Gigi on Nostr: "the proposed rule, as drafted, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny," as "the ...

"the proposed rule, as drafted, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny," as "the proposed definition directly describes the publication of speech as a necessary and sufficient condition for the registration requirement. Merely “making available” a “communications protocol” can, by the SEC’s own admission, trigger an obligation to register. A communications protocol is commonly understood as a set of rules. “Making available” a set of rules is an awkward linguistic construction that must, at the very least, include publishing and speaking, which are core First Amendment activities."

quoting nevent1q…8jg5

Tornado Cash? Needed a banking license. Samourai Wallet? Needed a banking license. WhatsApp, Apple, X, probably all need licenses too.

Sounds retarded? Correct. That's why the SEC has proposed a rule to formalize licensing requirements for communication protocols.

In a speech at the annual U.S. Treasury Market Conference, Gensler announced to rule on proposed amendments to the Exchange Act by November, which expand the definition of the term "exchange" to mean "systems that bring together buyers and sellers of securities [...] (i.e. "communication protocols")."

Critics argue the rule may be weaponized to criminally indict software developers given the already hostile environment for crypto- and privacy devs.

If this rule passes, we are fucked beyond comprehension.

Full story:
https://www.therage.co/gensler-to-rule-on-licensing-requirements-for-communication-protocols-2/