U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda voiced concern that the United States is lagging behind Indo-Pacific countries regarding crypto regulation.
During the AIMA APAC Annual Forum in Hong Kong on Wednesday, Uyeda said that while the United States continues to keep cryptocurrency rules quite unclear there are countries who made significant progress. Specific examples of leading countries cited by the SEC commissioner include Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia. He said:
“I believe there is much to learn from market regulators in the Indo-Pacific region on how to promote these values and objectives.”
A different approach
Uyeda pointed out that those countries’ regulatory approaches were forward-looking and balanced innovation with investor protection. Hong Kong, for instance, introduced a stablecoin licensing regime, while Singapore has committed $150 million to promote financial technology. Japan has issued guidelines for crypto exchange supervision, and lastly, Australia has a crypto regulatory sandbox. He said:
“My impression is that Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Australia, among others, have shown leadership in how to facilitate crypto and fintech capital formation and innovation while promoting investor protection. […] By comparison to the Indo-Pacific region, the SEC’s current regulatory approach to crypto and related technology is less advanced.”
Uyeda lamented the SEC’s unclear guidelines and lack of clarity as to which cryptocurrencies constitute securities. He expressed the belief that the regulator “could do much more in addressing the key gating question of whether a crypto asset is a security.” He highlighted the current state of affairs:
“Market participants have been forced to struggle with this analysis and decipher SEC views from various settled enforcement actions and litigation in the courts.”
The statements follow SEC Chairman Gary Gensler recently saying that it is unlikely that Bitcoin (BTC) or another cryptocurrency will become a widely used means of payment. Gensler also claimed that there is no need for further regulatory clarity beyond what is already in place.
