The US SEC proposes a rule that would bar investment advisers from storing assets at crypto platforms and lenders that are not registered as exchanges or banks
The proposal follows the SEC’s move to create an specialized Office of Crypto Assets for crypto-related corporate filings, extending crypto-specific oversight from disclosure review to where advisers may hold client assets. It matters because it places registered status at the center of advisers’ access to crypto custody venues.
Later related coverage shows the same regulatory direction reaching exchange reporting: the Treasury proposed broker-like tax reporting rules for crypto exchanges, while the SEC maintained that existing securities rules govern crypto-asset securities.
First-order effects
Investment advisers would be barred from placing client assets with crypto platforms and lenders that are not registered exchanges or banks, narrowing their immediately usable custody options.
Registered exchanges and banks would become the eligible destinations under the proposed standard, while unregistered crypto custodians would lose access to adviser-held assets.
Second-order effects
Crypto platforms and lenders seeking adviser business face greater pressure to fit within exchange or bank registration pathways rather than rely on their existing status.
The rule would reinforce the compliance advantage of custody providers already operating inside regulated financial-market structures, concentrating competition around eligibility rather than crypto-only services.
Third-order effects
If applied alongside broker-style exchange reporting and the SEC’s existing-rules approach, crypto market infrastructure would increasingly be segmented between regulated financial intermediaries and venues excluded from institutional custody flows.
The trend: US crypto oversight is moving toward applying conventional financial-intermediary requirements to the custody, reporting, and market-access layers of the sector.
America risks losing it's status as a financial hub long term, with no clear regs on crypto, and a hostile environment from regulators. Congress should act soon to pass clear legislation. Crypto is open to everyone in the world and others are leading. The EU, the UK, and now HK. …
My statement on today's custody proposal. Looking forward to comments from the public. This one affects crypto, among many other issues: https://www.sec.gov/...
Today, the SEC proposed changes to the investment adviser custody rule that seem designed to prohibit US firms from investing in US crypto companies. This proposal would flagrantly violate the SEC's mission by making investors *less* safe and by *discouraging* capital formation.
“These statements [in this Gensler rule proposal] encourage investment advisers to back away immediately from advising their clients with respect to crypto ... [and] seem to be part of a broader strategy of wishing complete jurisdiction over crypto into existence.” https://twitte…
“The proposal would expand the reach of the custody requirements to crypto assets while likely shrinking the ranks of qualified crypto custodians.....” add new crypto rules and make them nearly impossible to comply with seems to be the MO of the current SEC https://twitter.com/..…
💯 true and it is 💯 intentional. You will see the SEC soften its approach to crypto only after legacy incumbent players have a larger slice of the action. https://twitter.com/...
YES, finally some progress. It has made zero sense why we've permitted these shadow brokers selling securities to public without registering. The word “crypto” shouldn't exempt a company from normal regulation. https://www.cnbc.com/...
*Powell focusing on “not being able to register” as if Kraken also didn't have to start disclosing the actual risks of staking and, indeed, what would happen to the tokens being staked, where they would be invested, and so on. https://twitter.com/...
Funnily, I largely agree with the proposals, esp. mandated acct segregation for protection against custodian bankruptcy. But as @CoinDesk points out, this is another sleight of hand, because the SEC is concurrently making it impractical for qualified crypto custodians to exist. h…
SEC proposes sweeping rule change that would potentially ensnare crypto exchanges like $COIN. Custody regulations would now include assets like crypto + require companies to become a ‘qualified custodian’ to keep holding customer assets: https://www.cnbc.com/... @rogoswami
“Silvergate went all-in on crypto and doesn't have the other revenue sources, as Signature does. It lost the bulk of its crypto deposits in a run on the bank last quarter and is cutting jobs and shrinking its business” $SI https://www.wsj.com/...
Serving crypto is becoming untenable for some banks as regulators needle them on the risks and the SEC targets the clients. W/@RachelEnsignWSJ https://www.wsj.com/...
That the SEC's crypto-efforts chill innovation and force crypto overseas is bunk. Crypto's not innovation, it's a Ponzi-like plague of grift & predatory inclusion. And forcing crypto overseas is akin to forcing heroin manufacturing overseas. Good riddance. https://www.ft.com/...
> “The US's crackdown on crypto has become far more aggressive than what we have seen from regulators in many other major jurisdictions” https://www.ft.com/...
Oh hey, look, the crypto industry is going to get its wish of being bankless like they always wanted. We'll see how long the Ponzi can sustain itself being starved of real dollar inflows. Methinks not long. https://www.wsj.com/...