Here’s why this Ripple exec warns US regulators that innovation may head overseas
US regulators have been quite skeptical and averse to experimental technology and have slammed the door on a considerable number of new projects in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Speaking on similar lines in an interview, David Schwartz, the CTO of Ripple Payment Protocol and Exchange Network Ripple, highlighted how the lack of unified regulatory clarity in the US has left him frustrated. He said,
“I would love to be able to go to the regulators and say that this is the principle that you should enact. This is what is good and this is what is bad.”
Despite the pendulum of the Ripple vs SEC case oscillating and moving back and forth, Schwartz exclaimed that Ripple would prefer staying back in the United States.
Having said that, it is important to note, Ripple has been expanding its operations in other ‘booming’ and ‘exploding’ markets around the world.
When compared to other nations, the regulatory framework in the United States is quite unmethodical. All the regulators, right from FinCEN, SEC, and CFTC, have overlapping areas of jurisdictions, and catering to the regulatory norms of all the bodies poses a major challenge.
Talking about the treatment bias that Ripple has been subject to in the ongoing case, Schwartz said,
“If you do anything new, in any place, the regulators will say, you have to stop, because we don’t have the regulations in place to handle this.”
Justifying the regulators he said that it made sense for them to make such statements because they do it in good faith to protect consumers from being exploited to something that is completely new.
Highlighting this side of the regulations, Schwartz pointed out that they tend to be ‘kafkaesque’ regulation. With over a dozen exchanges removing XRP from their platform, Schwartz was hopeful that the trend will soon reverse itself. He said,
“I hope that XRP would fall on the good side.”
Putting forth his recommendation to the United States government, he concluded by asking them not to drive innovation from the country to locations that were overseas.