Congressman William Timmons
@RepTimmons
Gary Gensler’s SEC seems to have, at best, a misguided understanding of what constitutes a security when it involves digital assets. Their approach to regulating anything remotely adjacent to the blockchain, including art and airdrops, is predatory and in some cases—borderline icrocess illustrating the disconnect between the SEC’s regulation of physical assets to those on the blockchain.
In the end, we arrived at where we all thought: the SEC has yet to define what the limiting principle is when it comes to NFTs.
Eleanor Terrett
@EleanorTerrett
NEW: They’re back and @RepTimmons kicks off with a question about NFTs, asking @HesterPeirce whether physical pieces of art are considered securities in the eyes of the @SECGov. She says no, and he replies:
“I'm concerned that this is just extremely slippery slope. If the SEC takes a position that most NFTs are sold as securities, where does it end?”
Pierce says: “You put your finger on something that's troubled me, which is that we seem to be treating digital assets differently than we treat physical assets, and I think that's problematic.”
Uyeda also weighed in: “There is no limiting principle based on what you might discern from the Commission's enforcement actions, I have strong reservations whether that's consistent with the law.”2024-09-24T18:42:59.000Z
2024-09-24T19:37:47.000Z