• Hester Peirce, Commissioner at the SEC, is voicing her dissent to Chairman Gensler’s actions in the crypto sector.
• Peirce accuses the SEC of being “hostile to crypto” and “lazy and paternalistic”.
• She believes that the SEC should be more creative and flexible in order to foster innovation.
Dissent from Commissioner Peirce
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce is continuing to express her dissent at what her regulatory agency is doing to crypto under the charge of Chairman Gensler. A regular dissenter on several occasions now, Commissioner Peirce has felt obliged to publicly voice her dissent at what she sees as her agency’s failures in regards to the cryptocurrency sector.
In her latest statement against “amending the definition of exchange”, publicly available on the SEC website, Peirce does not mince her words when she accuses Chair Gensler of causing “stagnation, centralisation, expatriation, and extinction”. She outlines how 30 years ago, when faced with a choice between fostering innovation or stifling it with an inflexible and expansive interpretation of the statutory definition of “exchange”, the Commission chose innovation. However today’s SEC cannot think creatively in order to encourage innovation but instead its regulatory bullheadedness often causes absurd consequences.
Entrepreneur’s Good Faith
Peirce said that today’s Commission tells entrepreneurs trying to do new things in our markets to come in and register but when they find they cannot it dismisses the possibility of making practical adjustments to our registration framework rather than rewarding their good faith with an enforcement action.
The commissioner accused today’s Commission for aggressively expanding its regulatory reach and treating its basic approach to exchange regulation as something that must not—indeed cannot—be altered without creating absurd consequences which hinder creativity and stifle potential growth within the sector.
Peirce concluded by saying that rather than amending definitions or expanding existing rules beyond reasonable limits, it would be best if regulators could craft solutions tailored specifically for new technologies so as not only protect investors but also foster innovation within a responsible manner while allowing entrepreneurs opportunities for success.