|
|
|
|
|
|
by nativeit
428 days ago
|
|
|
If nothing else, I feel like this view is myopic. Capital markets are people and jobs. When crypto projects collapse, or rampant fraud, abuse, manipulation, and outright theft are allowed, that money is coming out of real peoples pockets, and that has real rippling effects that are not only objectively disruptive to the economy, but are also much more difficult to then predict, measure, and respond to which further amplifies their detrimental impacts. |
|
|
> Prosecutors shall prioritize cases that hold accountable individuals who (a) cause financial harm to digital asset investors and consumers; and/or (b) use digital assets in furtherance of other criminal conduct, such as fentanyl trafficking, terrorism, cartels, organized crime, and human trafficking and smuggling. Seeking accountability from individuals who perpetrate these types of wrongdoing deters future illegal activity, compensates victims, and promotes the public’s confidence in the digital asset markets and broader industry. On the other hand, criminal matters premised on regulatory violations resulting from diffuse decisions made at lower levels of digital asset companies often fail to advance the priorities of the Department.
I read this as switching from proactive enforcement (stop the act before it causes damage) to reactive regulation (punish the guilty after the act happens). Proactive regulation of public markets makes sense because the general public has an interest in well-functioning capital markets even if they are not direct participants (markets are essentially the capitalist replacement for central planning).