You'd think that as much as I write on the topic of Gary and the SEC, that I actually liked the intellectual dance involved.

In fact, I don't.

Gordon don't like all this government stuff, but he's found it quite necessary to be aware of.

Inasmuch (yeah, cool word, eh?) as I take a great interest in crypto, and I'm in the US of A, it would be a dangerous flavor of ignorance for me to rant unaware of government over-step.

The SEC just happens to be that agency that sees itself in play for a larger power grab than others. Don't worry, Pocahontas Warren and her Senate treasury pals, Yellin' Yellen and her actual treasury, The U.S. Energy Commission and their "Bitcoin's gonna blow up the galaxy in the matter of months and the only thing that can save us is a new carbon tax for crypto" philosophizin', are all fighting to be heard in a toss over their piece of the profiteering pie.

But, in this case, even though my voice is a small one, off in the wilderness heard mostly by antiquated zombie-apocalypse survivors of the resistance, perhaps it sends a ripple effect (not to be confused with XRP), that gets heard by the few good folks left in my government.

The SEC is largely seen and heard through the chair seat of Gensler, but Hester (which I am certain Gary secretly calls Hester the Pesterer, or good ole' pester-Hester... one of those two), Peirce is making her voice of dissent heard more often, as she sees the moves coming towards the crypto exchanges themselves.

I have to ask, considering the main market under their potential authority are the likes of Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, Binance.US and a handful of others, what exactly are they not following in regards to regulatory guides? It has been impossible to ignore, from my view, that Coinbase is already working hand-in-hand to buddy up, sucker up, to the SEC much like that hyper little dog in all of the cartoons that looks up to the big, bossy bulldog with the gangsta hat: "you like us, dontcha Gary? We're your pal, aint we, Genslah?"

We've seen Gemini and Coinbase both back off of their plans to offer staking and lending programs, making it clear that this is part of the multi-agency launch at placing crypto in the time-out corner to think about what it really wants to do when it returns to the game. There seems to be little concern over actually clarifying the lack of clarity. Here's how I break it all down: two main things, we self regulate and have been since 2013, and the fact that it is all highly regulated already.

First

Self-regulating has been our strength all this time. Outside of everyone's initiation into crypto where they got burned on one thing or another, pretty much everyone has to learn the ropes. Don't do pump and dump groups unless you're addicted to gambling and you refuse to get help... or unless you have very strong VPN and you are the whale running the group, in which case you aren't going to listen to my advice anyway, so you'll just help prove my point for me. Regulation is not going to change anything about the things that actually need changing. Pumpers gonna pump. Thieves gonna steal. They certainly aren't afraid the Biden or Gensler are going to catch them.

Anyone who has ventured off the grid seeking special offers from fringe exchanges in unknown corners of the cryptosphere has gotten burned at least once. The question is whether you were foolish enough to place a ton of cash there, like a LOT of us have been at least once, or whether you test the waters with a wide net to see who's playing honest and who wants to trap your funds indefinitely (to which I've also played a few rounds)?

My point about self-regulation is that despite our being a merry band of misfits, the crypto community tends to self-regulate. The fools get called out, as do the scams. The ignorant would continue to follow Bernie Madoff  to the ends of the earth, and thus so it goes for BSV and its cult and a handful of others.

If you suffer beaten-wife syndrome or Stockholm syndrome, and believe you can 'channngggeee them' or 'everyone else just doesn't understand CSW like I dewwwww" then I hate to break it to you, the SEC isn't going to help. You need professional help that isn't a part of the proposed regulatory framework.

If you are worried about a potential token investment or placing your funds on a particular exchange, you can leap into that company's Telegram group and either see that the vast majority of posts are about getting rug-pulled (a comment so relevant to crypto that we simply say "rugged"), or you can see a bunch of fearful people begging for an update on their withdrawal of funds for 3 weeks. If you do not wish to check these avenues when your sixth sense tells you to run, then no form of new regulatory layer is going to convince you to stay away either.

How many people who actually thought SNL would send Doge to $2 actually learned anything from it, I wonder? Listen to the real regulatory community who told you "buy the rumor, sell the news". I knew, a couple of others knew, that Elon too was fooling you. They all knew the real money was already in, the pump already happened, and next came the rug.

Is slapping new rules on somewhere like Gemini going to solve anything? You better believe a few bumps in the road are coming for stablecoins and NFTs. But, for the example of Gemini, I will enter my next point.

Secondly, THEY'RE ALREADY REGULATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This crap, this ongoing blahblahblah of regulatory clarity is enough to turn my stomach, and I'm going to harp on about it until it ticks you off as well. You might be in a country that is doing all of the right things with crypto rules, but the more power the world hands to the WEF, World Bank, BiS and IMF, the more likely we will see compliance as an international thing that supersedes sovereignty, and trust me that does not end well on the prophetic calendar.

Somewhere around the 2018 tax season, it was made crystal clear that the government in the U.S. had decided that cryptocurrencies, despite their numerous categories, were in fact commodities, and the main emphasis from there forward, was to bring people into proper tax code, so the message of clarity was that crypto, exchanges and the like were to be expected to follow the same rules as all other financial and investment operations, and people who bet on crypto would have to claim their earnings as capital gains. That sounded clear. But, what does it matter, and what does it mean, if every month is followed by "we need to take a closer look at" and "oh trust me, changes are coming" when all it does is bounce the market around in exactly the same way they claim to have this yearning desire to "protect us" from.

So, I use Gemini as an example.

Gemini is in the U.S.

It is a crypto exchange.

It is also a trust.

It is also a custodian.

In fact, it is the toughest category of financial institution to gain approval. It is a New York Trust Company.

They are required, daily, yearly, to comply with capital reserve requirements.

They are required to comply with cybersecurity requirements.

They are required to comply with banking compliance standards set forth by the New York State Department of Financial Services and the New York Banking Law.

They've been doing this since 2014.

What, exactly, do people need to better understand than what they will find by reading their website?

If 'clarity' really and truly means disclosure and nothing else, then most exchanges I see are already doing what is in the fine print: disclosing that crypto is risky and don't bet watcha can't afford to lose.

In reality, clarity means keeping you off balance and in fear of the power of the Federal government.

It's ironic that reality forces someone like myself, who does not see themselves as a nonconformist or anti-government solely based on the premise, to find themselves constantly on the attack of big government. What I want is truly just leadership where we don't have to always assume an ulterior motive. Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed outlier nonconformists like Neil Young, for example, fight with all their prolonged disestablishmentarianism (not to be confused with anti), to protect... the establishment. It's ironic.

I'm against corruption. That's all.

I am against government entities that want more power. "More" never got us more safety, only the misuse of the premise of safety, in order to give more away to them.

Hester Peirce has been vocal in dissent to Gensler's push for regulatory enforcement. She has brought it out in the light that he is pushing too hard, too fast, to regulate that which has not been afforded others the opportunity to weigh in. Safe harbor rules make more sense than regulating something that doesn't fit the TradFi mold. What's more, regulating future tech in this manner is just a means to force crypto to fit exactly where they wish, while we see the unquestionable rise of a digital dollar. Anyone who speaks on behalf of this as a good thing should be treated immediately as an enemy.

Peirce may not be our friend, but she certainly seems to have a more earnest desire to treat the crypto category fairly, if government truly needs to be more involved or not. It is calming to hear a voice of reason, and one could simply wish that it was coming from the chain, and not simply "a" seat. Since we know the future does not hold a version of this where we simply get less government involvement, the best we can hope for is more level-headed caution and optimism that is pro-prosperity and private markets.

For now, we will watch and wait another year, as the reports, proposals and lies come out weekly, knowing full well that one way or the other, we're going to fight for our rights, to crypto.

And on that note, a cautiously optimistic if solely based on the hopes of complete government ineptitude to get something done, Crypto Gordon Freeman, the free man, for now... out.