Ordinarily, a trade association might be expected to raise significant cross border issues as to international regulatory recommendations. In the case of crypto, the U.S. regulators are relatively hostile to the product, as compared to regulators in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the industry hopes that the recommendations of foreign regulators will spur the U.S. regulators into allowing some path forward.

The reason that investors lost faith in SVB is because there was a sudden realization that high interest rates meant that many banks may have material losses in their portfolios, not all of which losses were disclosed. This is not the first time that a jump in interest rates hurt banks. But acknowledging that as a major part of the problem would require the Senators to acknowledge that more regulation is not necessarily the solution to the problem.

As with the  brought by regulators in connection with the use by firms of WhatsApp and similar messaging services, it is difficult to justify the penalty amounts imposed. There is no evidence that the use of new communications technology was for any fraudulent purpose. So while enforcement actions were clearly appropriate, the fact that the SEC and the CFTC between them imposed more than $500 million in penalties in the instant cases (and $1.8 billion in the previous action) seems…

PayPal really looks to be doing stablecoins the right way: all the money either in cash or U.S. Governments, 100 percent USD backing, full convertibility, assets held in a U.S. regulated financial institution.

This kind of stablecoin should make it much harder for the U.S. regulators to continue their regulation of digital assets only through enforcement actions. Of course, stablecoins are an easier product to understand and regulate than cryptocurrencies, but it's a start.