the NYT article spends a while explaining how cases were dropped, and some of those cases were against donors to the president. (it implies impropriety. let alone the fact that in the third image NYT expressly states that they have no evidence of the president intervening or any donor impropriety.)
and itâs not just that. the main thing that the article fails to share, which is game-changing for understanding the last 4 years of SEC policy on crypto, is that the prior administration had a fundamentally different view of the law and the SECâs own rules than the current leadership. keep in mind both uyeda and peirce were there and loudly and eloquently explaining their disagreements the whole time.
now that uyeda and peirce are 2/3 of a majority of commissioners, rather than 2/2 of a minority, itâs not âirregularâ AT ALL for the SEC to drop these cases. why? because they were based on a highly disputed (and now viewed by the commission as faulty) interpretation of law and policy. if you overturn the underlying premises, of course the overlayed cases must fall away. itâs not âirregular,â itâs exactly what everyone expected if the minority commissioners became a majority.
the fact that the SEC under biden advanced novel interpretations of both statute and rule to enact widespread enforcement against otherwise law abiding businesses (not to mention missing a bunch of the worst fraud that occurred) is the reason WHY a change in leadership has led to such a massive change in policy.
the story misses this crucial context and instead frames the current commission, which seeks input from industry to find a workable path forward that promotes innovation while protecting investors, as the radical ones. really theyâre doing what responsible regulators should do (in my opinion). but wherever you stand, the authors and times completely fail to offer important context and, in doing so, advance a narrative â not just âfactsâ â to their readers that is overtly critical of current policy without explaining where it came from.
