Discussions surrounding the regulation of the cryptocurrency industry in the U.S. have intensified, with several voices advocating for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take the lead. Proponents argue that the FTC's focus on consumer protection, anti-fraud measures, and market practices aligns well with the needs of the digital asset sector, particularly for non-securities and non-derivative assets. In contrast, some experts caution against expanding the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which already possesses fraud authority over the crypto spot market. Critics suggest that granting the CFTC broader regulatory powers could lead to outcomes similar to those experienced under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has faced scrutiny for its handling of crypto regulations. Additionally, there are calls for a distinct regulatory body tailored specifically for cryptocurrency, as existing regulators may not adequately address the unique characteristics of digital assets.
Crypto is a fundamentally different instrument than commodities or securities. If you grab an existing regulator like the SEC, CFTC, or FTC (??), they’re going to do the job poorly. Crypto needs its own novel authority.
They will be worse than the SEC. As Gabe has pointed out many times. The SEC could in theory be fine for crypto if they actually crafted a disclosure-based set of rules that made sense. The CFTC is wedded to an inherent intermediated existing market structure. https://t.co/spRzAmZyvW
the CFTC already has fraud authority over the crypto spot market, as evidenced by this subpoena--it is all they need if we give them plenary regulatory authority (what FIT21 and some other bills do), they will become just like the SEC https://t.co/W7lRioe0Bf