本文最初发表于2022年5月25日的《Law360》杂志，经授权转载于此。
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is adding 20 positions to its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit. These positions are all enforcement-related.
None of the new staff will be charged with carrying out the SEC’s statutory duties to propose rules and interpret the law for industry participants.
The SEC proposed two new regulations recently, each of which would augment its powers while potentially stifling the burgeoning digital asset industry. While the SEC is pumping the brakes on growth and development of that industry, other government actors, including the Biden administration, Congress and the Newsom administration in California are taking a more balanced approach.
The cities of Miami, New York and now Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, are aggressively recruiting digital asset businesses, vying to add them to their local economies. The differences in philosophical outlook inherent in these divergent treatments of the very same businesses can be explained.
We begin with the SEC’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit, which has existed for five years, during which time it has initiated enforcement actions against more than 100 crypto asset offerings and platforms, obtaining more than $2 billion in settlements. The SEC trumpets this record as a success, and without question some of its cases served the public interest by shutting down frauds and scofflaws.
Aggressive SEC action was warranted during the 2017 initial coin offering craze, when token teams that had no business at all, nary a business plan in some cases, sought to raise quick bucks from an unsuspecting public. Fraud should always be prosecuted by some government agency and the SEC acted properly by moving quickly to shut down fraudulent offerings.
But bad facts create bad law, as subtleties that matter in harder cases are swept away or ignored. Fraud is relatively easy to spot and is rarely controversial. Registration violations, in contrast, require detailed analysis and are often controverted.
While the SEC has addressed registration as well as fraud in its enforcement actions, virtually all SEC enforcement actions are settled without admitting or denying the government’s allegations because of the cost and distraction of mounting a defense. SEC orders issued in connection with settlements are written by the SEC staff and do not have the same legal precedential value as court orders and opinions by federal judges.
The result has been a lack of clear guidance about how digital tokens can be sold lawfully. We can spot the plainly unlawful offerings easily enough. It’s much harder to navigate through the thicket toward a lawful result without nuanced SEC guidance pointing the way. We fear that adding enforcement lawyers to the SEC staff while understaffing the SEC’s advisory and interpretive function will only make things worse.
Most recently, on May 6, the SEC issued an order in connection with settlement of charges it brought against Nvidia Corp., one of the world’s largest producers of graphics processing units, or GPUs, from which the unit extracted a $5.5 million fine over alleged inadequate disclosures about the impact of crypto mining on its publicly filed financial results.
According to the order, during two consecutive quarters in 2018, the SEC alleged that the company failed to make clear that demand from crypto miners was responsible for a significant part of the increase in sales of its GPUs that were also used for gaming.
On the same day, the SEC announced fraud charges against MCC International Corp., which does business as Mining Capital Coin Corp., as well as its founders and related entities, in connection with allegedly unregistered offerings and fraudulent sales of investment plans called mining packages. This was also led by the unit.
In February, lending protocol BlockFi Inc. agreed to pay $50 million to settle with the SEC and $50 million more to settle state law charges. In the BlockFi matter, the SEC asserted that BlockFi was selling notes to the public without registration.
This claim did not surprise us, but it was notable because the SEC has previously relied almost exclusively upon investment contract analysis as its basis for jurisdiction. BlockFi shows that the SEC is prepared to assert that particular crypto assets might be securities even if they are not investment contracts.
Meanwhile, SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc. is expected to go to trial in November of this year. Ripple is closely watched for clues about the SEC’s changing positions in the new Biden administration and judicial rulings which, unlike SEC orders resulting from enforcement proceedings, have deep precedential value. The outcome of Ripple is certain to affect advice given to core development teams, traders, platforms and investors in this industry.
The SEC’s move to beef up enforcement comes on the heels of President Joe Biden’s executive order on ensuring responsible development of digital assets, which noted that 40 million Americans now invest in crypto assets. Crypto assets have been the fastest-growing asset class since they were first invented in 2010. Indeed, to demonstrate the point, virtually all major university endowments now own digital assets, as do most of the largest hedge funds.
Prominent skeptics like Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates LP and Ken Griffin of Citadel Securities LLC have publicly announced that they were wrong to doubt the bona fides of this new asset class. Fidelity Investments Inc., the largest retirement plan provider in the U.S., announced recently that later this year it will allow employers to offer 401(k) retirement funds allocated to bitcoin.
The federal executive order directed the Biden administration to study the industry carefully and to work with the industry in the course of developing a comprehensive federal approach to regulating crypto assets. The Financial Stability Oversight Council is given a central role in that process, as is the U.S. Department of Commerce, emphasizing a desire to help rather than hinder this new technology-driven industry. The SEC is mentioned of course, but is not directed to lead the federal initiative.
One might wonder, therefore, why the SEC is continuing along the same course as in the past. The SEC is an independent agency that need not take orders from the White House.
Still, the growing emphasis on regulation by enforcement rather than regulation by regulation is noted by many observers as being inconsistent with the executive order, as well as the SEC’s own traditions of careful study and consultation with stakeholders in the course of adopting rules and regulations to govern financial markets.
Including the 20 new positions, the SEC’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit will have a total of 50 staff employees and will seek to increase its focus on the growing crypto market, with particular focus on:
- 加密资产发行；
- 加密资产交易所；
- 加密资产借贷与质押产品；
- 去中心化金融（DeFi）平台；
- 非同质化代币，或称NFT；
- 稳定币。
前四类行为是美国证券交易委员会执法行动的常见目标。鉴于缺乏规范此类工具的立法（至少根据现代司法判例的解释），该委员会对NFTs的管辖权存在争议。
NFT行业自认为从事的是收藏品业务，而非证券业务。代表贝比·鲁斯棒球卡所有权的NFT属于实物资产，而非投资合约。
不提供盈利机会的稳定币不属于投资合同证券。然而，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）仍积极提出新颖的法律理论，以证明其扩大监管范围和权限的正当性。随着监管进程推进，SEC的创新手段将持续展现。 近期抛售 并探讨了Terra和Luna的后续崩盘。
其他国家在加密资产监管方面采取了更为克制的态度。例如，瑞士和巴哈马常被视为加密行业企业的理想注册地，因为这些地区的监管政策比美国证券交易委员会的执法行动更为清晰且更具包容性。迪拜正成为数字资产开发与试验的第三大选择，其重要性日益凸显。
许多在美国创立的加密货币企业因美国证券交易委员会（SEC）采取起诉方式监管而迁往海外。随着SEC通过新增人手加强执法力度，预计将有更多企业效仿此举。加密货币交易公司LVL的迈克·法萨内洛表示担忧，称SEC加强执法"将扼杀新兴市场的创新活力"。
但请务必明白，当美国证券交易委员会将加密资产与网络部门规模扩大一倍时，更多执法行动即将到来。至少有一位SEC委员对此持不同意见。
在SEC宣布将该部门规模扩大一倍后，SEC委员赫斯特·皮尔斯发推文称："SEC是拥有执法部门的监管机构，而非执法机构。为何我们在加密货币领域以执法为先导？"
皮尔斯即将迎来两位新委员，其中一位此前曾被借调至宾夕法尼亚州共和党参议员帕特·图米的工作团队。即将于本届任期结束后退休的图米在数字资产监管问题上持审慎温和立场。因此皮尔斯在证券交易委员会内部或将很快获得盟友。
国会可能采取的应对措施包括制定新法案。4月28日，一个两党议员小组 美国众议院 议员们提出了《2022年数字商品交易所法案》，该法案将延长... 商品期货交易委员会 该法案赋予商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）对通过数字商品交易所进行的加密货币活动实施监管的权力。该法案鼓励数字资产平台注册为受CFTC监管的交易所。
怀俄明州共和党参议员辛西娅·卢米斯宣布将提出《负责任金融创新法案》，该法案旨在"将数字资产全面纳入我国金融体系"，并详细规定了税收与支付领域的监管框架。尤为重要的是，卢米斯法案将对"数字资产"进行明确定义，这既能帮助行业设计合规金融工具，又能厘清各监管机构的管辖权限。
正如开篇所述，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）在扩充执法团队的同时，还提出了两项新规，这些规定将使交易其认定为证券的加密资产变得更加困难，甚至可能完全无法实现。
一项提案建议重新定义"交易所"一词，将其范围扩展至涵盖"通信协议系统"——这些系统可提供任何类型证券的交易服务，包括被正确或错误地视为投资合约证券的加密资产。
许多评论员基于多重理由提出异议，包括：
- 美国证券交易委员会未能评估其决定对加密货币行业的影响；
- 对数字资产市场提出的重新定义方案不可行；以及
- 缺乏修订“交换”等法定术语的权限，使其超出既定解释范围。
另一项提案将重新定义“交易商”一词，将其范围扩大至涵盖大多数自营交易公司及其他日内交易者。该提案认为这些主体具有交易商的特性，因此应像交易商那样受到监管。
批评人士指出，应由国会而非美国证券交易委员会（SEC）来确定哪些实体应被视为交易商进行监管——哪些则不应受此约束。由于SEC自身对数字资产的资本要求、托管及市场报价的解释存在争议，数字资产日内交易者根本无法满足SEC提出的重新定义标准。
尽管美国证券交易委员会（SEC）始终不遗余力地阻碍数字资产行业的发展，加州州长加文·纽瑟姆却另辟蹊径。他指出加州拥有全球第五大经济体，汇聚了全美乃至全球顶尖科技企业，并于5月4日签署行政命令，旨在推动负责任的创新、强化加州创新技术实力并保护消费者权益。
纽森援引总统行政令，在加州启动了一项监管举措，该举措将
加利福尼亚州的命令表明了与利益相关方开展对话的意愿，旨在推动并促进监管透明度。我们认为这是个有益的做法。
在地方层面，争夺数字资产团队的竞争异常激烈。迈阿密市长弗朗西斯·苏亚雷斯通过吸引金融家和科技精英从纽约大都会区和加州迁入，已为该市带来逾万亿美元的管理资产。
新当选的纽约市长埃里克·亚当斯承诺以加密资产形式领取薪酬，正亲自推动一项旨在留住并吸引企业入驻大苹果城的计划。在此过程中，他需应对倾向于在纽约州关闭比特币矿场的州议会，以及在数字资产企业牌照审批方面行动迟缓的金融服务部。
得克萨斯州也加入了这场行动。奥斯汀市以及最近的达拉斯市吸引了加密货币领域的人才，并建立了盈利的数字资产业务。最近，沃斯堡市成为全美首个为自身利益开采比特币的城市。
我们视各州及地方政府推出的多样化举措为经济发展中的有益实验。各州作为试验场，是联邦制体系的优势而非缺陷，通过这种机制，最优政策终将逐步形成。
联邦政府应以统一声音发声，而非众声喧哗。总统的行政命令要求采取协调一致的联邦政府应对措施，而不仅仅是加强执法行动。
面对美国证券交易委员会日益强化的干预，行业可能采取的应对措施或可从联邦机构权力的法律边界中寻找依据。在这场棋局中，双方都在棋盘上布阵谋略。美国证券交易委员会正利用国会拨款扩充团队，但行业同样不乏可调动的资源与人才。
展望未来，数字资产行业有望迎来蓬勃发展：国会通过《数字商品交易所法案》；金融稳定监督委员会与商务部在听取行业及公众等各方意见后，推动联邦监管框架的建立；数字资产产业将从美国本土友好城市（而非离岸地区）蓬勃发展；美国证券交易委员会将采取先监管后执法的模式。
