<\/p>\n
The US Chamber of Commerce has filed an amicus brief questioning the US Securities and Exchange Commission\u2019s authority as the agency proceeds with its case against Binance.<\/p>\n
The Chamber posits the SEC\u2019s regulation-by-enforcement approach not only stifles innovation but also prompts market participants to relocate offshore to avoid uncertain regulatory conditions in the US.<\/p>\n
As a trade association, the Chamber aims to promote the adoption and use of digital assets and blockchain technology. Based in Washington DC, the organization serves as an advocate for public policy surrounding the asset class and the underlying technology that powers it.<\/p>\n
A crucial part of the Chamber\u2019s argument differentiates between what constitutes an \u201casset\u201d and an \u201cinvestment contract.\u201d It argues that tokens \u2014 which can represent a wide array of rights \u2014 are not themselves investment contracts.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As such, it argues that platforms trading these tokens shouldn\u2019t automatically be categorized as securities exchanges. This line of reasoning directly challenges one of the SEC\u2019s core allegations<\/a> against Binance, which centers on the platform\u2019s operation as an unregistered securities exchange due to its listing<\/a> of multiple digital assets.<\/p>\n The SEC<\/a> argues the assets traded on Binance<\/a> are securities under federal law, whereas Binance maintains they are commodities, putting them outside the SEC\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n Additionally, the Chamber\u2019s brief touches on constitutional issues, arguing that the SEC\u2019s unilateral, regulation-by-enforcement actions could be at odds with the separation of powers and due process principles.<\/p>\n According to the Chamber, such tactics may exceed the SEC\u2019s mandate and infringe on constitutional norms that underpin American governance.<\/p>\n \u201cThe SEC\u2019s decision nevertheless to consider most digital assets as securities raises grave separation of powers concerns under the Major Questions Doctrine<\/a> because the SEC is asserting jurisdiction over a major part of the economy that Congress did not intend for it to regulate,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n While the Chamber\u2019s filing holds no judicial weight, its influence and timing could prove pivotal as the exchange has faced increasing regulatory scrutiny, not only in the US but globally as well.<\/p>\n The arguments laid out in the brief also underscore a growing resentment from industry participants<\/a> that questions the SEC\u2019s regulatory scope and approach<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a separate case involving the SEC and Coinbase<\/a> in August, several similar briefs were submitted in defense of the exchange.\u00a0<\/p>\n Like Binance, those briefs argued that the SEC\u2019s<\/a> understanding of what constitutes an \u201cinvestment contract\u201d is both fundamentally misguided and at odds with existing legal precedent.\u00a0<\/p>\n They also further caution that a court decision siding with the regulatory body could have significant and broad ramifications for the cryptocurrency sector.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t miss the next big story \u2013 join our\u00a0free daily newsletter<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\nBinance allegations<\/h2>\n
\n