According to a report by Jinse Finance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will hold a roundtable on December 15 regarding cryptocurrency, financial monitoring, and privacy. Participants will include Zooko Wilcox, founder of the crypto privacy project Zcash, among others. CryptoSlate editor-in-chief Liam Wright analyzed that the SEC may use this meeting to assess how much regulatory weight it can give to crypto privacy projects during its own rulemaking process. If there is consensus that zero-knowledge proofs can meet compliance obligations, this flexibility could be incorporated into rules for digital asset broker-dealers, alternative trading systems, and custodians. However, if the meeting splits into two camps—“privacy is a right” versus “privacy facilitates crime”—the subsequent approach may maintain the existing surveillance-focused framework and potentially push privacy advocates toward litigation.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Analysis: The US SEC may evaluate the regulatory weight given to crypto privacy projects in its rulemaking process
According to a report by Jinse Finance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will hold a roundtable on December 15 regarding cryptocurrency, financial monitoring, and privacy. Participants will include Zooko Wilcox, founder of the crypto privacy project Zcash, among others. CryptoSlate editor-in-chief Liam Wright analyzed that the SEC may use this meeting to assess how much regulatory weight it can give to crypto privacy projects during its own rulemaking process. If there is consensus that zero-knowledge proofs can meet compliance obligations, this flexibility could be incorporated into rules for digital asset broker-dealers, alternative trading systems, and custodians. However, if the meeting splits into two camps—“privacy is a right” versus “privacy facilitates crime”—the subsequent approach may maintain the existing surveillance-focused framework and potentially push privacy advocates toward litigation.