I wrote an oped in The FT.

My goal isn't to defend or to diminish memecoins.

It’s to point out the backward incentives of a regulatory regime in the US that lets only memecoins thrive — while companies & tokens with more productive uses face hurdles.

I wrote an oped in The FT.

My goal isn't to defend or to diminish memecoins.

It’s to point out the backward incentives of a regulatory regime in the US that lets only memecoins thrive — while companies & tokens with more productive uses face hurdles. https://www.ft.com/content/1ceaa1c6-47df-4430-950e-ffcbf1cc8f7b

Crypto/web3. Author of Read Write Own

readwriteown.com

"The answer isn’t less regulation — it’s better regulation. Specific solutions include adding well-tailored disclosures to provide regular investors with more information. Another solution is requiring long lock-up periods to prevent get-rich-quick schemes."

Thanks for fighting the good fight, Chris.

Background in VC and PE in B2B SaaS and at an innovation lab for a large sovereign wealth fund. Interested in web3 to disrupt incumbent monopolies.

I don't think they are just band aids. I see them as necessary starting points and broad compasses, builders working together with policy makers to help shape legislation for the better. Legislation is coming either way, so it's better that it's implemented in a way that encompasses the domain POV.

Do these feel like band aids? Are there any discussions about getting registered as decentralized by the SEC so that the third prong of Howey is not met? Or avoiding the first prong with exceptions for crypto awarded for participating in the network (assuming that participation was compensation/consideration itself)?