Contrasting Views on Crypto Regulations: Cuban vs. Stark

Businessman Mark Cuban and former SEC official John Reed Stark recently had a Twitter exchange on how to tackle crypto regulation. Stark expressed caution about cryptocurrencies, while Cuban stressed the need for clear laws.

The two also share differing views about what caused investor losses after the well-publicized collapse of the FTX exchange.

Mark Cuban’s Argument for Clear Crypto Regulation

Mark Cuban asserts that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took the wrong path on crypto regulations. In contrast to Japan, he claimed, FTX clients suffered significant financial losses in the US. Cuban thinks US investors would be protected if the SEC implemented Japan’s explicit regulations.

As part of crypto regulations, Japan separates client and business funds and imposes clear wallet requirements.

In February, BeInCrypto reported that FTX Japan conducted a successful beta testing initiative that resumed user withdrawals. Meanwhile, Japan could soon introduce stricter AML laws as part of crypto regulations.

In this regard, Cuban emphasized, “The SEC is not infallible. It makes mistakes. In this case it chose the wrong course. It was arrogant in thinking that it’s framework covered every possible situation.”

“In Japan they were very loud in saying the obvious, that FTX wasn’t a crypto issue, it was a fraud issue,” he added.

Stark cited a Wall Street Journal article highlighting what Japanese legislation covers. He noted crypto exchanges are required to register with authorities. It includes following mandates like keeping customer funds separate from their own accounts and holding at least 95% of customers’ digital assets in cold wallets.

However, the former SEC official believes the US securities rules need greater protections than Japan’s. On the necessity for a new regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, he also disagrees with Cuban.

Stark underlined,

“I do not want to integrate crypto’s systemic risk into the US financial marketplace, especially not with US banks.”

Moreover, Stark argued that the SEC proposed changes to several regulations — namely, Rule 3b-16 of the Securities Exchange Act, Regulation ATS, and Regulation SCI, which would put more clarity for the players.

John Reed Stark’s Concerns About CBDC and Crypto Regulations

In a series of tweets, John Reed Stark, who now manages his consultancy business in Washington, DC, expressed doubt regarding central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and cryptocurrency.

Stark tags many virtual assets as unnecessary and risky financial ideas. He noted,

“What is so incredibly disturbing is that under the auspices of ‘innovation,’ some politicians will preach the gospel of crypto while not only completely, ignoring crypto’s dire externalities but also failing to understand that crypto is not innovative at all.”

Despite the recent failure of banks like SVB and Signature, Stark continued to support regulated businesses. Stark thinks that crypto companies don’t provide insurance, oversight from the government, consumer safeguards, or mandated cybersecurity standards, among other concerns.

Moreover, he added, “First off, just like crypto and stablecoins, you must begin by answering the question of what problem does a CBDC actually solve.”

Clashes of Points of View

Stark makes the case that conventional financial institutions, like banks, play a major role while defending the SEC from responsibility for recent crypto disasters. He argued, “But respectfully, blaming the SEC for dumpster fires like FTX/BlockFi/Celsius/Voyager/Terra/EARN (via Gemini) and other dire crypto-frauds seems a bit of a stretch.”

Several participants in the market have already accused the SEC of failing to protect the industry despite its enforcement actions. Cuban has asserted in the past that the SEC’s public position on cryptocurrencies frequently clashes with its proposed framework.

In this regard, Stark explains, “The SEC has saved millions, perhaps even billions, in investor crypto-losses.” Stark supports SEC action by taking the instances of SEC action on investor fraud on Telegram. He also notes the $100-million action against BlockFi and the act of stopping Coinbase from offering lending products.

He argued, “Is the SEC supposed to ignore securities violations merely because their perpetrators have masqueraded their products as “innovation” and technological transformation?”

Cuban claims that clarity of crypto regulations is essential for businesses to prosper.

On the other hand, Stark contends that the cryptocurrency business frequently challenges specific regulatory laws. Finding a balance between innovation and investor protection continues to be a difficult regulatory task at hand.