Last Friday, we submitted the 12th of our 13 planned responses to @SECGov Commissioner @HesterPeirce’s request for input to the Crypto Task Force from the digital asset industry, addressing a range of considerations related to crypto asset lending.

This letter answers Questions 33 and 34 of the request about the nature of “crypto lending” and whether it is or creates a security. Our letter makes clear that @SECGov should only exercise jurisdiction over transactions that include lending of securities and should clarify what assets are and are not securities.

To assist @SECGov, we provide an overview of six types of products, services, and transactions that could be described as crypto lending, along with a brief discussion of the features, the operations, and the functionality of each.

@SECGov should act cautiously in regulating crypto lending, respecting the limitations of its jurisdiction and recognizing the importance of technical innovation.

@TDC recommends that @SECGov should: ⬇️ ✅ Clarify what assets are and are not securities ✅ Recognize that most of the transactions on blockchain are not securities ✅ Revisit existing rules and guidance that is overly broad and based on antiquated assumptions ✅ Not require registration for businesses doing non-securities crypto lending ✅ Limit the scope of what crypto lending the SEC regulates

@SECGov should not exercise jurisdiction over transactions that do not include securities, including: ✅ direct lenders taking crypto assets that are securities as collateral but not lending crypto assets that are securities ✅ peer-to-peer lending platforms ✅ non-custodial lending platforms ✅ collateralized debt positions ✅ flash loans

We thank @propelforward of @WinstonLaw along with our contributing members. We will roll out our final response to Commissioner Peirce’s statement later this week. Stay tuned! Full letter here: and exhibit here .