As Atkins said in its presentation, “we want to adopt innovation”, which shows a clear and distinct change compared to the prior accent of the dry on application and punitive measures. The change of tone should be particularly important because it suggests a future where the regulatory framework does not focus on stifling development but encourages it.
Role of tokens in a changing regulatory landscape
While the dry advances with its evolutionary position on the cryptocurrency, new tokens offers are at the center of this quarter of work. In the past, such projects should have faced rigorous control as part of the previous approach of the SEC, many tokens being classified as titles. However, under the vision of Atkins, the classification of tokens is no longer so black and white.
Atkins said: “There are very few, in my mind, tokens that are titles, but it depends on what is in the packaging that surrounds it and how it is sold.” This is a notable gap compared to the position of the former president of the SEC, Gary Gensler, who looked greatly to classify the majority of cryptographic assets as titles under the Howey test.
This change is particularly relevant for new preverters in chips as $ Max (Maxi Doge), which uses a pricing model staged to encourage the first participants. With the new approach to the SEC, projects like these can benefit from greater regulatory clarity, which gives them the trust necessary to attract the first investors without the imminent fear of application measures.
A break in the past: welcome innovation in industry
For years, the regulation of the Cryptographic assets of the SEC was full of aggressive application measures intended for token issuers, in particular the case intended for Ripple Labs. Now that Ripple’s legal battles are over, Atkins has adopted a major break in the confrontation approach.
Instead, they will focus on the development of disclosure, exemptions and safe ports that are suitable for use, in particular with new offers such as initial parts (ICO) and air drops.
Atkins’ remarks reflect the idea that overview of an innovative industry like cryptocurrency can be counterproductive. It seems that the SEC wants to ensure that cryptographic companies can operate in the United States without obsolete regulation hampering their progress. This evolution towards clearer rules is likely to be welcomed by companies and cryptographic investors, who have long pleaded for coherent regulations in order to reduce the uncertainty and volatility of application measures.
