The latest crypto industry debate isn’t about how strict the rules should be—it’s about who gets to issue tokens.
According to Bitcoin News, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), opposing its proposed “Crypto Asset Regulation” rules. The dispute is concrete: the proposal would allow eligible issuers to use a startup exemption to raise up to $5 million over four years; a separate crypto fundraising exemption would allow them to raise $75 million over 12 months. The DFPI says this would weaken investor protections and limit state governments’ authority to review token offerings.
Put another way, the state isn’t upset that the federal government is stepping in. It’s worried about being reduced to a party that merely files paperwork after the fact.
My take: California is protecting its business interests, not its principles. Issuers will naturally choose the path with the lowest barriers. Whoever makes the exemptions a reality controls the gateway for projects. Once the rules take effect, which states attract businesses like on-chain private placements and compliant Web3 token issuance will determine how much they can collect in licensing fees.
Federal rules or state-by-state thresholds—which side are you on?
#币圈热点 #Web3 #CryptoMarketWatch
According to Bitcoin News, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), opposing its proposed “Crypto Asset Regulation” rules. The dispute is concrete: the proposal would allow eligible issuers to use a startup exemption to raise up to $5 million over four years; a separate crypto fundraising exemption would allow them to raise $75 million over 12 months. The DFPI says this would weaken investor protections and limit state governments’ authority to review token offerings.
Put another way, the state isn’t upset that the federal government is stepping in. It’s worried about being reduced to a party that merely files paperwork after the fact.
My take: California is protecting its business interests, not its principles. Issuers will naturally choose the path with the lowest barriers. Whoever makes the exemptions a reality controls the gateway for projects. Once the rules take effect, which states attract businesses like on-chain private placements and compliant Web3 token issuance will determine how much they can collect in licensing fees.
Federal rules or state-by-state thresholds—which side are you on?
#币圈热点 #Web3 #CryptoMarketWatch