"This particular design of [X] didn't work flawlessly in its second year of existence, therefore all possible designs of [X] are doomed to failure for all time" is a popular take today, but not a particularly intelligent one.
I don't know who needs to hear this but it's generally a bad idea to put people in charge of regulating things they don't understand 1/100th as well as twitter anons
2) "Moreover, because custodially held crypto assets may be considered to be the property of a bankruptcy estate, in the event of a bankruptcy, the crypto assets we hold in custody on behalf of our customers could be subject to bankruptcy proceedings...
@ErikVoorhees@SECGov This path seems both unpopular and futile, whereas soft hands-off regulations that only demand transparency and symmetry of information can help establish a much fairer playing field very quickly while actually helping protect to investors (via allowing informed decision making).