Here's a quick summary of our feedback on the Senate Banking Committee's draft market structure legislation. In two words: More CLARITY.

the below thread is vital feedback from @milesjennings and @a16zcrypto on the Senate's risky departure from regulatory framework established in the House's bipartisan CLARITY bill. In particular, there are two extremely hard-fought 'wins' in CLARITY without which I would not have endorsed it & which are essential if token markets are to have a healthy future, but which are lacking in the Senate approach: (1) CLARITY makes very clear that tokens can have intrinsic economic value flows etc. as long as these economic flows derive from their use within a decentralized/autonomous system--they can look a bit like securities, as long as their trust properties are unlike those of securities; in contrast, the Senate framework resorts to an antiquated and gray-area test around whether tokens are associated with 'rights' to determine the securities dividing line...this is completely different from current securities law and would place any value accrual mechanism that appears rights-like into serious jeopardy, creating more and more incentive and 'moral hazard' for 'valueless memecoins' as a pure regulatory arbitrage . . .CLARITY also makes this point clear not just for 'investment contract' analysis but for every other type of 'security' that a token could be regulated as ('notes' etc.), the Senate bill only deals with investment contracts. . . (2) the entire point of a *market structure* bill should be to do just that--improve *structure*, improve *capital formation* for the projects that are worthy of capitalizing... but if project insiders and VCs can dump with complete impunity without delivering a single one of their promises, market structure will get *worse*. . .this will be particularly bad if combined with point #1..taken together, we will have a market with strong incentives toward creating valueless tokens that are pumped-and-dumped fast, and high-quality tokens and projects will be *punished* with greater regulatory ambiguity & risk

the below thread is vital feedback from @milesjennings and @a16zcrypto on the Senate's risky departure from regulatory framework established in the House's bipartisan CLARITY bill. In particular, there are two extremely hard-fought 'wins' in CLARITY without which I would not have endorsed it & which are essential if token markets are to have a healthy future, but which are lacking in the Senate approach: (1) CLARITY makes very clear that tokens can be 'securities-like' (have intrinsic economic value flows etc.) as long as the economic flows derive from their use within a decentralized/autonomous system--in contrast, the Senate framework resorts to an antiquated and gray-area test around whether tokens are associated with 'rights' to determine the securities dividing line...this is completely different from current securities law and would place any value accrual mechanism that appears rights-like into serious jeopardy, creating more and more incentive and 'moral hazard' for 'valueless memecoins' as a pure regulatory arbitrage . . .CLARITY also makes this point clear not just for 'investment contract' analysis but for every other type of 'security' that a token could be regulated as ('notes' etc.), the Senate bill only deals with investment contracts. . . (2) the entire point of a *market structure* bill should be to do just that--improve *structure*, improve *capital formation* for the projects that are worthy of capitalizing... but if project insiders and VCs can dump with complete impunity without delivering a single one of their promises, market structure will get *worse*. . .this will be particularly bad if combined with point #1..taken together, we will have a market with strong incentives toward creating valueless tokens that are pumped-and-dumped fast, and high-quality tokens and projects will be *punished* with greater regulatory ambiguity & risk

1/ Progress on crypto policy continues! The White House just released an excellent report and the SEC launched “Project Crypto”. The next critical step is feedback on the Senate’s market structure legislation. We just submitted our recommendations👇

SEC Chair Atkins with an incredible statement today on the agency's approach to crypto markets—including about ending offshoring.

The White House released its report on digital assets. It’s excellent and marks a huge step forward for crypto in America. The report confirms our government’s support for delivering regulatory clarity and clearing a path for crypto innovation in this country. We’ve come a long way in a short time and I’m excited about what’s next—most importantly, the Senate building on the CLARITY market structure legislation that recently passed the House with broad bipartisan support.

Tokens should have revenue.

Alignment. Clarity. Tradeoffs. Dependencies. Who’s doing what? When? What does it cost? How will you measure it? 🤔 Simple questions when running a startup — but not easy to answer. Especially for founders, who face plenty of things they can’t control: markets, regulation, macro noise. What can you control? Execution. 💪 That’s where operating plans come in — they turn your big vision into a concrete, accountable roadmap. 🗺️ In this post, I share: - Four pillars of a good operating plan - Common mistakes to avoid - Practical budgeting tips (yes, including zero-based budgeting) - How to match your plan to your company’s current mode Creating a plan doesn’t have to mean drowning in paperwork or meetings. But you do need one. And you do need a handle on your runway. Happy planning! 😁

excellent post from @bewaterltd. compares the DATs (bitcoin access vehicles I call them) with the investment trust (closed end mutual fund) mania of the 1920s. many, many similarities.

Current net capital rules weren’t built for crypto. Broker-dealers need regulatory guidance designed for the future of tokenized markets. From staking rewards to trade settlement, we @a16zcrypto lay out principles for modernization that preserve capital markets protections. See blog post in 🧵