SEC and CFTC to Regulate Crypto and Crypto-Related Activities

I. INTRODUCTION

The rise of cryptocurrencies and digital belongings¹ within the monetary markets, together with the funding administration trade, has given rise to an important query: which federal regulator – the Securities and Alternate Fee (SEC) or the Commodities and Futures Buying and selling Fee (CFTC) will likely be primarily accountable to manage the usage of crypto and crypto-related actions? SEC Chair Gary Gensler has said that “[crypto] merchandise are topic to the securities legal guidelines and should work inside our securities regime,”² whereas then CFTC Commissioner Quintenz expressed that “the SEC has no authority over pure commodities or their buying and selling venues, whether or not these commodities are wheat, gold, oil…or crypto belongings.”³ On this article, we offer a high-level overview of the SEC’s and CFTC’s present jurisdiction over and remedy of crypto, and talk about current enforcement actions involving crypto and the potential significance thereof to different market members.

1. SEC Jurisdiction

The SEC has the authority to manipulate “securities”⁴, which has been outlined to incorporate, amongst different issues “funding contracts.” Notably, “foreign money” is just not a safety. To the extent {that a} type of a digital asset is decided to be a observe, funding contract or different kind of safety, it could be topic to SEC oversight and relevant securities legal guidelines.

Whether or not a digital asset is taken into account an funding contract relies on the take a look at outlined by the U.S. Supreme Courtroom in SEC v. W.J. Howey.⁵ On this case, the Supreme Courtroom discovered that an “funding contract” exists the place (i) there’s the funding of cash; (ii) in a typical enterprise; (iii) with an affordable expectation of earnings to be derived; (iv) from the efforts of others. The Courtroom emphasised that the willpower of whether or not an funding contract exists lies within the circumstances surrounding the contract and the style by which it’s provided, offered, or resold.

The Howey take a look at was emphasised by then Chair Clayton in his February 2018 speech earlier than the Senate Banking Committee on digital belongings.⁶ Later that yr, then Director of the SEC’s Division of Company Finance William Hinman utilized the Howey⁷ take a look at to crypto. Just like the Courtroom, he emphasised that for digital belongings particularly, the SEC seems to be to the nature of the transaction somewhat than the merchandise being offered – and whether or not the Howey components are current – to find out whether or not there’s an funding contract. He famous that digital belongings which might be offered “as a part of an funding; to non-users; by promoters to develop the enterprise – may be, and, in that context, most frequently is, a safety – as a result of it evidences an funding contract.”⁸ He additional famous that networks on which a coin is sufficiently decentralized, that’s the place the purchasers not fairly anticipate an individual to hold out important managerial efforts, don’t characterize funding contracts.

You will need to observe that the SEC’s views on its potential to manage crypto haven’t modified lately. SEC Chair Gensler continues to induce legislators to grant the SEC extra scope to supervise crypto in an effort to boost investor safety. He has additionally said, ““It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s a inventory token, a secure worth token backed by securities, or another digital product that gives artificial publicity to underlying securities. These merchandise are topic to the securities legal guidelines and should work inside our securities regime…”⁹

2. CFTC Jurisdiction

In distinction to the SEC, the CFTC has full regulatory authority over derivatives transactions (together with swaps, futures, and choices), and extra restricted authority to manage fraud and manipulation in commodities markets. The CFTC made its first official assertion on its jurisdiction over digital belongings in 2015. Later, in 2016, the CFTC cemented its place in an enforcement motion stating that, “bitcoin and different digital currencies are encompassed within the definition [of commodity] and correctly outlined as commodities, and are topic as a commodity to the relevant provisions of the [Commodity Exchange] Act and [CFTC] Rules.¹⁰ Then Chair Heath Tarbert expanded upon this definition in October of 2019 stating that, “it’s my view as Chairman of the CFTC that Ether is a commodity.”¹¹ Moreover, in a current case within the Southern District of New York, the courtroom discovered that “Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoin, and Tether tokens, together with different digital belongings, are encompassed inside the broad definition of “commodity” beneath Part 1a(9) of the [Commodity Exchange] Act.”¹²

Because of this, it’s broadly accepted that established and broadly decentralized digital currencies, like Bitcoin and Ether, are “commodities” and never currencies. Efforts to categorize these cryptocurrencies or others as “currencies” typically won’t stand up to regulatory scrutiny as a result of they’re items exchanged in a marketplace for uniform high quality and worth and thus fall each inside the frequent definition of commodity and the Commodity Alternate Act’s (CEA) definition of commodity.¹³ You will need to observe that the “jurisdictional authority of CFTC to manage digital currencies as commodities doesn’t preclude different companies from exercising their regulatory energy when digital currencies operate otherwise than by-product commodities.”¹⁴

Though the CFTC has decided that digital currencies are commodities, the CFTC’s jurisdiction over digital foreign money markets is restricted to policing fraudulent and manipulative actions in interstate commerce. Past any such enforcement authority, the CFTC doesn’t typically oversee digital foreign money transactions or exchanges that don’t contain margin, leverage, or financing, and can’t, for instance, require a spot crypto alternate to register with the CFTC. Because of the above, the CFTC is claimed to have “enforcement jurisdiction” over cryptocurrency and digital belongings, however not “registration jurisdiction.” A spot cryptocurrency product is usually a product that ends in precise supply of the cryptocurrency inside a specific market’s spot supply interval. An instance of a U.S.-based spot market is Coinbase.

Regardless of the CFTC’s lack of registration jurisdiction over spot markets, to the extent {that a} cryptocurrency product in a spot market supplies for margin or leverage and is obtainable to retail prospects, the product would typically be thought of a futures contract topic to CFTC jurisdiction.¹⁵ Particularly, to the extent that spot buying and selling supplies for margin and is obtainable to retail U.S. individuals, it falls beneath the CFTC’s broader and extra onerous registration jurisdiction.¹⁶

Moreover, there’s additional heightened regulatory scrutiny as regards to margined or leveraged merchandise. Just lately, CFTC appearing Director of Enforcement Vincent McGonagle said, “Within the digital asset area, we’ve introduced a number of actions in opposition to entities the place they’re providing digital belongings, Bitcoin or others on a margin or finance foundation…and people merchandise needs to be on an alternate.”¹⁷

CFTC Chair Rostin Behnam not too long ago said that, “I stay up for working with this [Senate Agriculture] Committee to reexamine – and, if acceptable, increase – the CFTC’s authority to make sure each the advantages and promise of the rising digital asset market and the underlying know-how may be harnessed with out undue hurt to prospects and monetary market stability.”¹⁸ Chair Behnam additionally said in the course of the affirmation listening to that the current enforcement actions had been the “tip of the iceberg.” This implies there are a number of different enforcement instances within the CFTC’s docket, which can develop into public upon the submitting of such enforcement instances.

II. SEC AND CFTC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

1. SEC

i. Ripple Labs, Inc.

In 2020, the SEC initiated an enforcement motion in opposition to Ripple Labs Inc. (Ripple), alleging that the sale of Ripple’s digital token (XRP), value a notional quantity of roughly US$1.3 billion, was an unregistered securities providing.¹⁹ The SEC alleged that Ripple distributed billions of {dollars}’ value of XRP as worker compensation in lieu of money in an effort to finance its enterprise. Ripple supplies block chain-based networks that facilitate low-cost funds between monetary establishments. XRP is a digital asset that’s used to characterize the switch of worth throughout networks.

Particularly, the SEC claims that XRP is a safety whose supply and sale may be made solely pursuant to a statutory prospectus and an efficient registration assertion, and that as a result of Ripple didn’t file a registration assertion its buyers have a rescission proper. The SEC alleged that XRP met the Howey take a look at by claiming that “the principal motive for anybody to purchase XRP was to take a position on it as an funding,” that Ripple mirrored a typical enterprise, and that buyers fairly anticipated to revenue from these efforts. It additionally claims that, as a result of Ripple didn’t present a registration assertion, it made materials misstatements and omissions of knowledge that’s required of securities issuers when soliciting public funding. Whereas the case remains to be ongoing, in January 2022, the choose presiding over the case did grant Ripple’s request for privileged SEC paperwork, which mirror the SEC’s willpower on its classification of XRP as a safety.

The ultimate end result of the Ripple case, whether or not it is going to end in XRP’s classification as a safety or not, can have vital implications for the SEC’s jurisdiction over digital belongings. Together with the BlockFi motion, beneath, the Ripple willpower (when ultimate) is predicted to supply much-needed readability to crypto market members on when a digital asset could be thought of a “safety” and topic to far more onerous regulation by the SEC. We observe, nonetheless, that the Ripple case is presently on the trial courtroom stage, and any choice by the courtroom might be appealed and overturned, so it could be a while earlier than we’ve got a conclusive willpower on XRP’s standing.

ii. BlockFi Lending LLC

In February 2022, the SEC charged BlockFi Lending LLC (BlockFi) for failing to register the provides and gross sales of BlockFi Curiosity Accounts (BIAs), beneath the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act).²⁰ As well as, the SEC said that BlockFi met the definition of “funding firm” set forth in Part 3(a)(1)(C) of the Funding Firm Act of 1940 (1940 Act), for a minimum of a time period, however did not register with the SEC because it was required to do, as a result of it issued securities and purchased securities. The failure of an funding firm to register with the SEC (absent an exemption or exclusion) has severe penalties, together with that every one of its contracts are unenforceable.

First, the SEC decided that BIAs had been offered as securities (decided in accordance with the Howey take a look at) as a result of (i) BlockFi promised BIA buyers a variable rate of interest, which was decided by BlockFi on a periodic foundation, in alternate for crypto belongings loaned by the buyers, who might demand that BlockFi return their loaned belongings at any time, (ii) buyers within the BIAs had an affordable expectation of acquiring a future revenue from BlockFi’s efforts in managing the BIAs primarily based on BlockFi’s statements about how it could generate the yield to pay BIA buyers curiosity, and (iii) buyers additionally had an affordable expectation that BlockFi would use the invested crypto belongings in BlockFi’s lending and principal investing exercise, and that buyers would share earnings within the type of curiosity funds ensuing from BlockFi’s efforts. Because of this, the SEC discovered BIAs to represent funding contracts beneath the Securities Act. By providing and promoting the BIAs to most of the people to acquire crypto belongings for the final use of its enterprise and promote the BIAs as an funding, the SEC decided that BlockFi provided and offered securities, thereby appearing as an issuer, with out submitting a registration assertion or qualifying for an exemption from the registration necessities, in violation of the 1940 Act.

Moreover, the SEC discovered that, for a interval of just about two years, BlockFi’s actions and holdings deemed it to be an “funding firm” beneath Part 3(a)(1)(C) of the 1940 Act. This part typically defines an “funding firm” as being any issuer that’s engaged or proposes to have interaction within the enterprise of investing, reinvesting, proudly owning, holding, or buying and selling in securities, and owns or proposes to accumulate “funding securities” (as outlined in Part 3(a)(2) of the 1940 Act) having a worth of over 40% of the worth of the issuer’s whole belongings on an unconsolidated foundation. Within the SEC’s view, the truth that BlockFi lent crypto belongings to institutional and company debtors, lent U.S. {dollars} to retail buyers, and obtained worth by providing and promoting BIAs into equities and futures, along with its substantial holdings of funding securities (representing greater than 40% of the worth of BlockFi’s whole belongings on an unconsolidated foundation) brought about BlockFi to be an unregistered funding firm. Because of this, the SEC alleged that BlockFi violated Part 7(a) of the 1940 Act by partaking in interstate commerce whereas failing to register as an funding firm with the Fee.

BlockFi agreed to pay a US$50 million penalty to settle the SEC costs and ceased its unregistered provides and gross sales of BIAs. BlockFi additional agreed to aim to carry its enterprise inside the provisions of the 1940 Act inside 60 days. BlockFi’s father or mother firm not too long ago introduced that it intends to register beneath the Securities Act of 1933 the supply and sale of a brand new lending product.²¹

Though Blockfi is the primary case of its form introduced by the SEC with respect to a crypto lending platform, it could be a harbinger of issues to come back, significantly because the SEC has expressed eagerness to manage the crypto market and not too long ago virtually doubled the scale of the Division of Enforcement’s Crypto Property and Cyber Unit.

On 7 September 2021, Coinbase Chief Govt Officer (CEO) Brian Armstrong introduced that the corporate is beneath investigation by the SEC as a result of its cryptocurrency lending observe. Mr. Armstrong famous, that, “They [SEC] refuse to inform us why they assume it’s a safety, and as a substitute subpoena a bunch of data from us (we comply), demand testimony from our workers (we comply), after which inform us they are going to be suing us if we proceed to launch, with zero clarification as to why.” This additional demonstrates the purpose that the cryptocurrency and digital asset markets are beneath intense scrutiny from regulators.²²

Additional, comparable investigations and enforcement actions are recognized to be pending in opposition to Celsius Community LLC, Gemini Belief, and Voyager Digital with respect to comparable curiosity bearing account choices.²³ Because the SEC continues to implement its jurisdiction over the digital asset market, we are going to proceed to maintain you apprised of noteworthy enforcement and regulatory actions.

2. CFTC

The CFTC has initiated plenty of enforcement actions associated to crypto and has significantly been centered on exchanges that supply crypto derivatives to U.S. individuals and are usually not registered with the CFTC. As an example, in October 2020, the CFTC charged HDR International Buying and selling Restricted, 100x Holding Restricted, ABS International Buying and selling Restricted, Shine Effort Inc. Restricted, and HDR International Companies (Bermuda) Restricted’s (BitMEX) house owners with illegally working a cryptocurrency derivatives buying and selling platform and with anti-money laundering (AML) violations as a result of offering U.S. individuals with crypto derivatives. A number of house owners of BitMEX additionally had been charged with associated felony offenses. BitMEX changed its management workforce after the fees had been introduced, and its new CEO has not too long ago said that BitMEX plans to supply spot buying and selling, brokerage, and custody providers. On 11 August 2021, the CFTC introduced a consent order within the BitMEX case. Beneath the consent order, BitMEX paid a US$100 million civil financial penalty (US$50 million to CFTC and US$50 million to the Monetary Crimes Enforcement Community) and agreed to cease providing futures or different associated crypto commodity contracts in america till it secures acceptable licensure from the CFTC. BitMEX additionally agreed to ascertain enough “know your buyer” and AML procedures.²⁴

Equally, the CFTC had beforehand introduced motion in opposition to Laino Group Restricted (PaxForex), a global firm registered in Saint Vincent and Grenadines, which operated PaxForex and alleged that its info know-how infrastructure had been deployed to knowledge facilities in New York and London.²⁵ In June 2021, the Southern District of Texas entered an order of ultimate judgment in opposition to PaxForex for violating CEA provisions concerning retail buyers and for providing unregistered leveraged transactions in cryptocurrencies.²⁶ Particularly, the order notes that the web site format solicited U.S. prospects by offering prospects with a drop down menu with an possibility of choosing america because the buyer’s nation of residence.²⁷ The PaxForex web site now states that the knowledge on its web site is just not meant to be addressed to U.S. residents.

Moreover, on 18 September 2021, the CFTC settled costs in opposition to Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken (Kraken) for illegally providing margined retail commodity transactions (that are presumptively handled as futures contracts until sure mitigating components exist) in digital belongings, together with Bitcoin, and for failing to register as a futures fee service provider (FCM). Particularly, the CFTC alleged that Kraken provided margined digital belongings to U.S. prospects who weren’t eligible contract members, on an alternate that was not registered as a derivatives contract market with the CFTC. In this system, Kraken provided digital belongings to prospects once they bought the belongings utilizing margin. Kraken then required the shoppers to exit their positions and repay the belongings acquired to commerce on margin inside 28 days. Prospects couldn’t switch belongings away from Kraken till they happy their reimbursement obligation, and Kraken might pressure liquidation if reimbursement was not made inside 28 days. Because of this, the CFTC ordered that Kraken pay a US$1.25 million civil financial penalty and stop and desist from additional CEA violations.²⁸

As well as, on 15 October 2021, the CFTC issued an order in opposition to iFinex Inc., BFXNA Inc., and BFXWW Inc. (d/b/a Bitfinex) for violations of Sections 4(a) and 4(d) of the CEA. Particularly, the CFTC alleges that Bitfinex provided spot and leveraged, margined, or financed buying and selling in Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether to U.S. prospects. The CFTC additional alleges that the respondents transacted in retail commodity transactions with out registering as an FCM. Maybe most importantly, the CFTC introduced that the Tether stablecoin is a “commodity,” reaffirming that it has enforcement jurisdiction over any such cryptocurrency. The CFTC ordered that Bitfinex pay a US$1.5 million civil financial penalty and required Bitfinex to implement additional techniques to stop illegal retail commodity transactions.²⁹

The CFTC has additionally initiated enforcement actions associated to tokens. On 15 October 2021, the CFTC settled costs in opposition to Tether Restricted, Tether Operations Restricted, and Tether Worldwide Restricted (d/b/a Tether) for violating Part 6(c)(1) of the CEA by making misrepresentations to prospects concerning its U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin Tether. Particularly, the CFTC alleged that Tether made misrepresentations to U.S. prospects that Tether maintained enough fiat reserves to again each one among its stablecoins in circulation “one-to-one” with the “equal quantity of corresponding fiat foreign money” held in reserves by Tether, and that Tether would endure routine, skilled audits to reveal that it maintained “100% reserves always.” The CFTC alleges that in fact, Tether failed to keep up fiat foreign money reserves in accounts in Tether’s personal identify or in an account titled and held “in belief” for Tether to again each U.S. greenback tether token in circulation. The CFTC has ordered that Tether pay a US$41 million tremendous.³⁰

Lastly, in February 2021 Coinbase reported that it was beneath investigation by the CFTC for alleged reckless false, deceptive, or inaccurate reporting in addition to wash buying and selling by a former worker. On 19 March 2021, Coinbase agreed to a settlement order with the CFTC by which Coinbase didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing and agreed to pay US$6.5 million.

The chart beneath summarizes sure CFTC enforcement actions.

III. CONCLUSION

In contrast to the earliest days of Bitcoin buying and selling, cryptocurrencies and digital belongings have now caught the attention of federal regulators and are topic to a a lot higher stage of regulatory scrutiny. Each the CFTC and SEC are asserting their jurisdiction on this area, and in lots of instances, further readability is required to grasp whether or not a digital asset needs to be thought of a commodity (topic to the CFTC’s enforcement authority), or a safety (topic to the SEC’s jurisdiction). As well as, even with this readability, a associated query persists on whether or not the SEC and CFTC collectively have enough regulatory authority in an effort to correctly regulate crypto markets, or if congressional motion is required. As crypto regulation evolves, market members can have a lot higher certainty, and in all probability a brand new regulatory regime involving each the SEC and CFTC. Because the SEC and CFTC proceed to implement their jurisdiction over the digital asset market, we are going to proceed to maintain you apprised of all noteworthy enforcement actions and regulatory updates.

FOOTNOTES

¹ On this piece, we use the phrases cryptocurrencies, digital belongings, and crypto belongings interchangeably.

² U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n Chair Gary Gensler, Remarks Earlier than the Aspen Safety Kind (Aug. 3, 2021), accessible at https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/gensler-aspen-security-forum-2021-08-03.

³ @CFTCquintenz, Twitter (Aug. 4, 2021, 9:30 AM), https://twitter.com/cftcquintenz/status/1422912721637580803?lang=en.

⁴ The time period “safety” is outlined in Part 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, Part 3(a)(10) of the Securities Alternate Act of 1934, Part 2(a)(36) of the Funding Firm Act of 1940, and Part 202(a)(18) of the Funding Advisers Act of 1940.

⁵ See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

⁶ See U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n Chair Jay Clayton, Chairman’s Testimony on Digital Currencies: The Roles of the SEC and CFTC (Feb. 6, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/testimony-virtual-currencies-oversight-role-us-securities-and-exchange-commission.

⁷ SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946). The Howey Check refers back to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom case for figuring out whether or not a transaction qualifies as an “funding contract,” and due to this fact could be thought of a safety. An “funding contract” is a transaction with the next properties: (i) an funding of cash, (ii) with the expectation of earnings, (iii) in a so-called “frequent enterprise” (i.e., buyers and the enterprise succeed or fail collectively), and (iv) the expectation of earnings relies upon the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others.

⁸ See U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Director, Division of Company Finance William Hinman, Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic) (June 14, 2018), https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418.

⁹ See U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, Chair Gary Gensler Letter to Sen. Warren (Aug. 5, 2021), https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/gensler_response_to_warren_-_cryptocurrency_exchanges.pdf.

¹⁰ In re BFXNA INC. d/b/a BITFINEX, CFTC Docket No. 16-19 (June 2, 2016).

¹¹ Daniel Roberts, CFTC says cryptocurrency ether is a commodity, and ether futures are subsequent, Yahoo!Finance (Oct. 10, 2019), https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cftc-says-cryptocurrency-ether-is-a-commodity-and-is-open-to-ether-derivatives-133455545.html.

¹² Order, In Re Ifinex Inc., CFTC Docket No. 22-05 (Oct. 15, 2021) at n.2, https://www.cftc.gov/media/6651/enfbfxnaincorder101521.

¹³ Id.

¹⁴ Id.

¹⁵ “The Fee has lengthy held that sure speculative commodity transactions involving leverage or margin are futures contracts topic to Fee oversight…”See Interpretive Steerage and Coverage Assertion Concerning Retail Commodity Transactions Involving Sure Digital Property, 85 Fed. Reg. 37,734 (June 24, 2020).

¹⁶ CEA part 2(c)(2)(D)(i) captures “any retail transaction entered into, or provided on a leveraged or margined foundation, or financed by the offeror, the counterparty, or an individual appearing in live performance with the offeror or counterparty on an identical foundation.” See Interpretive Steerage and Coverage Assertion Concerning Retail Commodity Transactions Involving Sure Digital Property, 85 Fed. Reg. 37,734 (June 24, 2020). To the extent there’s precise supply of the digital asset inside 28 days of the contract initiation, the product could possibly be provided to retail prospects off-exchange. Nevertheless, the CFTC’s steerage is tough to navigate by design, that means, within the CFTC’s view retail digital asset transactions with leverage ought to happen on a CFTC-registered alternate. This precept is usually deployed via enforcement investigations and actions, as mentioned beneath.

¹⁷ See Stewart Bishop, High Enforcement Officers Eye Particular person Prosecutions, LAW360 (Oct. 27, 2021), https://www.law360.com/fintech/articles/1435304/top-enforcement-official….

¹⁸ See Assertion of Rostin Behnam, Affirmation Listening to, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Vitamin, and Forestry (Oct. 27, 2021) at 2, https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/RBehnam_SenateAg_Confirmation_OpeningStatement_10-27-21_Final3.pdf. 

¹⁹ Criticism, Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20 Civ. 10832 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 22, 2020), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2020/comp-pr2020-338.pdf.

²⁰ Order Instituting Stop-and-Desist Proceedings, In Re BlockFi Lending LLC, Securities Act Launch No. 11029 (Feb. 14, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11029.pdf.

²¹ In parallel actions, BlockFi agreed to pay an extra US$50 million in fines to 32 states to settle comparable costs. See Order Instituting Stop-and-Desist Proceedings, In Re BlockFi Lending LLC, Securities Act Launch No. 11029 (Feb. 14, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11029.pdf.

²² See Dave Michaels and Paul Vigna, Coinbase Says SEC Is Investigating Its Crypto Lending Program, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sept. 8, 2021, 3:25 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/coinbase-says-sec-plans-enforcement-action-over-crypto-lending-program-11631110478?mod=hp_lead_pos2.

²³ See Order Instituting Stop-and-Desist Proceedings, In re Celsius, (Sept. 17, 2021), https://www.njoag.gov/new-jersey-bureau-of-securities-orders-cryptocurrency-firm-celsius-to-halt-the-offer-and-sale-of-unregistered-interest-bearing-investments/; Joe Mild, Matt Robinson, and Zeke Fake, Crypto Lending Companies Face SEC Scrutiny, BLOOMBERG (January 26, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-26/crypto-lending-firms-celsius-network-gemini-face-sec-scrutiny; See Order Instituting Stop-and-Desist Proceedings, In re Voyager, (March 30, 2022), https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases22/Voyager Summary Order.pdf.

²⁴ See Federal Courtroom Orders BitMEX to Pay $100 Million for Illegally Working a Cryptocurrency Buying and selling Platform and Anti-Cash Laundering Violations, CFTC Launch No. 8412-21, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8412-21.

²⁵ CFTC v. Laino Group Restricted d/b/a Paxforex, 20-cv-03317 (S.D. Tex.).

²⁶ See Order of Last Judgment by Default, Everlasting Injunction, and Civil Financial Penalty, CFTC v. Laino Group Restricted d/b/a Paxforex, 20-cv-03317 (S.D. Tex. June 7, 2021).

²⁷ Id. at 4-5.

²⁸ See Order, In re Payward Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Kraken, CFTC Docket No. 21-20 (Sept. 28, 2021).

²⁹ Id.

³⁰ See CFTC Orders Tether and Bitfinex to Pay Fines Totaling $42.5 Million, CFTC Launch No. 8450-21 (Oct. 15, 2021), https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8450-21.