SEC Commissioner directives

In a statement, the SEC Enterprise Financing Department has identified its views on encryption mining activity, “as part of an attempt to provide greater clarity in the application of federal securities laws to encryption assets.”

However, the Supreme Council for Guidance Education Commissioner Caroline Creencho (the only democratic member of the regulator), who issued a statement saying that the logic of the memo was defective, and did not do much to clarify the position of the organizer.

In her statement, Crenshaw suggested that the new guidelines depend on circular thinking, by assuming that encryption is extracted only to generate rewards in the form of encryptions, and not benefit from the efforts of others – which means that the activity does not fall under the traditional definition of security.

“If you start assuming that mining is not implemented with the expectation of profits based on the efforts of others, it will necessarily conclude that it does not involve such expectation and therefore it is not safe,” Krencho pointed out.

In addition, she said the instructions admit that determining whether the arrangement of the specified encryption mining is qualified as a security requires a traditional test to determine securities.

“In short, the statement leaves us exactly where we started,” she said, adding that SEC’s recent directives about Meme coins face the same restriction, and that determining whether a specific Mimi currency still requires safety to face the traditional test to determine what is considered security.

“For the sake of investors and other participants in the market and the markets themselves, I hope that readers will not be mistaken [the new guidance] For something more than it is, “Crinko said.

She said: “I hope that the statement related to the encryption mining will be understood more accurately as it is and not.

In addition, Crenshaw criticized the organizer’s approach to policies through guidance, rather than the process of setting traditional rules.

She said: “Instead of engaging in an open and transparent process that benefits from the inputs of the market participants, these phrases that are supposed to” clarify “do not make progress or clarity.”