The SEC does not need an incentive to approve ETFs, that’s not how that agency works. Their job at least in theory is to regulate securities and exchanges to protect investors.
But if you want to think in terms of incentives, then gary is incentivized not to get embarrassed again by losing more lawsuits in court, which could also get him removed of his position
Point taken, Gary wouldn’t like to be in a position to continue to loose lawsuits as head of the SEC. But what’s the incentive for the SEC/US Government to allow bitcoin to increase liquidity and institutional adoption?
The SEC’s role is not to make decisions based on what benefits the US government. When they do they get sued and lose, as I pointed out. The DMV doesn’t give ppl licenses because of some incentive. They exist to regulate driving on the road.
1) I am pressed to ask you for evidence on your affirmation that every time the SEC acted on the benefit of the US government they got sued and lost.
2) Comparing the SEC to DMV regulations is a stretch. Yes theoretically both should regulate without providing benefits to any particular group or person. However, regulators decisions taken by agencies such as the SEC, create financial consequences far more impactful than whatever DMV action can do in regards of whether they want to help US Gov or not.
Sure there is corruption, but the SEC much like every other government agency has a stated purpose. They don’t in principle act based on incentives or a “what’s in it for me” attitude. They get sued and lose when their actions do not align or go against their stated purpose. I don’t want to get hung up on this rabbit hole, my point was that the SEC has a purpose and aside from corruption it’s not up to the head of that commission to make decisions based on personal incentives.
Oddbean new post about login | logout