Here's how the CFTC could prevent the next FTX

CoinDesk2022-11-18 tarihinde yayınlandı2022-11-21 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission should be responsible for preventing companies like FTX from taking root in the future.

FTX declared bankruptcy this month with $900 million in assets against $9 billion in liabilities. Its founder and former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, is being questioned by police in the Bahamas, and many customers are unable to withdraw their deposits. Its holdings of Serum’s SRM, a token Bankman-Fried developed, dropped from a value of more than $2 billion to less than $100 million. Things got worse over the weekend after FTX was apparently hacked, leading to the loss of an additional several hundred million. Some commentators are already calling it cryptocurrency’s “Lehman moment,” referring to the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers that signaled we were in a financial crisis.

In the wake of this epic collapse, Congress should get its head out of the sand and pass the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act designating the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, to regulate the crypto industry. The agency, which regulates commodities and derivatives trading, has already taken on a role in regulating crypto, sharing duties with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Both agencies are on shaky ground, as no legislation designates either as an enforcement agency or defines whether crypto is a security or a derivative. Both have launched probes into FTX’s handling of customer accounts.

Federal crypto regulation is currently conducted through enforcement actions — lawsuits, fines and audits conducted after an event. But these actions are dependent on the agency’s ability to make a case. As a result, it isn’t always clear what rules are being enforced. Moreover, many actions resulting in crackdowns on crypto firms are legal for traditional firms under certain circumstances. Granting statutory authority to a sole regulator would give the industry clarity and stability. The CFTC is preferable because Chairman Rostin Behnam is perceived as friendlier to the industry than SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

Many of the activities that went on between FTX and Alameda Research that got the firms in trouble were either already illegal or highly regulated for firms dealing in conventional securities or derivatives, and the lack of clear rules in the United States encourages companies to set up shop in countries with little oversight, so risky practices had no consequences until the collapse. Some commentators have compared FTX’s balance sheet to the creative accounting that resulted in the collapse of Enron in 2001.

In particular, its practice of inventing tokens and then basing the value of its own holdings on the value of the small number it sold was similar to Enron’s mark-to-market accounting. FTX issued various tokens, including SRT and FTX Token (FTT), bought some from itself, then used that price to set their valuations. The stock of tokens was then listed as an asset on FTX’s balance sheets or deposited with sister company Alameda Research, an investment firm, to use as collateral.

About $14.4 billion of FTX’s $19.6 billion in assets before last week were represented by coins and tokens FTX created, while just $5.2 billion was in conventional assets. Customer liabilities totaled about $9 billion. Moreover, FTX lent around (at least) $10 billion of its depositors’ money to Alameda. It went under, nonetheless.

Officials such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen are already calling for greater regulation to prevent another FTX-style crash. Yellen said the collapse “shows the weakness of this entire sector.”

Agencies like the SEC and CFTC ensure compliance with regulations by requiring firms to report on their activities regularly, by investigating tips from whistleblowers, and, when all else fails, with enforcement actions that can involve fines, lawsuits or getting a judge to subpoena companies’ records. Since the Enron scandal, accounting firms also have compliance they need to conduct. Destroying documents is a federal crime. Most importantly, the agencies have rules on how securities and commodities can be marketed to the general public, with some being restricted to only firms, individuals with specific attainments like certified financial analysts, and “accredited investors” — people wealthy enough they’re regarded as knowing what they’re doing.

One of the consequences is that prospectuses must be clear on actual risks and expected returns, and ones that are too optimistic can indicate an attempt to defraud people. For instance, Alameda Research reportedly promised investors annual returns of 15% with no risk — an impossibility that would have alerted U.S. regulators when it was made in 2018.

CFTC Chairman Behnam has said that the SEC and CFTC are capable of working together to regulate crypto, but designating one regulator would help clear up confusion immediately and avoid jurisdictional conflicts or institutional “siloing” that could prevent the agencies from communicating with each other.

Quality, sensible reforms will be key to restoring confidence in crypto firms and preventing future problems from spiraling out of control.

İlgili Okumalar

Deep Insight: Decentralized Inference is Not Hype, but a Key Track for AI to Break Through Centralized Monopoly

Decentralized Reasoning: Beyond the Hype, a Key to Breaking AI's Centralized Monopoly A future scenario where a powerful AI model is banned by a major government illustrates the core value proposition of decentralized AI: resistance to censorship. The core bet of decentralized inference networks is mitigating this risk, with other benefits like cost being secondary. The path is extremely difficult, involving four key challenges: 1. **Running Massive Models:** Distributing a single model across a decentralized GPU swarm requires sophisticated techniques like pipeline and speculative decoding to overcome crippling network latency, aiming for usable speeds (e.g., 30-40 tokens/second). 2. **Proving Model Integrity:** Verifying that a node runs the correct model is critical. Solutions range from cryptographically secure but slow ZKML to faster, economically-secure methods like statistical fingerprints, deterministic re-execution, or live-weight proofs, each involving trade-offs between integrity, latency, and cost. 3. **Ensuring Prompt Privacy:** Simply sharding a model does not protect user inputs from nodes. Robust solutions currently require trusted hardware (TEEs) or advanced cryptography (FHE), which are not yet widely deployed in consumer swarms. 4. **Building a Real Market:** Identifying the ideal customer is tough. Beyond speculative AI agents, the viable market currently consists of startups embedding AI and projects needing batch processing (e.g., synthetic data generation), where decentralized aggregation can be an advantage over low-latency needs. The article analyzes several projects tackling these problems, such as Dolphin Network (live-weight proofs), Inference.net (statistical verification), Morpheus (TEE-based), and Darkbloom (Apple Secure Enclave). It provides a framework: decentralization is a "tax" for latency-sensitive applications (e.g., chat) but a potential supply-side advantage for throughput-oriented tasks (e.g., batch processing). The long-term vision is a closed data loop where decentralized inference generates valuable data (traces, preferences) to feed decentralized training networks, which in turn produce better open-weight models for the inference networks. A due diligence checklist advises focusing on projects that: are truly decentralized at specific layers; have a credible integrity method; offer real cost benefits; ensure genuine privacy; handle node reliability; have paying users; and are built by teams with deep AI expertise. The ultimate goal should be products that appeal beyond the crypto-native audience, using crypto mechanisms invisibly to deliver better cost, performance, or privacy.

Foresight News10 dk önce

Deep Insight: Decentralized Inference is Not Hype, but a Key Track for AI to Break Through Centralized Monopoly

Foresight News10 dk önce

The Final Piece of Franklin Templeton's Crypto Ambition

Franklin Templeton Completes Crypto Ambition with Acquisition of 250 Digital On June 22, Franklin Templeton announced the acquisition of 250 Digital and established Franklin Crypto, a new division focused on actively managed cryptocurrency strategies for institutional investors. The unit is led by Christopher Perkins and Seth Ginns. This acquisition marks a key piece in Franklin Templeton's multi-year crypto strategy, which began in 2018 with a digital assets team. The firm's crypto product suite now spans three layers: tokenized funds like the blockchain-based money market fund BENJI (~$831M AUM); a series of passive ETFs including Bitcoin (EZBC, ~$368M), Ethereum (EZET), XRP (XRPZ, ~$252M), Solana (SOEZ), and a multi-crypto index fund (EZPZ); and the newly added active management strategies from Franklin Crypto. The company has also expanded its crypto ecosystem through investments in projects like Ethena and Crossmint, and collaborations with blockchains such as Aptos and Sui. With approximately $18B in digital asset AUM and a total firm AUM of ~$1.78T, Franklin Templeton is positioning itself as a comprehensive crypto asset manager for pensions and sovereign wealth funds. In contrast, competitor Fidelity Investments has taken a different path, focusing early on building its own custody and trading infrastructure. Fidelity's Bitcoin ETF (FBTC) holds over $11B, significantly larger than Franklin Templeton's equivalent offering. Both giants' moves underscore the deepening trend of traditional finance entering the crypto space.

Foresight News34 dk önce

The Final Piece of Franklin Templeton's Crypto Ambition

Foresight News34 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片