@StevenNerayoff
The SEC gave Ethereum a pass despite its control and leverage for a small group of disguised whales. You can’t tell me this isn’t financially motivated. How much kickback did they receive for such a criminal disservice to investors, the Commission, and Americans?
https://twitter.com/StevenNerayoff/status/1765330766391541766
Eleanor Terrett @EleanorTerrett
Mar 5 🚨NEW: I recently reached out to the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (@sipc) regarding @PrometheumInc and discovered another reason why #crypto so badly needs legislation to figure out what its regulatory status is.
When the @SECGov and @FINRA approved @PrometheumInc to become a special purpose broker-dealer of digital asset securities, Prometheum automatically became a member of SIPC, which means their customers would, in theory, be protected through SIPC if the firm fails. Most US-registered broker dealers must become members of SIPC under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA) of 1970.
The caveat: SIPC will NOT cover Prometheum’s so-called “digital asset securities” because they do not fall under SIPA’s definition of a security. SIPA says that in order to be considered a security, an asset must be registered with the SEC. No digital assets are currently registered with the SEC because there has not been legislation passed defining exactly what digital assets are.
When I asked if being a member but not actually being covered as a member is an issue, SIPC told me that they have no authority to prevent a registered broker-dealer from being a member of SIPC, but that they would have reservations if the firm is not complying with their advertising bylaws.
Their advertising bylaws say a firm should not advertise its membership if their interests are not included in the definition of the term “security.”
On its website, @PrometheumInc says it’s a member of SIPC, then goes on to say that digital asset securities may not be protected under SIPA.
So, they are members that are not really protected by SIPC, and even though the SEC and FINRA may consider “digital asset securities” to be securities, SIPC does not.
Confused?
Bottom line: Having a variety of government agencies with different views on the regulatory status of crypto could cause investor confusion and potentially be a problem.
PROMETHEUM
Chokepoint 2.0 was on and off ramps. 3.0 is custody
SAB 121 was a direct attack on custody. Not defining the Assets as either Securities or commodities creates an insurance nightmare for Trusts. Even if registered with the SEC the underlying holding assets are an issue. How do you insure your assets legally.
All those with finra backed with SIPC is pointless untill definition of the crypto assets is completed.
The current SIPC will cover the brokerage accounts only.
If the Promethuem does get the ethereum ETF in the trust I assumed that trust would become insured for the accounts they had linked to the custody assets not the underlying assets.
FINRA also has its own blockchain labs.
@PrometheumInc is a pawn or just trying to buddy up to the SEC as a money play.
Nevertheless they are not a #crypto native or even crypto friendly platform and the two brothers running Prometheum don’t exactly come across as trustworthy or knowledgeable.
– The foundation for a regulatory rug pull.
– Prometheum is an SEC plant to try and destroy the crypto/bitcoin industries.
– They are DC lawyers posing as a crypto exchange for the purpose of providing false testimony which they have already done.
– This is a con.
“No digital assets are currently registered with the SEC because there has not been legislation passed defining exactly what digital assets are.”
“The caveat: SIPC will NOT cover Prometheum’s so-called “digital asset securities” because they do not have any digital asset securities as no one uses their services”.
It would be misleading when clients familiar with SIPC knows it comes with I believe $500,000 in coverage.
Prometheum is an SEC plant to try and destroy the crypto/bitcoin industries. They are DC lawyers posing as a crypto exchange for the purpose of providing false testimony which they have already done. This is a con.