> It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that agencies must treat like cases alike.
This is from the circuit judge and is a big part of the problem the SEC faces. The SEC has expanded its jurisdiction so far that it must discriminate between favoured and disfavored entities. From the perspective of the SEC, it’s necessary in the face of innovation and the risks of new players. However it also means their legal footing regarding crypto generally is quite weak, as seen both here and in the recent ripple case (court ruled that investment contracts about digital assets are securities, but the actual assets are not securities).
I feel like the ruling just says "futures cannot be less risky than assets" which is a weird call for a judicial review panel to make. Especially since it wasn't financial risk but fraud tracing risk.
I don't believe that is a call they can't make just that the ruling as I read it doesn't really justify it. Simply saying that Greyscale claims it and that was it.
They do say "both are impacted by changes" but that feels like an overly simplistic line to draw to attack an explicit consistent decision by the SEC.
[+] [-] playday|2 years ago|reply
This is from the circuit judge and is a big part of the problem the SEC faces. The SEC has expanded its jurisdiction so far that it must discriminate between favoured and disfavored entities. From the perspective of the SEC, it’s necessary in the face of innovation and the risks of new players. However it also means their legal footing regarding crypto generally is quite weak, as seen both here and in the recent ripple case (court ruled that investment contracts about digital assets are securities, but the actual assets are not securities).
[+] [-] koolba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Guvante|2 years ago|reply
I don't believe that is a call they can't make just that the ruling as I read it doesn't really justify it. Simply saying that Greyscale claims it and that was it.
They do say "both are impacted by changes" but that feels like an overly simplistic line to draw to attack an explicit consistent decision by the SEC.
[+] [-] Nevermark|2 years ago|reply
Futures have already been approved. In general futures are much more risky than long/short holdings because they are effectively highly leveraged.
Which would also be true if there is market manipulation. Any bumps in the original assets price get magnified in futures pricing.
So it is odd that the SEC approved futures but not the direct asset itself.
Unless anyone here knows of a good argument why the direct asset could carry more risk, manipulation or otherwise, than its futures?
[+] [-] archo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yieldcrv|2 years ago|reply
Canon event