A public statement from staff within the SEC’s Division of Investment Management indicates the agency is evaluating the term "qualified custodian" as it relates to digital assets.
SEC staff issued a public statement asking questions about the definition of "qualified custodian."
That term is traditionally applied to banks, brokerages, and futures commission merchants.
The Wyoming Division of Banking, however, applied it to Ocean Trust, a wealth management firm.
When it comes to changing the rules for institutional digital assets investing, Wyoming keeps pushing the envelope.
A public statement from the Securities and Exchange Commission today reveals that the federal agency is looking into which institutions can qualify as "qualified custodians" for client digital assets.
The statement, from the SEC’s Division of Investment Management, follows a no-action letter from the Wyoming Division of Banking to a state-chartered public trust company, Two Ocean Trust. In it, the division judges Two Ocean to be a "qualified custodian" and therefore eligible to "provide custodial services for digital assets under Wyoming law, including virtual currency and digital (tokenized) securities."
This may seem like inside baseball (and it is). However, depending on where the SEC ultimately comes down, it could let traditional registered investment advisors, who may have been reticent to get involved with crypto custody, know what the score is.
Unlike Kraken Financial and Avanti, which recently won bank charters from Wyoming to offer digital asset banking services, Two Ocean Trust is a wealth management firm.
Though the Wyoming letter is careful to say that not all non-depository trust companies are banks or qualified custodians, it does say Two Oceans essentially falls under the definition of bank according to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which requires firms that give financial advice about securities to register with the SEC, as well as the SEC Custody Rule, which sets out requirements for protecting client digital assets.
According to the SEC, qualified custodians traditionally include "banks, registered broker-dealers, and registered futures commission merchants," which are all "subject to extensive regulation and oversight."
The SEC’s letter asks for public comments on a variety of questions, for example, who’s been left out of the qualified custodian definition that should be in? Who’s in who should be out? And, importantly, do state-chartered trust companies like Two Ocean have the same characteristics as banks?
As Caitlin Long, head of Avanti, pointed out the "crypto custody market was already moving toward banks," hence Kraken and Avanti’s status as special purpose depository institutions that allow for digital assets deposits.
Nonetheless, the SEC’s answers will provide clarity, she said: "The question of whether a state trust company is a qualified custodian has now formally been opened by the SEC, posing risk to using one."
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, in her eyes:"This issue kept many [registered investment advisors and investment managers] out of crypto. [Registered investment advisors], pensions, endowments and foundations can't take custody risks that hedge funds and family offices can take—[especially] those subject to the ERISA," she wrote, referring to the federal law which protects retirement plans. "They needed clarity and it was missing. Now it's here, and here they come!"The crypto custody market is improved to better protect the people’s digital assets.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Amber Group. Amber Group shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses, damages or expenses arising from the use of any content mentioned in this article.
The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only, with no warranties, or guarantees made as to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of it. Amber Group assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the information contained on this site. We strongly encourage you to conduct your own research before taking any action.
This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. If you wish to use the copyrighted material from this site for the purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Authors or publishers who claim ownership of copyrighted articles reprinted on this website and wish for the content to be removed may email us directly at firstname.lastname@example.org
If you would like to connect with us about any of the distributed content or other inquiries, please email us at email@example.com with the relevant documentation.