TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
? The Dinarian on Locals brings you the latest in news, interviews, in-depth conversations, and stories from across the blockchain and global communities—within and beyond cryptocurrency ?. Experts delve into how blockchain technology is reshaping industries, enhancing business networks ?, transforming transaction workflows, and advancing distributed ledger systems ??. We also explore intriguing topics that may venture into the realm of conspiracies—and so much more!
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Paul Atkins closes in on SEC chair role amid setbacks šŸ‘€

US President Donald Trumpā€™s SEC chair nominee, Paul Atkins, is inching closer toward becoming the SECā€™s new leader, with a Senate hearing reportedly planned for March 27.

President Donald Trump nominated Atkins to lead the SEC on Dec. 4, but his marriage into a billionaire family has reportedly caused headaches with financial disclosures ā€” delaying his potential start date.

While it isnā€™t clear whether the White House has produced those papers to the Senate, Senate Banking, House and Urban Affairs Chair Tim Scott is reportedly eyeing a March 27 hearing to review Atkinsā€™ standing, Semaforā€™s Eleanor Mueller said in a March 17 X post.

ā€œNo clarity yet on whether the committee has Atkinsā€™ paperwork in hand, but either way, this is the most momentum weā€™ve seen so far.ā€

Atkins would, however, need to be voted in by the Senate at a later date.

Mueller also said the Senate banking committee is also planning to hold a bipartisan meeting on Atkinsā€™ nomination on March 21.

It follows an earlier March 3 Semafor report, where Mueller said financial disclosures had held Atkins back from scheduling a Senate hearing to review his standing.

His wifeā€™s family is tied to TAMKO Building Products LLC ā€” a manufacturer of residential roofing shingles that reportedly turned over $1.2 billion in revenue in 2023, Forbes said on Dec. 14, 2024.

ā€œItā€™s a lot to go through,ā€ one former Senate Banking Committee staffer reportedly told Mueller on March 3.

ā€œBut he got named so early on, so I think thatā€™s why people are starting to be like, ā€˜What the hellā€™s taking so long?ā€™ā€

Atkins previously served as an SEC commissioner between 2002 and 2008 and worked as a corporate lawyer at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP in New York before that. He is expected to regulate the crypto arena with a more collaborative approach than former SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

Itā€™s been almost four months since Atkins was chosen by Trump to lead the SEC on Dec. 4, and over two months since Trump was inaugurated on Jan. 20.

A late start for an SEC chair wouldnā€™t be too unusual, however.

The two most recent SEC chairs, Gary Gensler and Jay Clayton, started on April 17, 2021, and May 4, 2017 ā€” months after presidential transitions occurred in those years.

Meanwhile, Mark Uyeda has been serving as the SECā€™s acting chair since Gensler left on Jan. 20.

Since then, the Uyeda-led SEC has established a Crypto Task Force led by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and canceled a controversial rule that asked financial firms holding crypto to record them as liabilities on their balance sheets.

The SEC has dropped several investigations and lawsuits that the Gensler-led commission filed against the likes of Coinbase, Consensys, Robinhood, Gemini, Uniswap and OpenSea over the last month.

The SEC is also looking to abandon a rule requiring crypto firms to register as exchanges and may even axe the Biden administrationā€™s proposed crypto custody rules, Uyeda said on March 17.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/trumps-sec-chair-paul-atkins-senate-committee-hearing

post photo preview
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may likeā€¦
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
2017: Interview with Reggie Middleton hosted by Clif High

How @Veritaseuminc removes banks as middlemen in Over The Counter (OTC) trades by creating a facility where two peers can trade directly with each other without incurring the high bank fees with hedge funds being used as an example.

00:08:45
BREAKING: šŸšØšŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø The Senate Banking Committee has passed @SenatorHagerty's stablecoin bill:

The Senate Banking Committee has passed @SenatorHagerty's stablecoin bill:

THE GENIUS ACTā€¼ļø šŸ“ƒ

#RLUSD #USDC #USDT

00:01:47
šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡ø Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick says President Trump's goal is to eliminate taxes for anyone earning less than $150,000 per year.
00:00:19
šŸ‘‰ Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? šŸ”œ

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

šŸ‘‰ Hereā€™s what you need to know:

šŸ’  'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
šŸ’  Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
šŸ’  Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
šŸ’  Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
šŸ’  Integrates with Coinbaseā€™s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

šŸ‘‰ What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto šŸ‘‰txns done by AI agents by 2025

šŸšØ I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

šŸ‘‰ Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
Hashdex Seeks to Expand U.S. Crypto ETF to Include Litecoin, XRP and Other Altcoins šŸš€

Crypto asset manager Hashdex filed an amendment with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking to add litecoin (LTC) and XRP among other cryptocurrencies to its Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF.

The proposal also lists cardano's ADA, solana's SOL and other altcoins including LINK, AVAX and UNI. The fund is currently mostly bitcoin (BTC) with some exposure to ether (ETH), according to Hashdexā€™s website.

An alternative version of the fund traded on the Bermuda Stock Exchange, the Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index ETF, already offers exposure to the broader basket of cryptocurrencies. The Hashdex Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF is designed to track a diversified set of digital assets, offering investors regulated exposure to the crypto market.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/03/17/hashdex-seeks-to-expand-u-s-crypto-etf-to-include-litecoin-xrp-and-other-altcoins

šŸšØ BREAKING: President Trump announces JFK Files will be released TOMORROW

šŸšØ BREAKING: President Trump announces that 80,000 documents on the assassination of JFK will be released TOMORROW, as organized and coordinated by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. President Trump has asked that the files not be redacted.

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1901736473012887567?t=51VoRKV9OrmYNVZBrzLBBQ&s=19

šŸš€The SEC's Smoking Guns: Misconduct Meets OverreachšŸš€

Got $Veri?

Use my Rocketex link--->https://rebrand.ly/wk2aq8r

šŸ‘‰ Swap ETH/ETH FOR ETH/VERI
šŸ‘‰ OR ETH/ETH FOR BASE/VERI

šŸšØ Disclaimer: This is not financial advice and is for educational purposes only. . Cryptocurrency investments are highly volatile and carry risks. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) before investing. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Consult a financial professional if needed. šŸš€

post photo preview
Motion to Vacate Alleging Fraud Upon the Court in SEC v Reggie Middleton et al

Will the SEC Defend Its Alleged Fraud?

Motion to Vacate Puts Crypto Oversight on Trial

On March 13, 2025, Reginald Middleton, founder of Veritaseum, filed a Motion to Vacate the Consent Order and Judgment in SEC v. Reggie Middleton et al., alleging fraud upon the court by the SEC. A letter from his attorney, Franklin Jason Seibert, requested a delay in the SECā€™s briefing scheduleā€”originally set for opposition papers by March 14 and replies by March 21ā€”until after the motionā€™s ruling, with new deadlines two weeks and one week post-disposition, respectively.
Ā 
The modified schedule order (DOC-106) required filings as follows:
  • March 14, 2025: opposition papers, if any, are served on the SEC
  • March 21, 2025: reply papers, if any, must be served by the SEC
The revised scheduling order, as stipulated, would be as follows:
  • Two weeks after disposition of Defendantsā€™ FRCP 60(d)3 motion to vacate Consent Order and Judgment (DOC-61) for Fraud Upon the Court: opposition papers, if any, are served on the SEC;
  • One week later: reply papers, if any, must be served by the SEC

The question now becomes, will the SEC defend "Fraud Upon the Court?"

Digital Asset Securities

The SEC ā€œregrets any confusionā€ caused by its characterization of these tokens as ā€œcrypto asset securitiesā€ and ā€œno longer uses the shorthand term,ā€ according to the Sept. 12 filing. Yet, this term was used to claim jurisdiction over the crypto industry raising questions over past cases, including that of Reggie Middleton.

"...by using imprecise language we've been able to suggest the token itself is a security, apart from that investment contract, which has implications for Secondary Sales, it has implications for who can list it...We've fallen down on our duty as a regulator not to be precise. So, tucking into a footnote that yes we admit that now that the TOKEN ITSELF IS NOT A SECURITY..." ~ SEC Commissioner @HesterPeirce

Tom Emmer @GOPMajorityWhip would later introduce the "Security Clarity Act" further questioning the SEC's jurisdiction over some cases.
Ā 
What's even more suspicious, is the VERI token was mentioned about 150 times in the SEC's original complaint but the VERI Token was not mentioned once in the Final Judgment, which begs the question. Is the SEC deliberately hiding any reference to the VERI Token, just as they hid "The SEC is not referring to the crypto asset itself as a security" in a footnote of the Binance case? This becomes a little more questionable when the SEC refused to issue a written reply to the No Action Letter submitted by Jeremy Hogan and the VeriDAO.
Ā 

The SEC's Smoking Guns: Fraud on the Court Allegations

1 - Falsely Claimed Patents were "not novel", "stalled" and would never be granted, claiming Reggie "misled investors about the status of Veritaseumā€™s IP". A total of 7 patents have since been granted with 3 in the US (US11196566B2, US11895246B2, US12231579) and 4 in Japan (JP6813477B2, JP7204231B2, JP7533974B2, JP7533983B2). These patents titled "Devices, systems, and methods for facilitating low trust and zero trust value transfers" are foundational to DeFi, Tokenized Assets, NFT's, Stablecoins, Proof of Stake and Proof of Work.

Coinbase filed a IPR2023-00751 in an attempt in invalidate these patents. The USPTO upheld the patents denying the IPR challenge based on "lack of merit" further strengthening the validity of the patents
Ā 
2 -VeADIR Platform Functionality - a live demonstration was performed in front of SEC staff and days later Reggie was told to shut it down, Tenreiro then claimed the platform was not functional. VeTest Channel on YouTube has videos that prove the functionality but as shown in his affidavit, the owner was threatened by Tenreiro "...the line of questioning quickly turned aggressive, abusive and threatening" and told to cease making videos "...through threats of multiple felony charges against me for supporting Mr. Middleton, testing his software and publicizing the results through my YouTube Channel".
Ā 
3 - Misrepresented Ownership of Kraken Corporate Account as Personal - Jorge Tenreiro failed to correct the record after expert witness Patrick Doody corrected his statements "I understand now that the account is titled in the name of Veritaseum LLC", found on the last page of his 2nd declaration. Also detailed on page 20 of the SEC RICO Dossier
Ā 
Reggie Middleton a NY resident points out that Kraken is not licensed to do business in NY making it impossible for him to have a personal Kraken account as found on Krakens Support page under Geographic Restrictions.
Ā 
4 - Misrepresentation of Asset Flow - by falsely alleged vast sums of money were flowing into Middletonā€™s personal account, misleading the court about asset misappropriation of funds. This point becomes moot as the account is proven to be a Corporate account as evidenced in point #3 and also in a 423 page reply to the TRO.
Ā 
5 - False Allegation Regarding Agreements - alleging the defendants were merely negotiating deals with the Jamaican Stock Exchange (Memorandum of Understanding) and Nigerian Stock Exchange(Joint Venture Agreement), when signed agreements were already in place. The SEC's aggressive and actions caused the cancellations of these agreements. FOIA request have been submitted seeking communications between the SEC and the JSE.
Ā 
6 - Misrepresenting Trading Activity on Etherdelta - as manipulation when it was publicly announced prior as a liquidity test of the new platform also found on page 49 Veritaseum's reply to the TRO ā€œTesting EtherDelta as a method of distributing post-Offering Veritas tokens. Anyone interested in buy VERI please visit https://etherdelta.github.io and let me knowā€
Ā 
7 - Misrepresentation of CEO Payments - falsely misrepresented that $1.7 million in periodic payments to Middleton over 27 months (about 2 and a half years), was dissipation of assets, misleading the court about CEO compensation. this is detailed on page 55 of the SEC RICO Dossier.
Ā 
8 - Nature of International Payments -The SEC's TRO action misrepresented payments to overseas contractors as asset dissipation. Daneillo would later correct her findings to show they were in fact payments to overseas contractors. The SEC continued to imply that the payments were part of an effort to hide assets to thwart judgment relief, which is clearly a disingenuous characterization (SEC Memo of Law in Further Support of TRO).
Ā 
9 - Unethical Conduct in No-Action Letter Request - Involved himself unethically in a No Action Letter (NAL) request meeting, breaching the SECā€™s ethical separation as found in the Bar Complaint against Jorge Tenreiro.
Ā 
10 - Harassment of VERI Token Holders - aggressively pursued VERI token holders to coerce them into giving evidence against Middleton, despite them stating they were not victims of Fraud. Victims of harassment have either come forth with notarized affidavits (Lloyd Cupp, John Doe) explicitly and verbosely describing the coercion, or have indicated fear of retaliation due to their treatment after interaction with Mr.Tenreiro.
Ā 
11 - The sanctions against the SEC for lying to the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order in the Debtbox case further exemplifies the SEC's tactics in issuing TRO's. Quoted from a letter by Senator at the time JD Vance to Gary Gensler ā€œIt is difficult to maintain confidence that other cases are not predicated upon dubious evidence, obfuscations, or outright misrepresentationsā€. Parallels of the TRO issued in the Debtbox and that of Veritaseum.
Ā 

Timeline of Events

Aug 19, 2019: All allegations against Reggie were addressed and rebutted in a strong
423 page reply to the SEC emergency TRO but days later the SEC would ignore the evidence provided and the TRO was granted regardless forcing a Consent Order and Final Judgment
Ā 
March 10, 2021: Jorge Tenreiro argued the SEC's case against Rippleā€™s Christian Larsen for aiding and abetting unregistered securities sales was valid, highlighting Tenreiro's aggressive enforcement approach.
Ā 
Oct 13, 2022: SEC v Middleton Case Information claiming he harmed investors yet no token holders came forth as witnesses for the SEC.
Ā 
March 2024: ā€œGross Abuse of Powerā€ US Court SEC for Misrepresenting Evidence to obtain a TRO against Debtbox. US Court Memorandum Decision and Order. An analysis comparing this to the SEC's TRO against Veritaseum can be found on page 42 of the SEC RICO Dossier.
Ā 
Sept 2024 - SEC v Binance - Footnote states Token itself is not a security.
Ā 
Oct 4, 2024: A Bar Complaint was filed against Jorge Tenreiro by the VERI Community.
Ā 
Oct 31, 2024: A 96 page SEC RICO Dossier supported by over 1800 pages of evidence was also released by the VERI Community.
Ā 
Dec 6, 2024: The Attorney Grievance Committee forwarded the Bar Complaint back to the SEC OGC. The VERI Community issues a letter to the AGC asking it to reconsider investigating the complaint.
Ā 
Jan 2025: SEC admits in a footnote "that a token itself is not a security" revealing that "Digital Asset Securities" is a made up term used to claim jurisdiction over digital assets https://x.com/SovereignRiz/status/1881316167987388904
Ā 
March 9, 2025 - Tom Emmer introduces the "Securities Clarity Act" stating Tokens are separate from an investment contract.
Ā 
Feb 5, 2025: Tenreiro has since been reassigned to the IT Dept. WSJ Article "SEC Ousts Top Litigator Who Battled with Crypto Giants"
Ā 
Ā 
Ā 

Other Articles exploring this topic in more detail

Ā 
Ā 
Ā 

Source links:

Disclaimer: The content provided in this document is intended strictly for informational and educational purposes only. This document constitutes a research opinion and should be regarded as such. All claims, statements, allegations, and opinions contained within are based on publicly available information and are allegations unless and until proven in a court of law. The authors expressly disclaim any representation or warranty regarding the truthfulness, accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose, or durability of the information contained herein.
Ā 
The authors of these documents are not licensed attorneys or legal professionals and do not claim to provide legal, financial, or professional advisory services. Nothing in this document should be construed as legal advice, legal opinion, or any form of licensed advisory counsel. If you require legal assistance or professional advice, you are strongly encouraged to consult a licensed attorney or qualified expert in the relevant field. The authors are laypersons presenting research-based opinions, and as such, this document should not be relied upon to make any decisions of legal, financial, or professional significance.
Ā 
The authors make no guarantees, express or implied, regarding the completeness or reliability of the information presented. No warranties of any kind are offered regarding the accuracy, validity, timeliness, or completeness of any information within this document. The information may contain errors or inaccuracies, and any use of it is entirely at your own risk.
Ā 
Furthermore, this document may contain statements of belief, criticism, or commentary, and all such statements are offered solely as opinions protected under the principles of free speech. The authors disclaim liability for any interpretation that may be construed as libel, slander, or defamation, as the document aims to present alleged facts and subjective opinions for educational research purposes only. All statements about individuals, organizations, or entities should be understood as unproven allegations, and readers are urged not to interpret them as established facts.
Ā 
The authors will not be liable for any damages, losses, or legal consequences that arise from the use, misuse, or reliance on the information provided herein. No responsibility is assumed for any actions or decisions that any party may make based on this document. The reader assumes full responsibility for any and all consequences that may arise from using the information contained in this document.
Ā 
By accessing and using this document, you agree that neither the authors nor any affiliated parties shall be held liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages resulting from your use of this information. The authors reserve the right to update or revise the information in this document at any time without notice, but they are under no obligation to do so.
Ā 
Finally, any statements regarding individuals, entities, or organizations are not intended to malign, defame, or harm the reputation of those mentioned. Any resemblance to real individuals or incidents is purely coincidental, unless otherwise explicitly stated, and the authors urge readers to exercise caution and discernment when interpreting the information presented.
Ā 
This document is a work-in-progress, part of an ongoing investigative process, and should not be treated as definitive or final. Readers are encouraged to independently verify the information and seek professional advice before acting on any information herein.
Ā 

šŸ™ Support My Work šŸ™

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

šŸ’³ PayPal ā€“ Just scan the QR code šŸ“²
šŸ”— Crypto ā€“ Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! NamastĆ© šŸ™āœØ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto

Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

.
.
Ā 
Ā 
Read full Article
post photo preview
50 Million XRP Moves Between Unknown Wallets. What’s Happening Behind The Scene?
In a recent development, aĀ significant transactionĀ involving 50 million XRP, valued at approximately $117,576,852, was executed between two unknown wallets. This substantial movement has ignited discussions within the cryptocurrency community, with many pondering the motives behind such a large, discreet transfer.

This event is part of a series of notable XRP transactions observed recently. Five days prior, Ripple facilitated a transfer of 200 million XRP, equivalent to about $457.39 million, to an unidentified wallet.

in addition, two weeks earlier, a transfer of 50 million XRP, valued at approximately $147.49 million, was directed to the Bithumb exchange from an unknown wallet. These transactions, occurring within a short timeframe, indicateĀ heightened activity within the XRP network, raising questions about their purpose and potential impact.

Potential Implications

Large-scale movements of XRP can have various implications. One possible explanation is liquidity management, as Ripple and other major holders might be redistributing assets to facilitate institutional transactions.Ā 

The impact on the market is another critical consideration, as transfers to exchanges like Bithumb could signal potential sell-offs, which may influence XRPā€™s price action. Additionally, security measures could be a factor, with substantial wallet movements serving as a strategy to enhance security or reorganize holdings.

Community Speculations

The anonymity of the wallets involved has fueled widespread speculation among market participants. Some believe these transactions may indicate institutional involvement, suggesting that major financial entities or partners could beĀ positioning themselves ahead of a significant announcement. Others suspect that Ripple is undergoing internal restructuring, potentially reallocating assets for upcoming projects or strategic business moves.

While the exact motives behind these substantial XRP transfers remain undisclosed, they highlight the dynamic nature of cryptocurrency markets and the importance of monitoring on-chain activities.

The sudden and frequent movement of large XRP holdings could signal preparation for significant developments within the ecosystem. Investors and enthusiasts are advised to stay informed and exercise caution, considering both the potential opportunities and risks associated with these transactions.

Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the authorā€™s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloidā€™s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
Ā 

šŸ™ Support My Work šŸ™

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

šŸ’³ PayPal ā€“ Just scan the QR code šŸ“²
šŸ”— Crypto ā€“ Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! NamastĆ© šŸ™āœØ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto

Read full Article
post photo preview
Changes in latest Genius Act bill – applies to non-interest bearing stablecoins

The US Senate Banking Committee passed the GENIUS ActĀ to regulate paymentĀ stablecoins. There are two sets of changes to the draft legislation. They include amendments passed as part of yesterdayā€™s markup hearing plus changes to the Bill before the hearing.

One important addition is the Bill now excludes stablecoins that offer interest or yield. However, itā€™s not clear that it explicitly bans such stablecoins. Itā€™s likely thatĀ interest bearing stablecoinsĀ will be considered securities.

Amendments passed during the markup session

At the start of the session a package ofĀ bipartisan amendments were approved. These aimed to:

  • clarify the treatment of payment stablecoins that are not issued by a permitted issuer
  • consider the competence, experience and integrity of key leaders at an applicantā€™s company
  • prohibit the use of deceptive names by a payment stablecoin
  • maintain the status quo as it relates to the master account access at the Federal Reserve
  • give customers of a stablecoin super priority over other creditors in bankruptcy
  • clarify the stablecoin reserve requirements.

These topics were only mentioned in brief, and several of the descriptions appear to expand on other amendments to the published draft.

Key changes in latest GENIUS stablecoin draft

These are the changes to the updatedĀ draft publishedĀ before the above amendments.

Tightens up theĀ payment stablecoin definition:

  • excludes those earning interest or yield
  • excludes tokenized deposits or DLT based bank accounts
  • also excludes certain types of securities
  • a payment stablecoin not authorized under the Act (presumably offshore) cannot be used for interbank settlement
  • the issuer of an unauthorized stablecoin in the US is subject to penalties of $1m for each infraction or up to 5 years prison

Reserves:

  • expands cash to include ā€œmoney standing to the credit ofĀ an account with a Federal Reserve Bankā€Ā (yet one of the amendments implies no master account access for issuers)
  • repo shortened to overnight (from seven days)
  • previous version included money market funds. What qualifies as a money market fund has been tightened
  • additional liquid assets with ā€œsimilar profilesā€ can be approved by the Federal regulator
  • any of the specifiedĀ reserve assets can be in tokenized form.
    (weā€™d observe the big variance in quality, custody and oversight between tokenization firms. Without caveats, this is risky in an FTX kind of way.)

Capital requirements:

  • are tailored to the business model and risk profile of issuers
  • stablecoin subsidiary of a bank doesnā€™t need to hold any extra capital (leverage or risk-based) other than required by the issuer under the Act

AML:

  • Issuer treated as a financial institution under the Bank Secrecy Act. This was included in first draft, but now adds details such as AML/sanction programs, record retention, monitoring and reporting, etc
  • FinCEN has to tailor rules to size and complexity of stablecoin issuer
  • Beyond AML, the stablecoin issuer must have the technical ability to block the digital assets of a foreign person if instructed to do so by the Treasury or by a court order.
  • Foreign stablecoin issuers cannot distribute stablecoins in the United States unless they can comply with the above clause.
  • There is a new major section dealing with non compliant foreign stablecoin issuers. They will be listed on the Federal Register and digital asset service providers (DASP) are not allowed to provide secondary trading for these non-compliant stablecoins.
  • There are hefty penalties on the foreign issuer and any DASP allowing trading

Prohibition onĀ tying of services:

  • A stablecoin issuer cannot require a user of one of its services to also use another paid service. Nor can it link the use of a service to blocking the use of a competitorā€™s offering.

Governance:

  • A stablecoin issuer with more than $50 billion issuance must get an audit. Smaller issuers might need an audit if SEC rules require it.
  • Marketing: Issuers donā€™t have a government backstop nor do they have federal insurance (FDIC or otherwise), so itā€™s unlawful to misrepresent their insurance status.
  • A person convicted of certain felonies cannot act as an officer of a stablecoin issuer. Relevant felonies include insider trading, embezzlement, cybercrime, money laundering, financing of terrorism, or financial fraud.

State ā€“ FederalĀ regulation boundaries: (only some highlights):

  • Previously bank subsidiary stablecoin issuers had to be federally regulated. Now they can be state regulated if under $10 billion.
  • The bankā€™s Federal regulator can sanction or stop a Federally regulated stablecoin issuer, but not a state regulated one.
  • In exigent circumstances, the Fed or Comptroller could already step in regarding a State regulated stablecoin, provided it gave five days notice. Thatā€™s reduced to two days

Bankruptcy:

  • The wording is substantially expanded with a target of starting to distribute reserves to stablecoin holders within 14 days of the relevant hearing.

Reciprocity:

  • The existing clause relating to reciprocal arrangements with foreign jurisdictions with similar laws has been expanded in two ways:

    • added details regarding ā€˜similarā€™ ā€“ reserve requirements, supervision, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism features, sanctions compliance standards, liquidity requirements, and risk management standards
    • added a two year deadline for the Treasury to implement the arrangements

Source

šŸ™ Support My Work šŸ™

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support:

šŸ’³ PayPal ā€“ Just scan the QR code šŸ“²
šŸ”— Crypto ā€“ Send contributions via Coinbase Wallet to: Dinarian.cb.id

Your generosity keeps this mission alive! NamastĆ© šŸ™āœØ #SupportIndependentMedia #Crypto

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals