As Bitcoiners regulations dont sit comfortably with us and for a good percentage of Bitcoiners
they dont necessarily care about Bitcoin ETF's or Microstrategy's Bitcoin strategy .

"Bitcoin related financial products" are really the realm of the institutions and people who
dont necessarily want to own their own Bitcoin straight out.

Personally I couldnt care less who regulates those investment products which are based
on Bitcoin market.

For now, the line that separates the roles of the SEC and CFTC is so thin that sometimes it's invisible. Generally, when Bitcoin is classified as securities, it falls under SEC jurisdiction. So any digital asset that is seen as an investment contract is under the control of the SEC.

In any case, if assets are classified as commodities, the CFTC takes control. Bitcoin is also classified as a digital commodity similar to gold or oil. When Bitcoin services such as futures and leveraged contracts are offered, the CFTC takes control.

Industry players hope that the CLARITY Act would clarify the jurisdictional conflict that has existed between the SEC and the CFTC regarding the regulation of digital assets. For now, Nasdaq Bitcoin index options fall under the dual regulatory oversight of both agencies. Since the matter is before the court, we would have to wait for the judgment to determine which body has the power to approve Nasdaq Bitcoin options.

The Crypto industry is now, by far, the #1 political donor in the USA. It surpasses Big Oil, Big Pharma, and all of the others.

As such, I think the short answer to this question is:

Which one will make CoinBase and Binance more money?

 

The Clarity Act is being held up in the Senate because Democrats are demanding that politicians be banned from trading in crypto while in office, and they want that to include Trump--and Trump has vowed to veto any bill that will constrain his, um, side ventures...

The CFTC seems to be the industry's preference right now, but that's only because the CFTC is much smaller in terms of personnel, so the industry believes there will be less enforcement if it's the CFTC rather than the SEC.

Folks, as an American who has been around for a while, I can see the usual pattern playing out:

1. The industry lobbies Congress to deregulate itself to the point where anything goes.

2. Millions of average Americans get ripped off, lose their savings, etc.

3. Congress responds to the popular backlash and regulates the living shit out of said industry.

Then, after 10-20 years go by, the cycle repeats...

It should belong to CFTC, because Bitcoin happens to be classified as commodity. Why? because according to Commodity Exchange Act CFTC have exclusive jurisdiction over options of a commodity.

This is honestly a good example why we need Clarity Act, had the bill passed the bitcoin options would be under CFTC jurisdiction because even the Clarity Act will put commodity derivatives under CFTC and not SEC.

These kind of confusion is honestly not needed.

Since Bitcoin is being treated as a commodity, my own opinion I think Bitcoin should remain under CFTC, but as for Bitcoin products traded on the stock exchange this very is much more understandable why SEC is involved. The main issue here is lack of clear rules not which agency is in charge. Companies and investors all they need is a proper clarity so they should know what they are going to be expecting, so it doesn’t reduces unnecessary delays

I also discussed the issue of authority between the SEC and CFTC and the Clarity Act at the local board. What’s happening is, the purpose of this law is good because the authority will be clearer once it’s passed. But indeed, this is politics, and it seems there are pros and cons. This happens in politics, and I read a while ago that there was a revision regarding the submission of the Clarity Act draft. So there are more detailed regulations like you mentioned about government officials and ethics related to crypto.

At least there’s an addition of more than 70 pages from the initial draft plan. The additional content is related to government officials’ ethics, law enforcement, and anti-money laundering. Even the delay in passing the Clarity Act made the US Treasury Secretary criticize the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party in the Senate is seen as slowing down the Clarity Act approval, and this has become a political move that risks undermining US economic leadership.

How would a ban on politicians trading crypto ever be enforced? Unless family members would be included in the ban, it would never be effective and even then there would be loopholes to take part in trading or purchasing equity in crypto industry infrastructure like exchanges or mining companies or whatever the hell you can do to profit whereas not being called a trader. The Democrats can try to get a few paragraphs about bans included into the Clariy Act, but what are the chances that this results in effective bans?

Financial actions, especially at the investment level, require a lot of people and businesses to be involved. It's true that Trump can simply pardon himself, his family and his business associates, but he knows that this laws would severely slow things down since it's just not practical to try to figure out how to pardon potentially hundreds of people and companies--and many people would fear that they wouldn't get their pardon and go to prison because they made Trump, one of his family members, or some Republican pundit connected to Trump angry.

In short, this ban would make Trump's life more difficult, which is why he's against it. Obviously one law can't stop all criminality (no matter what kind of law and criminality we're talking about), but it would definitely have a significant effect.

As for family members and so forth, other laws like this indeed close that loophole in various ways. Again, no law, even the ones against murder, will stop all criminality, but they have effects nevertheless.

But this is an academic conversation: the Clarity Act isn't going to pass as long as Trump is in office, most likely...

Admittedly, there is no legal tool that will close all fraud loopholes area. Nevertheless, even the presence of rigid rules can be viewed as kind of deterrence, putting constraint on the arbitrariness of citizens in power. At least the presence of formal legal system makes certainty of punishment so that legally no longer are ethical offences or dealing with irregular transactions left unpunished.

For Trump, he will obviously "optimize" as best he can. While it's true he can bypass laws, its even easier when there's no law at all.


Oh.... I wouldn't say that .

There are many, many more things he could to me a lot more money than he's already made. He's pioneering completely new territory: nobody in the history of the USA has been able to do business with absolutely zero laws in their way. I suspect they haven't fully figured out how to make money in that kind of environment: it's not like there would be a class about that in business school.