The leading US financial regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has announced that it has settled charges against the British firm Blotics, the company behind its website for submitting bids. However, some key voices in the SEC are unhappy with what they see as the regulator’s lack of transparency.

The SEC announces that it has closed the charges against the British company Blotics

The SEC said Blotics “violated the anti-tender provisions of federal securities laws” and failed to disclose the fact that it received compensation “from digital securities issuers.”

The website exploded shortly after it launched in 2016 with ICOs going viral in 2017-2018. Its popularity declined after the ICO bubble burst. However, the SEC stated that after the SEC’s release, Coinschedule released “multiple filings” as US visitors made “a significant portion of their web traffic” in the period through August 2019 Securities “- and is therefore subject to US securities laws from the year 1933.

The regulator claims that the list of records and trust ratings that characterize the token’s trustworthiness and operational risk are factors that are not based on a “proprietary algorithm” as claimed.

SEC wrote:

“Actually, token issuers paid Coinschedule to profile their token offerings on Coinschedule.com, a fact that Coinschedule does not disclose to visitors.”

Rather than objecting the ruling, Blotics agreed to “terminate and not violate the anti-tender provisions of the federal securities laws” and “pay $ 43,000.”

But in a public joint statement, SEC Commissioners Hester Pierce and Elad Roisman (neither of whom were involved in the Coinschedule investigation) agreed, writing:

“We are disappointed that the commission’s settlement with Coinschedule does not explain what digital assets Coinschedule is promoting as securities, a failure that may have been due to our reluctance to provide further guidance on whether or not a token is being sold or not not of a security offer or which token a security is ”.

Making another attempt to prove what the SEC considers a security and what classification is a commodity, the commissioners found:

“Market participants lacked clarity about the application of securities laws to digital assets and their transactions, as evidenced by the requirement that each of us have clarity and consistent contact with committee staff for inaction and other facilitations.”

Pierce and Roisman add that there is a “loophole” in which “enforcement actions taken by the Commission, which have become the main source of guidance, are being sued and resolved”.

And two commissioners have stated that “piece by piece guidance” through enforcement action like agreement “is not the best way to go”. If progress is the regulator’s ultimate goal, she added, “We should at least be clear about which tokens we have identified as being sold in securities offerings.”

Join our Facebook group and Telegram group Coincu News to chat with more than 10,000 other people and exchange information about the crypto currency market.

Important NOTE: All content on the website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Your money, the choice is yours.