SEC vs. Crypto: Defining Digital Assets in the Modern Financial Era

As cryptocurrencies continue to reshape the financial landscape, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is making significant strides in its efforts to combat fraudulent activities within the digital asset market. Cryptocurrency’s appeal lies in its commitment to decentralizing money and trade. The digital asset, recorded on the blockchain, operates independently of banks for transaction verification. Critics argue the design of cryptocurrency could lead to reduced government control, advocates counter that it could foster a more equitable and democratic ecosystem. Nonetheless, the SEC reported that transactions in digital currency are more prone to fraud due to enhanced privacy and less regulatory oversight.

With the global cryptocurrency market cap currently standing at a staggering $2.47 trillion, the SEC’s actions are not to be overlooked. In 2023 alone, the SEC initiated 46 enforcement actions related to cryptocurrency, a 50% increase compared to the previous year, targeting 124 defendants. The SEC does not appear to be slowing down in 2024; this month, the SEC notified Robinhood, an online brokerage firm, that it made a preliminary determination to recommend an enforcement action for violations of registrations as a securities broker and transfer agent. The SEC’s primary objectives in bringing these actions are to curb fraud, minimize market manipulation, and enforce greater transparency by compelling additional disclosure from crypto holders and exchanges.

Amidst the ongoing battle between the SEC and cryptocurrency, a fundamental question looms large – is cryptocurrency truly a security? While Gary Gensler, the SEC chair, maintains that the current securities regime governs cryptocurrency, some federal judges have raised significant doubts. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia, for instance, has questioned the lack of regulation specifically addressing digital currency. In the case of SEC v. Binance, Binance argued that the assets it sells are not securities, as security offerings always involve contracts, and Binance did not owe obligations to its customers following a sale. The SEC, however, countered this argument by pointing out Binance’s marketing and promotion of its coins, which suggested to investors that they would be earning a profit as if investing in traditional securities. In a hearing for the matter, Judge Jackson asked, “Where’s the SEC been? Does that matter … why is it that if they’re trying to achieve legislation, is that some suggestion there’s something missing in the statute to cover this? Why are we doing this on a coin-by-coin, case-by-case, judge-by-judge litigation which depends on the … vagaries of the individual districts … as opposed to issuing a reg that tells everybody ‘this is it?’”

In light of the SEC’s vigorous enforcement actions, other government agencies have also intensified their efforts to regulate the cryptocurrency market. The SEC is not the only government agency cracking down on cryptocurrency – the Justice Department, which oversees a National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Treasury Department have joined together to identify and investigate criminal and civil cases involving digital assets. The resolution of whether cryptocurrencies should be classified as securities will be pivotal in determining the future landscape of digital finance, influencing both market practices and investor protection measures.

footer image footer image footer image