CFTC Commissioner Disagrees With Prosecution Of Digital Assets Without Prior Explicit Guidelines

The cryptocurrency industry is enjoying a high level of success, with investors swarming to the industry in large numbers, but lack of appropriate regulations have effectively stymied the industry’s growth.

The ‘fair’ regulation of cryptocurrencies is a discussion that is considered very important, as it goes a long way in  determining  the further development of the industry and it has lasted a long time in the finance world. The different world governments’ reception of cryptocurrencies vary from differentially from total ban to complete adoption. 

Unreasonable regulations have been leveled against the industry in certain parts of the world, whilst in other countries, irrational prosecution of the industry is abundant.

In general the cryptocurrency industry is a hub that extensively accommodates a complex series of interrelated activities that affect almost all sectors of a country’s economy, either directly or indirectly.

There is need for a state to safeguard both itself and its citizens’ interest amidst all the confusion. This is becoming increasingly difficult, as there aren’t yet established guidelines to maneuver this complex terrain that is the crypto industry.

The lack of clearly defined rules and regulations guiding individual and organizational action in the crypto world, has stumped investors, businesses and governmental regulatory bodies worldwide.

In the United States prosecutive actions have been taken against cryptoasset firms and crypto businesses, despite the absence of clear rules and guidelines.

In view of this Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner, Dawn Stump has expressed her opinion , by enlightening the general public a little, on the kinks that have to be ironed out for ‘reasonable’ enforcements to take place.

Stump has been outspoken with respect to this topic, she regularly clears the air whenever prosecutive action is taken against digital assets by the CFTC. She had earlier stated that the available regulations are overly simple do not clearly define the boundaries of actions that trigger enforcement lock on.

It isn’t uncommon for prosecutive action to be undertaken against companies and firms without the issuance of prior rules and guidelines to be followed, by the regulators. She stated that the scenario had occurred too many times than she’d like to admit. 

Stump admitted that she disagrees and discourages prosecution and enforcement actions against crypto firms and companies, without prior notification of relevant regulations, and availing tools needed for them to avoid breaking said regulations. She claims that this is what she advocates for at the CFTC where she is in charge.

High profile enforcement case, of which crypto exchange Kraken, was fined a whopping sum of $1.25 million for failing to register as a futures broker before launching its services, was cited by Stump. She stated that she preferred that enforcement action wasn’t embarked on, for such cases, before clear definitions for ‘lack of compliance’ have been properly established.

Of the two regulatory bodies in the U.S. , the CFTC is more crypto-friendly, as can be deduced from the commissioner’s stand, meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has developed a more rigid approach to the situation.

It can be presumed that the general trend of things in U.S cryptocurrency industry will be determined by whichever one of the regulatory bodies decides to spearhead the regulations related reforms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *