United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner, Hester Peirce, delivered a speech before the Medici Conference earlier this month discussing many issues pertinent to ICOs. Mrs. Peirce indicated that the SEC is open to discussion of developing a regulatory sandbox for ICOs, however, expressed a number of concerns surrounding the legislative model. The commissioner also warned of the potentially stifling effect of applying “blanket” classifications to the emerging field of cryptocurrencies.
SEC Commissioner Welcomes Discussion of Regulatory Sandboxes
Commissioner Peirce opened her speech by stating that “Back in Washington, DC, there has been a lot of talk about regulatory sandboxes,” adding that “A number of forward-looking regulators, both here and abroad, have created regulatory sandboxes.”
Mrs. Peirce cites a number of examples of effective regulatory sandboxes, including the United Kingdom – where the Financial Conduct Authority governs a sandbox that “allows businesses to test innovative products, services, business models and delivery mechanisms in the real market, with real consumers,” and Singapore – where the Monetary Authority of Singapore uses regulatory sandbox apparatus to “encourage[e] more Fintech experimentation so that promising innovations can be tested in the market and have a chance for wider adoption, in Singapore and abroad.”
“The motivating notion behind a regulatory sandbox,” Mrs. Peirce asserts, “is that the regulator in a sense sits in the sandbox with the innovator. Not only is she right there to make sure that nobody gets hurt, but she has a front-row seat on the innovative process. She sits at the entrepreneur’s shoulder as he thinks through how to address structural and aesthetic weaknesses in his sandcastle.”
“Talk of sandboxes is welcome, and my fellow regulators’ sandboxes have already yielded great dividends,” Mrs. Peirce added.
Concerns Surrounding Regulatory Sandbox Approach
Despite expressing her openness to discussion surrounding regulatory sandboxes, the commissioner outlined a number of qualms held regarding the legislative model.
Mrs. Peirce states that “The regulator may insert itself inappropriately into the creative process,” stressing that “The regulator should be careful not to try to control the development of new technologies. Not only is it outside the regulator’s proper function, but such micromanagement can result in the regulator forcing new technology to fit existing—and familiar—regulatory frameworks regardless of whether those frameworks are appropriate.”
“The law deserves respect, but technological progress should not be bound by the limits of the regulator’s lawyerly imagination,” added Mrs. Peirce.
Commissioner Peirce also outlined concerns that regulatory sandboxes create “the temptation […] for regulators […] to substitute their own judgement for that of consumer and investors,” emphasizing that “Regulators do not need to take on the impossible task of deciding what products and services will win over consumers. The market is efficient at signaling which products and services people want in their lives and which they would rather do without.” […]