When crafting spot crypto market legislation, we need a regulatory framework that actually works—not one that blurs lines between different asset classes. The thing is, tokenized securities simply don't belong in this discussion. They muddy the waters and create confusion about what we're really trying to achieve. Here's the critical part: we can't compromise the SEC's ability to bring traditional finance onto blockchain just to reach some middle-ground deal. That's the real issue at stake. Protecting regulatory authority now means preserving the pathway for genuine financial system innovation down the road.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 5
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
PerennialLeekvip
· 01-15 21:23
The regulatory framework, to put it simply, is a power struggle. The SEC is firmly guarding its territory; no one should try to cross the line.
View OriginalReply0
HalfIsEmptyvip
· 01-15 21:17
The SEC's logic is still too idealistic; isn't real compromise inevitable...
View OriginalReply0
RebaseVictimvip
· 01-15 21:16
That old trick from the SEC is back again. Splitting asset classes will solve the problem? Wake up, everyone.
View OriginalReply0
MerkleDreamervip
· 01-15 21:02
NGL, this way of thinking is a bit like "carving a boat to seek a sword"... Completely excluding tokenized securities, does that really solve the problem?
View OriginalReply0
BlockBargainHuntervip
· 01-15 21:02
That's right. Mixing in tokenized securities just causes trouble; we need to draw a clear line.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)