The regulations for handling securities are through a brokerage. This is a HUGE deal because handling crypto through a brokerage would basically neuter it.

Imagine trying to buy a pizza with Bitcoin, but you have to go into your Charles Schwab account and wait 3 days for the Bitcoin transaction to settle. In a brokerage system you would get the ownership stake aspect of crypto, but none of the transactional ones.

The settlement time on stocks is minutes. There is no requirement that brokerages are slow to settle. That is your brokerage choosing to be risk adverse.

The requirements are set by the SEC:

https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publ...

I'm going to repeat myself.

There is no requirement that brokerages are slow to settle.

There is a requirement - the one you linked - that a brokerage may not take MORE than three days.

It does not require them to take three days. A brokerage can settle as fast as it can.

> This is a HUGE deal because handling crypto through a brokerage would basically neuter it.

Nah, it's still an equity. People don't buy pizza with their Microsoft stock, but they still buy Microsoft stock.

Even crypto fanatics use Venmo.

The judge in the XRP case disagreed with you today.

> The court sided with the SEC when it came to “Ripple’s Institutional Sales of XRP to sophisticated individuals and entities,” saying they were securities transactions and constituted an investment of money. Ripple won when it came to “programmatic” sales, however, or sales made through trading algorithms, as well as other distributions.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/xrp-surges-after-judge-deliv...

Which stands to reason. Doing an ICO and promising to issue a token is a pretty clear securities transaction, but that doesn't mean that the token itself is a security.

This was the view of William Hinman of the SEC, in 2018: "the token – or coin or whatever the digital information packet is called – all by itself is not a security, just as the orange groves in Howey were not."

https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

>If you keep selling securities while not following the KYC

FWIW KYC "laws" are unconstitutional garbage. The government should not be able to force private companies to do the work of LEA.

And before you inevitably reply about how "it's good because it's stops XYZ"

1) It doesn't "stop" XYZ

2) I don't care, privacy and freedom are more important than catching a few more % down the long tail curve of bad guys.

> FWIW KYC "laws" are unconstitutional garbage.

Imagine, for a moment, that I'm a literalist. Which exact part of the constitution prohibits them?

> The government should not be able to force private companies to do the work of LEA.

Good thing they aren't tasked with the work of an LEA, they simply have an obligation to report what they know.

But even if they were, there's nothing that precludes the government from conscripting people for service to the state (The draft). Or from empowering third-parties with LEA-like powers (Bounty hunters, for example).

Are those also prohibited by the constitution? Which part of it?