways.