Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Trump Administration Takes New Crypto-Enthusiastic Regulatory Approach
Since the November election, there has been much prognostication about how crypto regulation and enforcement may change under the Trump administration. The consensus before Inauguration Day was that we would see a significant change in how regulators approach crypto, with a shift away from enforcement and toward developing a new, practical regulatory framework. Now, just weeks since the Trump administration took the reins, we can already see the broad outlines of a truly seismic change in the U.S. government’s approach to crypto — one that promises to create never before seen opportunities for crypto to expand its presence and achieve an unparalleled level of integration into the U.S. and global financial systems.
This new crypto-enthusiastic regulatory approach started to come into sharper focus immediately after the election, when then-President-elect Donald Trump nominated former PayPal chief operating officer David Sacks as the new “AI and crypto czar” and put forth former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins as the new Securities and Exchange Commission chair. Both Sacks and Atkins have been vocal proponents of crypto, and their selection signaled the incoming Trump administration’s intent to work with the crypto industry on developing a friendlier regulatory regime. And this trend has continued. Last week, President Trump nominated former CFTC commissioner Brian Quintenz, now the head of policy for the crypto fund of venture capital firm a16z, to be the next Commodity Futures Trading Commission chair.
These appointments, and the other steps taken in just its first few weeks, make clear that crypto now plays a central role in the new administration’s regulatory priorities—a development that may fundamentally change its place in our financial markets.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.