How The Digital Chamber is fighting for clearer crypto regulations

The Digital Chamber is one of the leading crypto advocacy groups fighting the industry’s legal battles that shape the current regulatory landscape. These battles have become more common.

Merris Badcock of the Chamber of Digital Commerce highlighted the industry’s most pressing issues around regulatory clarity and enforcement action in a recent discussion.

With members like Telegram, Ripple, and Kraken facing off against the SEC, the Chamber’s efforts to file amicus curiae briefs are vital. Meticulously prepared by experts like Lilya Tessler, partner and chair of the FinTech and Blockchain Group at Sidley Austin LLP, these briefs are instrumental in helping to clarify the murky waters of crypto regulation.

Badcock highlighted a key concern: the industry’s struggle with regulatory clarity and enforcement actions. The lack of clear guidance has led to a slew of legal cases involving major players in the crypto space. These cases have attracted active Chamber participation, with amicus curiae being a key strategy.

Lilya Tessler shared her experience representing the Chamber in the Telegram case, which began with the Chamber filing its first amicus curiae brief. She emphasized the importance of educating the Chamber’s leadership and members about the value of participating in these legal challenges. Tessler’s approach in these briefs has been to focus on the broader implications for the industry rather than the specifics of each case. This strategy has been consistent in subsequent petitions, including those against Ripple and Kraken.

The amicus brief is vital in setting legal precedents that impact the entire crypto industry. Tessler noted that a lack of regulatory clarity has caused significant confusion among market participants, from advisors to digital asset exchanges. The briefs were intended to ensure that courts set the right legal precedents by distinguishing between the digital asset itself and the transactions associated with it. This distinction, rooted in securities law, is vital to the future of the industry.

The court’s decision in the Ripple case clearly accepted the Chamber’s perspective, confirming that a digital token is not inherently an investment contract. The Ripple decision further clarified that some transactions involving a digital asset may be investment contracts, while others may not. This nuanced understanding is important as we navigate the industry’s legal landscape.

Some ongoing cases, including Kraken’s, are still awaiting decisions, but the precedents set in previous cases suggest some struggles are moving toward clarity. Tessler noted that the Chamber’s language has been cited in judicial decisions, emphasizing the importance of their role. This evolving legal guidance, while developed through litigation, is slowly providing the industry with the clarity it desperately needs.

You can watch the full discussion here: