I found this interesting
"That money helped House Republicans win the majority in 2022. Though FTX has been portrayed as a Democratic firm, thanks to the high profile of former co-CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, the company sprinkled around campaign donations fairly evenly, with a shade over 50 percent going directly to congressional Republicans and a shade under 50 percent to Democrats this cycle."<p>Yet if you go to the actual link the article provides (<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cycle=2022" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...</a>) it shows a massive unbalance in the donations to PACs. How can the author claim the company sprinkled around campaign donations evenly yet link to a page that shows a massive unbalance the PACs section?
The SEC has put itself in a weird position.<p>On one hand, it claims the right to regulate crypto. But then it also refuses to actually do so. Aside from a few easy-win, barely crypto, high profile cases like the Kim Kardashian, they carefully avoid actually regulating AND loudly proclaim they are THE regulator.<p>Which is it?<p>I don't know. And one reason I don't know if that the SEC carefully avoids any court cases where "Is the SEC actually allowed to regulate crypto?" might be ruled on. That's their choice.<p>Another reason is the Congress (who really should answer this question) refuses to. So I don't want to lay all the blame at the SECs feet. Let's get real here, the SEC are the first group after FTX senior leaders themselves to blame. They have said so themselves. They investigated FTX and ... stopped despite it being their job? Missed a multi billion dollar fraud along with 1000s of other issues? Come on!
> "He [Matt Corridoni] added that FTX never directly lobbied Rep. Auchincloss’s office to join the letter."<p>So, FTX indirectly lobbied Auchincloss to tell the SEC to leave them alone.<p>> He [Byron Donalds] was merely concerned with the SEC’s procedure and guidance with crypto firms, which some have described as “regulation by enforcement.”
> ... SEC chair Gary Gensler has been adamant that crypto platforms are trading and minting securities, and that these securities needed to be registered with the agency.<p>Sounds like the SEC is only doing "regulation by enforcement" because they're already claimed what you're doing is illegal and you've just ignored them so they're only left with enforcement ...
> @GaryGensler’s information reporting “requests” to the crypto community are overburdensome, don’t feel particularly… voluntary… and are stifling innovation.<p>Not all innovation is good, it turns out.