| Hi Everyone,
It seems our new approach of having a panel of writers for the BMJ Newsletter is taking an interesting and unexpected turn.
I'm not sure how you readers are taking it, but I, for one, am really enjoying the way we've been bouncing ideas around and building on each other's thoughts.
That said, I wanted to add to the confusion of the state of U.S. crypto regulation.
As my colleagues have pointed out, the statements made by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission officials over the years make it seem like the agency wants to regulate many digital currencies as securities.
However, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has also staked its claim to these innovative assets, previously taking action against an unregistered bitcoin options trading platform. Later, the CFTC's ability to govern digital currencies was upheld by multiple rulings in federal court.
Further, there are another three government agencies vying for relevance in this exciting space. The IRS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network each have separate and often conflicting ways of viewing cryptocurrencies, according to their particular mandated areas of authority.
As my financial license comes from the European Union, where crypto regulation is generally much more straightforward, I'll refrain from digging into this too deeply.
My personal view is that it may be beneficial for things to not be clarified so quickly.
Firstly, the longer the debate plays out, the more people will understand the specific issues. Even if some regulators feel that things are clear enough with flagship cryptos, they haven't even scratched the surface of DeFi or NFTs.
Second, it seems that over time, more and more politicians are realizing the advantages of embracing blockchain technology, and when pen comes to paper, it will be advantageous to have as many legislative allies as we can get. | 
