On May 11, the American businessman and television personality said if Joe Biden loses the presidential election, “there is a good chance you will be able to thank Gary Gensler and the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).”
“Crypto is a mainstay with younger and independent voters,” he said before adding that SEC Chair Gensler “has not protected a single investor against fraud.”
The outspoken entrepreneur didn’t stop there, adding that all the SEC has done is make it virtually impossible for crypto companies to operate in the United States, “killing who knows how many businesses and ruining who knows how many entrepreneurs.”
If @joebiden loses, there is a good chance you will be able to thank @GaryGensler and the @NewYork_SEC Crypto is a mainstay with younger and independent voters. Gensler HAS NOT PROTECTED A SINGLE INVESTOR AGAINST FRAUD
The comments came in response to a May 10 Politico article reporting that Donald Trump has become the first major party presidential nominee to overtly court the crypto community.
Trump told supporters this week that they should vote for him because of the way the Biden administration has cracked down on the crypto industry.
Kristin Smith, CEO of the Blockchain Association, said, “President Trump’s remarks signal a sea change in the importance of digital assets this election cycle,”
Cuban, who castigated the SEC in 2023, continued with a warning to Congress stating that crypto voters will be heard this election. He suggested that passing legislation specifically for crypto companies and the asset class could solve the problem for Biden before adding:
“Or you could do the better option and assign all crypto to be regulated by the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission).”
Bitcoin environmentalist Daniel Batten agreed with Cuban, commenting:
“Joe Biden could well be the world’s first politician to lose an election due to his party’s open hostility towards Bitcoin, and indulgence of colleagues spreading misinformation about Bitcoin.”
Cuban wasn’t the only one lashing out at the Biden administration this week. Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson lambasted the White House in a video on X on May 9.
“A vote for Biden is a vote against the American cryptocurrency industry,” said Hoskinson, who added that the Biden administration is actively trying to “destroy the American cryptocurrency industry.”
Others, including Ethereum advocate Ryan Sean Adams and Stock-to-flow model creator “PlanB”, joined the calls against the anti-crypto administration.
Biden hates crypto Biden hates the unvaccinated
– 40% of US adults hold crypto – 20% unvaccinated in the US
IF Trump embraces crypto AND restores basic human rights (informed consent, bodily integrity, freedom of speech) THEN he gets 50% of votes AND wins the Nov’24 elections! pic.twitter.com/sC7BvYOn1y
Biden’s war on crypto has escalated in recent weeks. The SEC is now targeting larger trading companies, such as Robinhood, which received a threat of enforcement action over its crypto business this month.
Additionally, Biden’s office said it would veto legislation seeking to overturn SEC guidelines that discourage banks from holding crypto assets in custody.
Pro-crypto Senator Cynthia Lummis reacted to Biden’s threat to ban banks from holding crypto for their customers, stating, “We will not allow the administration to regulate tools for financial freedom out of existence.”
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $600 (CryptoPotato Exclusive): Use this link to register a new account and receive $600 exclusive welcome offer on Binance (full details).
LIMITED OFFER 2024 for CryptoPotato readers at Bybit: Use this link to register and open a $500 BTC-USDT position on Bybit Exchange for free!
The Nigerian government has denied the allegations made by Binance’s CEO, Richard Teng, claiming that its officials demanded a $150 million bribe to settle the criminal charges against the crypto exchange.
In an official statement released on Wednesday, the Special Assistant to the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Rabiu Ibrahim, dismissed the claims as baseless.
A “Diversionary Tactic”
Ibrahim stated that the allegations were part of a coordinated effort by Binance to discredit the Nigerian government and divert attention away from the charges the company is currently facing in the country.
“This claim by Binance CEO lacks any iota of substance. It is nothing but a diversionary tactic and an attempted act of blackmail by a company desperate to obfuscate the grievous criminal charges it is facing in Nigeria. The facts of this matter remain that Binance is being investigated in Nigeria for allowing its platform to be used for money laundering, terrorism financing, and foreign exchange manipulation through illegal trading,” he said.
Earlier on Tuesday, Teng had published a blog post that called out the Nigerian government for unjustly detaining two Binance executives, Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla.
In the blog post, Teng claimed that Binance had been approached by unnamed Nigerian government officials who demanded to be secretly paid $150 million in cryptocurrency to halt investigations into the company’s activities. Teng urged the authorities to release Tigran Gambaryan, who had been detained for over 70 days.
Nigeria to Continue Criminal Case Against Binance
Continuing in his statement, Ibrahim stated that the government’s investigations will not be deterred by Binance’s claims, which he describes as “blackmail”.
“We would like to remind Binance that it will not clear its name in Nigeria by resorting to fictional claims and mudslinging media campaigns. The only way to resolve its issues will be by submitting itself to unobstructed investigation and judicial due process… The government of Nigeria will continue to act within its laws and international norms and will not succumb to any form of blackmail from any entity, local or foreign,” Ibrahim said.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $600 (CryptoPotato Exclusive): Use this link to register a new account and receive $600 exclusive welcome offer on Binance (full details).
LIMITED OFFER 2024 for CryptoPotato readers at Bybit: Use this link to register and open a $500 BTC-USDT position on Bybit Exchange for free!
Cannabis advocates in Colorado cheered the Biden Administration’s reported move to reclassify marijuana and said the decision likely would reduce businesses’ tax burden significantly.
Industry leaders cautioned that such a move — if finalized — would not resolve some major challenges facing the industry, such as limited access to banking. But they pointed to the symbolic importance of preparations by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to downgrade the substance’s drug classification.
A man pours cannabis into rolling papers as he prepares to roll a joint the Mile High 420 Festival in Civic Center Park in Denver, April 20, 2024. (Photo by Kevin Mohatt/Special to The Denver Post)
SEC lawyers Michael Welsh and Joseph Watkins resigned this month after the regulator was sanctioned by a federal judge in a crypto case against Digital Licensing Inc., otherwise known as DEBT Box.
Judge Robert Shelby found that the SEC made false statements, misrepresentations, and lacked evidence in its case against the digital asset firm in which it alleged a $49 million crypto fraud scheme.
The lawyers, who were lead attorneys in the DEBT Box case, were told by SEC officials that they would be terminated if they stayed, according to a Bloomberg report on April 22.
SEC on The Backfoot Again
Judge Shelby rebuked the SEC’s conduct, reversed an asset freeze on DEBT Box, and ordered the SEC to pay some of DEBT Box’s legal fees as a sanction. Additionally, the judge faulted arguments made by attorney Welsh and evidence provided by investigative attorney Watkins.
In one instance, Welsh told the judge that DEBT Box was closing bank accounts and transferring assets overseas, but the court found that this wasn’t the case. DEBT Box was among many crypto companies facing lawsuits last summer from the SEC for allegedly defrauding investors of nearly $50 million through the sale of unregistered securities.
It is the latest setback for the federal regulator, which has lost a couple of high-profile crypto court decisions and still has several, including Coinbase and Ripple, in progress.
“Gary G hanging on by a thread these days,” commented BlockWorks founder Jason Yanowitz.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said it feels appropriate that his firm files its response on the same day that two SEC lawyers “resign” for their (mis)conduct in the Debt Box case.
“The US will be picking up the pieces of the agency’s disastrous policies long after Gensler is gone.”
Feels apropos that we file our response on the same day that 2 SEC lawyers “resign” for their (mis)conduct in the Debt Box case…
The US will be picking up the pieces of the agency’s disastrous policies long after Gensler is gone. https://t.co/vQMHKG5kbW
The Biden administration on Wednesday finalized strict limits on certain so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water that will require utilities to reduce them to the lowest level they can be reliably measured. Officials say this will reduce exposure for 100 million people and help prevent thousands of illnesses, including cancers.
The rule is the first national drinking water limit on toxic PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are widespread and long-lasting in the environment.
Health advocates praised the Environmental Protection Agency for not backing away from tough limits the agency proposed last year. But water utilities took issue with the rule, saying treatment systems are expensive to install and that customers will end up paying more for water.
Water providers are entering a new era with significant additional health standards that the EPA says will make tap water safer for millions of consumers — a Biden administration priority. The agency has also proposed forcing utilities to remove dangerous lead pipes.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan says the rule is the most important action the EPA has ever taken on PFAS.
“The result is a comprehensive and life-changing rule, one that will improve the health and vitality of so many communities across our country,” said Regan.
PFAS chemicals are hazardous because they don’t degrade in the environment and are linked to health issues such as low birth weight and liver disease, along with certain cancers. The EPA estimates the rule will cost about $1.5 billion to implement each year, but doing so will prevent nearly 10,000 deaths over decades and significantly reduce serious illnesses.
They’ve been used in everyday products including nonstick pans, firefighting foam and waterproof clothing. Although some of the most common types are phased out in the U.S., others remain. Water providers will now be forced to remove contamination put in the environment by other industries.
“It’s that accumulation that’s the problem,” said Scott Belcher, a North Carolina State University professor who researches PFAS toxicity. “Even tiny, tiny, tiny amounts each time you take a drink of water over your lifetime is going to keep adding up, leading to the health effects.”
PFAS is a broad family of chemical substances, and the new rule sets strict limits on two common types — called PFOA and PFOS — at 4 parts per trillion. Three other types that include GenEx Chemicals that are a major problem in North Carolina are limited to 10 parts per trillion. Water providers will have to test for these PFAS chemicals and tell the public when levels are too high. Combinations of some PFAS types will be limited, too.
Regan will announce the rule in Fayetteville, North Carolina, on Wednesday.
Environmental and health advocates praised the rule, but said PFAS manufacturers knew decades ago the substances were dangerous yet hid or downplayed the evidence. Limits should have come sooner, they argue.
“Reducing PFAS in our drinking water is the most cost effective way to reduce our exposure,” said Scott Faber, a food and water expert at Environmental Working Group. “It’s much more challenging to reduce other exposures such as PFAS in food or clothing or carpets.”
Over the last year, EPA has periodically released batches of utility test results for PFAS in drinking water. Roughly 16% of utilities found at least one of the two strictly limited PFAS chemicals at or above the new limits. These utilities serve tens of millions of people. The Biden administration, however, expects about 6-10% of water systems to exceed the new limits.
Water providers will generally have three years to do testing. If those test exceed the limits, they’ll have two more years to install treatment systems, according to EPA officials.
Some funds are available to help utilities. Manufacturer 3M recently agreed to pay more than $10 billion to drinking water providers to settle PFAS litigation. And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law includes billions to combat the substance. But utilities say more will be needed.
For some communities, tests results were a surprise. Last June, a utility outside Philadelphia that serves nearly 9,000 people learned that one of its wells had a PFOA level of 235 parts per trillion, among the highest results in the country at the time.
“I mean, obviously, it was a shock,” said Joseph Hastings, director of the joint public works department for the Collegeville and Trappe boroughs, whose job includes solving problems presented by new regulations.
The well was quickly yanked offline, but Hastings still doesn’t know the contamination source. Several other wells were above the EPA’s new limits, but lower than those the state of Pennsylvania set earlier. Now, Hastings says installing treatment systems could be a multi-million dollar endeavor, a major expense for a small customer base.
The new regulation is “going to throw public confidence in drinking water into chaos,” said Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO, a water industry communications firm.
The American Water Works Association, an industry group, says it supports the development of PFAS limits in drinking water, but argues the EPA’s rule has big problems.
The agency underestimated its high cost, which can’t be justified for communities with low levels of PFAS, and it’ll raise customer water bills, the association said. Plus, there aren’t enough experts and workers — and supplies of filtration material are limited.
Work in some places has started. The company Veolia operates utilities serving about 2.3 million people across six eastern states and manages water systems for millions more. Veolia built PFAS treatment for small water systems that serve about 150,000 people. The company expects, however, that roughly 50 more sites will need treatment — and it’s working to scale up efforts to reduce PFAS in larger communities it serves.
Such efforts followed dramatic shifts in EPA’s health guidance for PFAS in recent years as more research into its health harms emerged. Less than a decade ago, EPA issued a health advisory that PFOA and PFOS levels combined shouldn’t exceed 70 parts per trillion. Now, the agency says no amount is safe.
Public alarm has increased, too. In Minnesota, for example, Amara’s Law aims to stop avoidable PFAS use. It’s been nearly a year since the law’s namesake, Amara Strande, died from a rare cancer her family blames on PFAS contamination by 3M near her high school in Oakdale, although a connection between PFAS and her cancer can’t be proven. Biden administration officials say communities shouldn’t suffer like Oakdale. 3M says it extends its deepest condolences to Amara’s friends and family.
Losing Amara pushed the family towards activism. They’ve testified multiple times in favor of PFAS restrictions.
“Four parts per trillion, we couldn’t ask for a better standard,” Amara’s sister Nora said. “It’s a very ambitious goal, but anything higher than that is endangering lives.”
___
Associated Press data journalist Camille Fassett in San Francisco and reporter Matthew Daly in Washington, D.C., contributed to this story.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
More than 200 chemical plants nationwide will be required to reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer under a new rule issued Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule advances President Joe Biden’s commitment to environmental justice by delivering critical health protections for communities burdened by industrial pollution from ethylene oxide, chloroprene and other dangerous chemicals, officials said.
Areas that will benefit from the new rule include majority-Black neighborhoods outside New Orleans that EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited as part of his 2021 Journey to Justice tour. The rule will significantly reduce emissions of chloroprene and other harmful pollutants at the Denka Performance Elastomer facility in LaPlace, Louisiana, the largest source of chloroprene emissions in the country, Regan said.
“Every community in this country deserves to breathe clean air. That’s why I took the Journey to Justice tour to communities like St. John the Baptist Parish, where residents have borne the brunt of toxic air for far too long,” Regan said. “We promised to listen to folks that are suffering from pollution and act to protect them. Today we deliver on that promise with strong final standards to slash pollution, reduce cancer risk and ensure cleaner air for nearby communities.”
When combined with a rule issued last month cracking down on ethylene oxide emissions from commercial sterilizers used to clean medical equipment, the new rule will reduce ethylene oxide and chloroprene emissions by nearly 80%, officials said.
The rule will apply to 218 facilities spread across Texas and Louisiana, the Ohio River Valley, West Virginia and the upper South, the EPA said. The action updates several regulations on chemical plant emissions that have not been tightened in nearly two decades.
Democratic Rep. Troy Carter, whose Louisiana district includes the Denka plant, called the new rule “a monumental step” to safeguard public health and the environment.
“Communities deserve to be safe. I’ve said this all along,” Carter told reporters at a briefing Monday. “It must begin with proper regulation. It must begin with listening to the people who are impacted in the neighborhoods, who undoubtedly have suffered the cost of being in close proximity of chemical plants — but not just chemical plants, chemical plants that don’t follow the rules.”
Carter said it was “critically important that measures like this are demonstrated to keep the confidence of the American people.”
The new rule will slash more than 6,200 tons (5,624 metric tonnes) of toxic air pollutants annually and implement fenceline monitoring, the EPA said, addressing health risks in surrounding communities and promoting environmental justice in Louisiana and other states.
The Justice Department sued Denka last year, saying it had been releasing unsafe concentrations of chloroprene near homes and schools. Federal regulators had determined in 2016 that chloroprene emissions from the Denka plant were contributing to the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.
Denka, a Japanese company that bought the former DuPont rubber-making plant in 2015, said it “vehemently opposes” the EPA’s latest action.
“EPA’s rulemaking is yet another attempt to drive a policy agenda that is unsupported by the law or the science,” Denka said in a statement, adding that the agency has alleged its facility “represents a danger to its community, despite the facility’s compliance with its federal and state air permitting requirements.”
The Denka plant, which makes synthetic rubber, has been at the center of protests over pollution in majority-Black communities and EPA efforts to curb chloroprene emissions, particularly in the Mississippi River Chemical Corridor, an 85-mile (137-kilometer) industrial region known informally as Cancer Alley. Denka said it already has invested more than $35 million to reduce chloroprene emissions.
The EPA, under pressure from local activists, agreed to open a civil rights investigation of the plant to determine if state officials were putting Black residents at increased cancer risk. But in June the EPA dropped its investigation without releasing any official findings and without any commitments from the state to change its practices.
Regan said the rule issued Tuesday was separate from the civil rights investigation. He called the rule “very ambitious,” adding that officials took care to ensure “that we protect all of these communities, not just those in Cancer Alley, but communities in Texas and Puerto Rico and other areas that are threatened by these hazardous air toxic pollutants.”
While it focuses on toxic emissions, “by its very nature, this rule is providing protection to environmental justice communities — Black and brown communities, low-income communities — that have suffered for far too long,” Regan said.
Patrice Simms, vice president of the environmental law firm Earthjustice, called the rule “a victory in our pursuit for environmental justice.”
“There’s always more to do to demand that our laws live up to their full potential,” Simms said, “but EPA’s action today brings us a meaningful step closer to realizing the promise of clean air, the promise of safe and livable communities and … more just and more equitable environmental protections.”
___
Associated Press writer Michael Phillis in St. Louis contributed to this story.
As a tenant in NYC, it’s important to stay informed about your rights and the current regulations concerning broker fees. These laws impact your financial obligations when entering a rental agreement and protect you from being overcharged.
Being well-informed also places you in a better position to negotiate with landlords and real estate agents, ensuring that any broker fees you’re responsible for are fair and in accordance with the law.
Recently, there has been attention on tenant rights and changes to the traditional structure of broker fees, with efforts to shift financial responsibilities and provide more transparency in real estate transactions.
Key Takeaways
Broker fees in NYC historically range from 12 to 15% of the annual rent.
Recent regulations limit broker fees to 0.3–15% of the first year’s rent.
Tenants have rights under new regulations, including caps on security deposits and application fees.
Landlords and real estate agents must adapt to these changes, potentially absorbing broker fees and adjusting rental pricing strategies.
To determine broker fee responsibility, tenants should inquire upfront.
If overcharged, tenants can review leases, gather documentation, consult the law, and contact brokers directly.
Overview
When you’re on the hunt for an apartment in New York City, understanding broker fees is crucial. A broker fee is a charge paid to real estate agents for their services, typically for connecting landlords with potential tenants.
Broker Fees: These fees could range from 12 to 15% of the annual rent, which you, as the tenant, would pay upon signing your lease according to Lemonade Insurance.
Recent Changes: There has been significant controversy and changes to these regulations in recent times, aiming to reduce the financial burden on renters.
What You Should Know
Regulations: State regulations previously limited broker fees to a range of 0.3–15% of the first year’s rent. Whether the broker was hired by you or the landlord did not affect this as highlighted by Cityrealty.
New Guidelines: To understand the latest law and its implications, keeping up-to-date with the most recent guidelines issued by the New York Department of State is essential.
Payment Responsibilities: Under these guidelines, it was clarified who should bear the cost of the broker fee—whether it’s you or the landlord. This clarification greatly affects your budgeting for an apartment.
For an apartment with a monthly rent of $3,000 and a broker fee of 15%, you could be paying a broker fee of $5,400. [$3,000 x 12 months x 15% = $5,400.]
Tenant Rights Under the New Regulation
In New York City, recent changes to broker fee regulations have important implications for your tenant rights. Understanding these changes is crucial to ensuring you are not overcharged during your apartment hunt.
Landlords are now limited to requesting a maximum of one month’s rent for a security deposit. This change helps reduce the upfront costs for tenants moving into a new apartment.
Broker Fee Transparency
If you’re required to pay a broker fee, agents must clearly disclose all fees upfront before you sign a lease. These fees should be reasonable and reflect the actual cost of services provided.
Tenants were responsible for broker fees of 12 to 15 percent of the annual rent. Under the new rules, the party who hires the broker typically pays the fee. In many cases, this shifts the burden away from tenants to landlords.
Application fees are now capped at $20. This includes background and credit check fees, helping to keep application costs low.
Your right to a safe and habitable living environment remains firmly in place. Landlords must address maintenance issues promptly and maintain the quality of the property.
Implications for Landlords and Agents
When you’re a landlord or a real estate agent in NYC, understanding the city’s broker fee laws is crucial. These regulations have a direct impact on your business operations and your interaction with potential tenants.
Landlords are now more likely to absorb the cost of broker fees, especially since recent interpretations of the 2019 rent law ban tenants from bearing this expense in certain situations. This could affect your profit margins and might necessitate an adjustment in your budgeting and rental pricing strategies.
As an agent, it’s also essential to note any shifts in the industry’s standard practices. Polices such as the potentially changing landscapes on broker commissions which are limited to between 0.3-15% of the total rent require you to stay informed and adapt.
This might mean increasing your efficiency, providing additional services, or improving client relationships to maintain your income.
Keep abreast of any legal changes
Align business models with regulatory compliance
Adapt service offerings and fee structures as needed
Remember, these broker fees are not just about your revenue—they play a significant role in the dynamics of the real estate market and can influence a client’s decision to rent or not.
How to Determine Broker Fee Responsibility
When you’re searching for a rental in New York City, understanding who is responsible for the broker fee is crucial.
Tenant Responsibility: Typically, if you enlisted the services of a broker to find an apartment, you are expected to pay the broker fee, which is usually between 10 to 15 percent of the annual rent according to NY Rent Own Sell.
Landlord Responsibility: In some cases, especially in a market with many available listings, landlords may agree to pay the broker fee to attract more applicants.
To determine the responsibility for the broker fee:
Ask upfront when inquiring about an apartment; clarify who pays the broker fee.
Examine the lease agreement, as it should stipulate who is responsible for the broker fee.
Look for “no-fee” listings, indicating that the landlord covers the broker fee.
Steps to Take if Overcharged
If you suspect you’ve been overcharged a broker’s fee in NYC, there are several steps you can take to address the issue:
Initially, look over your lease and any agreements regarding the broker’s fee. Ensure you understand the terms you’ve agreed to.
Collect all related documentation, such as receipts and emails, to support your claim that the fee charged was higher than agreed upon or legally permissible.
Educate yourself on the current regulations surrounding broker fees to confirm if you have indeed been overcharged.
Reach out to the broker to discuss the discrepancy. It’s possible it could be resolved amicably and quickly.
If the broker is uncooperative, you may file a complaint with the New York State Division of Licensing Services. They oversee the conduct of brokers and can take disciplinary action if necessary.
For legal guidance and to explore further action, consult with a tenant attorney who specializes in NYC housing laws.
Consider joining a tenants’ union for support from other renters and additional resources.
It’s important to act promptly and keep a record of all communications and attempts to resolve the issue.
Grandfathered Agreements
A grandfathered agreement refers to a lease or rental situation that continues to operate under the old rules or laws that were in place when the agreement was initially signed.
In the context of broker fees, if your rental agreement was signed before new regulations came into effect, it’s possible that certain terms such as the obligation to pay a broker fee may still apply to you. Here’s what you should know:
If your lease was signed while it was still standard for tenants to pay broker fees, you may be legally obliged to continue paying these fees until your current lease expires.
Upon renewal of your lease, the terms may be subject to the most current laws, which could alter your financial obligations.
You have the ability to negotiate the terms of your lease upon renewal, including the continuation or removal of broker fees if they were part of the original agreement.
Broker Agreements
Your broker is there to facilitate connections between landlords and tenants, assist with paperwork, and offer guidance on apartment listings.
Clarify all fee-related details upfront. Fees are negotiable and typically depend on the apartment’s rent. Confirm whether the fee is a flat rate or a percentage of the annual rent.
Keep abreast of the latest legal developments impacting broker fees, such as the recently changed rules around NYC’s broker fees, to ensure compliance and understanding of who is responsible for the fee.
Understand when the broker fee is due, which is usually upon lease signing. Be prepared to pay the fee along with first month’s rent and security deposit.
Do’s
Don’ts
Ask for clarity on all fee-related terms
Assume the fee percentage or terms are non-negotiable
Research the broker’s reputation and track record
Forget to check for recent changes in broker fee laws
Budget for the broker fee in addition to other costs
Delay conversations about broker fees until lease signing
Remember, broker fees are a significant part of the renting process in New York City, and understanding these agreements is crucial in managing your expectations and finances.
Legal Recourse for Violations
Keep records of all payments and communication with the broker.
File a complaint with the New York State Division of Licensing Services.
Consult with an attorney to discuss your case. Some law firms focus on tenant rights in NYC.
For claims below a specific monetary threshold, consider taking the broker to small claims court.
Step
Action
1. Documentation
Compile records of payments and communications.
2. Filing Complaint
Submit a complaint to the Division of Licensing Services.
3. Consult
Seek legal advice from a lawyer specializing in tenant rights.
4. Court Action
File a case in small claims court if applicable.
Note: Always double-check any actions with a legal professional, as the laws and your rights may have been updated since this guide’s publication.
FAQs
Who is responsible for paying the broker fee when renting an apartment in NYC?
Traditionally, you, the tenant, are responsible for paying the broker’s fee when renting an apartment in NYC. This fee is paid to the real estate agent for their services in finding you a rental property.
Has there been a change to the legality of broker fees for tenants in New York City?
Yes, there have been changes and legal debates surrounding broker fees in New York City. For the latest legal status and how it might affect you, it’s a good idea to review up-to-date information from trusted local sources.
What are the regulations surrounding the limit or cap on broker fees in NYC?
Broker fees in NYC are usually capped at 15% of the annual rent. Be aware that state regulations might limit these fees within a certain range. Always verify the current regulations to understand the specific limits applicable to your situation.
Is it possible for tenants to negotiate the amount of the broker fee with brokers in New York City?
Yes, you can negotiate the broker fee. Although fees are typically within a standard range, there is room for discussion based on your circumstances and the broker’s willingness.
What exactly does a broker fee encompass for renters in NYC?
The broker fee typically includes the services provided by the real estate agent in finding you an apartment, which involves time and effort in locating available properties that meet your preferences and needs.
What is the broker fee bill and how does it affect renters and brokers in New York City?
The broker fee bill is proposed legislation that could alter who is responsible for paying broker fees and under what conditions. Its impact on both renters and brokers in New York City would be dependent on the specifics of the bill once passed and enacted.
h
Final Words
Recent regulations aim to ease the financial burden on renters, with fees now limited to 0.3–15% of the first year’s rent.
Tenants have new rights, including caps on security deposits and application fees, while landlords and agents may need to absorb broker fees, adjusting their strategies accordingly.
It’s important for tenants to inquire about fee responsibility upfront and to take steps if overcharged, including reviewing leases, consulting laws, and contacting brokers directly.
Stay informed and negotiate when possible to navigate NYC’s rental market effectively.
The Chamber of Digital Commerce (CDC) has filed an amicus curiae to defend Kraken in a lawsuit the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated in 2023.
Notably, the CDC supported the crypto exchange’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its latest filing.
Chamber of Digital Commerce Argues for Kraken
In a February 27 filing, the Chamber explained that the amicus brief aims to address and counter the SEC’s current approach to digital asset industry regulation.
The CDC’s argument is rooted in the belief that the SEC’s aggressive regulatory tactics, through enforcement actions rather than clear, legislated rules, could stifle innovation within the digital asset space. According to the CDC, the approach is not only hindering economic growth and job creation but also affecting financial inclusion efforts.
The trade body explained that the SEC’s attempt to apply securities laws to all digital asset transactions broadly is legally flawed. It further asserted that digital assets are not “investment contracts.”
The body warned that the enforcement efforts by the SEC could impact the trillion-dollar digital asset space and, by extension, the United States economy. Hence, there is a need to bring about clear regulations whereby Congress needs to bring statutory clarity instead of relying on the watchdog’s efforts to regulate.
Notably, in November 2023, the SEC initiated a lawsuit against Kraken, accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of functioning as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, dealer, and clearing agency. Furthermore, it alleged that Kraken had mixed customer funds with its corporate finances, among other accusations. In response, the firm and its representatives denied the SEC’s allegations, choosing to challenge the lawsuit in court.
Kraken Launches Institutional Platform
Meanwhile, the exchange has launched a new division, Kraken Institutional, dedicated to serving institutional clients to capture a portion of the market for spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
The institution brand aims to combine the existing institutional services, such as crypto staking for clients outside the United States and spot and over-the-counter trading crypto staking. The target audience, it explained, is asset managers, hedge funds, and high-net-worth individuals.
Tim Ogilvie, the co-founder of Staked (which was acquired by Kraken in December 2021), will lead the newly established division. Ogilvie noted the rapidly growing institutional interest in crypto owing to the recent approval of Bitcoin ETFs.
Kraken Institutional is entering into direct competition with established players such as Coinbase Institutional and Coinbase Prime, which were launched in 2021 to serve institutional investors. Kraken Institutional faces competition from Binance Institutional, which was introduced in mid-2022.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
The South Korean government is taking extra steps to ensure the protection of crypto investors from unfair market activities and criminals by imposing higher fines and punishments for violations of certain provisions.
According to a press release, crypto criminals face jail terms of more than a year or a fine equal to three to five times the stolen amount. Depending on the weight of the offense, individuals who make illegal profits of more than five billion won ($3.8 million) may be sentenced to life imprisonment or be imposed a fine equivalent to twice the stolen amount.
Crypto Criminals Face Life Imprisonment
The new measures are part of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, which is expected to be effective on July 19, 2024. The government enacted the law on July 18, 2023.
The new law protects the assets of crypto users and investors, tasking crypto business operators with the burden of protecting users’ deposits. These deposits are to be managed by institutions with public trust, like banks, due to their regulatory compliance, stability, and specific management systems.
Crypto businesses must keep at least 80% of users’ deposits in cold storage to lessen the impact of hacks and computer failures. Such firms must also prepare for exploits by signing up for insurance or accumulating a reserve fund with a stipulated compensation limit.
Business operators are prohibited from holding back information regarding crypto assets, engaging in market manipulation, and illegal trading activities.
FSC and FSS Tasked With Supervision
Furthermore, the new law tasks the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) with supervising and inspecting digital asset businesses to investigate and take action on violations.
“The Financial Services Commission can supervise whether virtual asset business operators appropriately comply with the Virtual Asset User Protection Act and inspect their business and property status. In accordance with the authority delegation provisions of the Enforcement Decree (draft), inspection work will be carried out by the Financial Supervisory Service,” the statement read.
The FSC and FSS can enforce measures like suspending operations, ordering corrections, filing complaints, and notifying investigative agencies and the prosecutor general about crypto businesses violating the Protection Act.
To ensure a smooth implementation of this process, the South Korean government intends to build an infrastructure for executing supervision and investigative duties. The system will also help crypto business operators prepare and carry out their obligations
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Each state in the US has its unique stance on gambling, weaving a complex tapestry of regulations that can often seem as intricate and varied as the nation’s landscapes. Texas, with its rich history and cultural identity, holds a particularly stringent position on the matter.
Let’s take a look at the reasons behind Texas’s strict gambling laws, explore what forms of gambling are permitted within the state, and examine the social, economic, and legislative factors that shape this framework.
Key Takeaways
Texas enforces strict gambling prohibitions, permitting only specific activities like the state lottery, charitable gaming, pari-mutuel betting on races, and social gambling.
The state lottery supports public education, while regulated charitable gaming aids non-profit fundraising.
Legal changes and expansions in gambling face significant opposition, reflecting Texas’s conservative stance on gambling.
A Blast From The Past
The roots of Texas’s gambling laws are deeply embedded in the state’s history, tracing back to the early days of the Republic of Texas. Find out more at techopedia.com. During the 19th century, gambling was a prevalent pastime among the cowboys, oil prospectors, and settlers who played significant roles in shaping the state’s identity.
The early 20th century brought about a wave of reform movements across the United States, aimed at moral and social improvements, which included the prohibition of gambling activities. Texas, influenced by its strong conservative values, was at the forefront of these movements, enacting laws that strictly limited gambling activities.
Legal Framework
The legal framework surrounding gambling in Texas is primarily defined by the Texas Penal Code, which categorizes most forms of gambling as illegal.
Section of Texas Penal Code
Summary
General Prohibition
Outlines the overall prohibition against gambling, declaring most forms of gambling to be illegal within the state.
Definition of Gambling
Provides a legal definition of gambling, including any bet based on the partial or final outcome of a game or contest or the performance of a participant in an event.
Promotion of Gambling
Addresses the illegal act of promoting any form of gambling activity, including operating or profiting from gambling places or activities.
Possession of Gambling Devices
Details the illegality of owning, transferring, or possessing any gambling device, equipment, or paraphernalia not sanctioned by the state.
Engaging in Organized Crime
Categorizes activities related to operating or participating in earnings from gambling as part of engaging in organized criminal activity, with severe penalties.
The state constitution and specific statutes outline the parameters of what constitutes illegal gambling, focusing on activities that involve betting or wagering on the outcome of a game or contest of chance.
The law specifically targets the operation of gambling establishments and the promotion of gambling activities, making it challenging to legally engage in most forms of gambling within the state.
Social & Cultural Influences
At the heart of Texas society lies an unwavering commitment to traditional family structures. These familial bonds are considered sacrosanct, the cornerstone upon which communities are built and nurtured.
In this context, gambling is often viewed through a lens of caution, seen as a whirlwind that could unsettle these foundations, leading to the erosion of the very core of Texan life—its families.
Religion also plays a pivotal role in guiding the moral and ethical decisions of its people. The diverse religious landscape of Texas, dominated by strong Christian principles, often casts gambling as a vice that conflicts with the teachings of moderation, stewardship, and the welfare of one’s neighbor.
This moral compass directs much of the public sentiment against gambling, framing it as an activity that could lead one astray from the path of righteousness.
The opposition to gambling in Texas transcends legal arguments or economic debates; it is an intrinsic part of the state’s cultural and moral ethos. This ethos, cultivated over generations, views gambling as an element capable of causing social decay.
The imagery is stark—gambling as a creeping vine that, if left unchecked, could ensnarl the very pillars of society, leading to the breakdown of families, financial despair, and a surge in criminal activity.
Economic Considerations
While proponents of legalized gambling argue that it could bring significant revenue to the state through taxes and tourism, opponents counter that the social costs, including increased social services and law enforcement expenses, could outweigh these benefits.
The debate extends to concerns over the potential for gambling to harm local businesses by diverting consumer spending away from traditional economic sectors.
What’s Permitted
Despite the stringent restrictions, Texas does permit certain forms of gambling under specific conditions. These include:
Permitted Gambling Activities in Texas
Description
State Lottery
Established in 1991, offers a variety of games including scratch-off tickets and multi-state jackpots. Proceeds are primarily for funding public education.
Charitable Bingo and Raffles
Non-profit organizations can conduct these as fundraisers, provided they obtain the necessary licenses and adhere to regulations.
Horse and Greyhound Racing
Pari-mutuel wagering is allowed at licensed racetracks. The industry faces challenges including competition from illegal and out-of-state operations.
Social Gambling
Private games of poker or other forms are allowed, as long as they occur in a private place, no person receives economic benefit other than personal winnings, and the risks are the same for all participants.
Future Prospects
The future of gambling in Texas remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates among lawmakers, business leaders, and community groups. Efforts to expand gambling laws, including proposals to legalize casinos and sports betting, have faced significant opposition.
Changing demographics and economic pressures, coupled with the potential for substantial revenue generation, continue to fuel discussions on this topic.
Any changes to the current legal landscape are likely to require not only legislative action but also a shift in the social and cultural attitudes that have long defined Texas’s stance on gambling.
FAQs
Can Texas Residents Legally Gamble Online?
No, online gambling is not explicitly legal in Texas. The state’s gambling laws do not directly address online gambling, leading to a grey area.
However, the general prohibition against gambling in the state applies, making it illegal to operate an online gambling site within Texas. Residents may access offshore gambling websites at their own risk, but these are not regulated by Texas law.
Are There Any Legal Casinos on Native American Reservations in Texas?
Yes, there are a few legal casinos operating on Native American lands in Texas, due to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allowing tribes to operate gaming facilities on their sovereign lands.
These facilities are subject to restrictions and must negotiate agreements with the state. The Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino in Eagle Pass is one such example, offering slot machines and poker games.
What Are the Penalties for Illegal Gambling in Texas?
Penalties for illegal gambling in Texas can vary widely depending on the nature of the offense. Engaging in illegal gambling as a player can be classified as a Class C misdemeanor, which may result in a fine.
Operating a gambling enterprise or earning substantial revenue from such activities can result in more severe charges, including felony charges that carry potential jail time and larger fines.
Can Texans Legally Participate in Fantasy Sports Leagues?
The legality of daily fantasy sports in Texas has been a topic of debate. As of my last update, the Texas Attorney General issued an opinion suggesting that certain forms of daily fantasy sports contests could be considered illegal gambling.
Major fantasy sports sites continue to operate in Texas, arguing that their contests are games of skill, not chance, and therefore not subject to gambling laws.
Legislative attempts to clarify the legal status of fantasy sports have been made, but clear statewide regulations have yet to be enacted.
Are Charity Gambling Events Like Casino Nights Legal in Texas?
Charity gambling events, including casino nights, are legally complex in Texas. Non-profit organizations can host bingo and raffles if they obtain the necessary state licenses.
Casino nights that involve real money betting on games like blackjack, roulette, or slots often fall into a legal grey area. Such events might be permitted if they do not pay out real money prizes or if betting is done with “funny money” or tokens that have no cash value.
Has There Been Any Significant Push Towards Legalizing More Forms of Gambling in Texas?
There have been several legislative attempts to expand gambling in Texas, including proposals to legalize casinos, sports betting, and online gambling. These efforts have gained some support from business and tourism groups who argue that expanded gambling could bring significant economic benefits to the state.
They have consistently faced strong opposition from conservative lawmakers and groups concerned about the social impacts of gambling. As of the last update, no significant expansion of gambling laws has been successfully enacted, but the topic remains a recurring issue in legislative sessions.
Final Words
The reasons behind the illegality of most forms of gambling in Texas are multifaceted, rooted in the state’s historical, social, and economic fabric. While certain forms of gambling are permitted, the overall landscape remains restrictive.
As Texas continues to evolve, so too will the debate over gambling, reflecting broader shifts in societal values and economic priorities.
Whether these changes will lead to a more liberal approach to gambling laws remains to be seen, but for now, Texas maintains its conservative stance, upholding a long tradition of restricting gambling activities within its borders.
Authorities in South Korea are looking to investigate major cryptocurrency exchange OKX over complaints of the platform’s improper registration in the country.
According to a report by News1 Media, South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) received complaints from the country’s Digital Asset Exchange Association (DAXA).
OKX Under Regulatory Probe
DAXA, an alliance of South Korea’s five major crypto trading platforms, including Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax, received information concerning OKX’s misconduct from unidentified sources. The organization conducted its research before taking the matter to the FIU.
One of the requirements for a foreign platform to operate in South Korea is language support. Overseas exchanges must translate their content to Korea for users’ easy assimilation. Companies that fail to implement this criterion but continue to offer services to residents violate the Specific Financial Information Act.
Currently, OKX does not support Korean on its website; hence, the firm is not properly registered to offer its services to residents. The trading platform removed Korean language translations and shut down official local community social media channels in September 2021, and the arrangement has remained so till now.
However, the reports DAXA received accused OKX of promoting its Jumpstart program and other services in Telegram communities using influencers.
The FIU intends to confirm the allegations through investigations before deciding on the next step.
S. Korea Hostile Toward Crypto
OKX’s decision to cease support for South Korea came as regulators in the country instructed foreign exchanges to either register their businesses locally or withdraw Korean language services from their platforms.
The country enforced strict measures on the crypto industry after the collapse of the Terra ecosystem in 2022, demanding regular reports from exchanges operating within its borders. Korea’s hostile stance on cryptocurrencies extended to digital asset investment vehicles like spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, which regulators banned to stabilize the financial market and protect investors.
The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last month did not seem to affect South Korea’s viewpoint of such crypto investment vehicles until a couple of days ago.
As CryptoPotato reported, South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) chief intends to meet with U.S. SEC chair Gary Gensler soon to discuss discount measures like spot Bitcoin ETFs.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Speculation about the South Korean government rethinking its hostile stance on spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) may be true, as the country’s financial regulator has officially indicated interest in the products.
A report from local media outlet Hankyung has revealed that the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) of South Korea intends to meet with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to discuss the crypto industry and spot Bitcoin ETFs.
FSS to Meet U.S. SEC for Crypto ETF Talk
According to the report, FSS chief Lee Bok-hyun is expected to visit the U.S. later this year to meet with SEC chair Gary Gensler. He announced the visit on Monday while revealing his business plans for 2024 at the Financial Supervisory Service in Yeouido, Seoul.
The FSS director said he and Gensler would discuss Korea discount measures like spot Bitcoin ETFs and corporate value-up programs.
“I will meet with SEC Chairman Gary Gensler (this year), and there are areas where we will focus on issues such as virtual asset issues and Bitcoin spot ETF. Now, the impact of SEC policy on the world, this is important,” he stated.
A Possible U-Turn
Director Bok-hyun’s announcement comes less than a month after the SEC approved the first wave of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S. The agency’s decision followed a decade of rejecting proposals brought by several asset management firms.
The South Korean government initially reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the ban on crypto ETFs despite the SEC’s approval. Regulators in the country insisted that cryptocurrencies would not be recognized as financial assets and there would be no policy adjustments to favor the budding sector.
However, the country’s stance appeared shaky when Sung Tae-yoon, the recently appointed Presidential Chief of Staff, urged the South Korean Financial Services Commission (FSC) to align its crypto viewpoint with international standards by allowing investment vehicles like ETFs. He said having a yes or no stance was unnecessary, but allowing ETFs as investment elements was crucial.
With a possible U-turn around the corner, South Korean investment giants are speculating that demand for the products, if launched, would be “solid.”
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Last year, the European Union unanimously voted for the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) bill, considered by most to be the first comprehensive piece of legislation addressing the crypto industry as a whole.
MiCA is, in itself, part of a larger set of financial laws known as DORA – but it has also given many crypto companies a reason to consider moving the bulk of their operations across the ocean.
Several Adjustments to The Bill
Although MiCA was published back in June 2023, there have already been two consultation sessions regarding the bill – with another due in April – before the first part of the legislation goes into effect in June 2024. The other provisions are expected to come into effect in December 2024.
🔴 #ESMA publishes 2⃣ Consultations Papers on guidelines under Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation #MiCA: 📣 on reverse solicitation 📣 on the classification of crypto-assets as financial instruments
— ESMA – EU Securities Markets Regulator 🇪🇺 (@ESMAComms) January 29, 2024
The proposed exceptions would allow European customers more freedom while still protecting those less tech-savvy.
Allowing “Reverse Solicitation”
The paper submitted by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has taken into consideration prior feedback regarding companies operating outside the EU and has decided to make exceptions for them when necessary.
Whereas previously, the authority intended to bar non-EU companies from offering crypto assets and services to EU citizens, the new provision will allow them to do so if reverse solicitation – meaning an EU citizen explicitly requests either of these to a provider – occurs.
This would allow experienced crypto investors looking for niche offerings more ability to invest legally while also protecting inexperienced investors from the possible consequences of dealing with businesses where legal recourse may be more difficult.
“ESMA previously underlined that the provision of crypto-asset services or activities by a third-country firm is strictly limited under MiCA to cases where such service is initiated at the own exclusive initiative of a client. This exemption should be understood as very narrowly framed […] and it cannot be assumed, nor exploited to circumvent MiCA. ESMA, and national competent authorities, through their supervisory and enforcement powers, will take all necessary measures to actively protect EU-based investors and MiCA-compliant crypto-asset service providers from undue incursions.”
The ESMA recommends that investors read the document and submit any requests regarding it by the 29th of April, when regulators will discuss it.
The regulator is also requesting feedback on the possible qualification of crypto assets as financial instruments – defined as a monetary contract. Should a crypto asset qualify as a monetary contract, it would no longer be subject to MiCA, instead falling under the regulatory purview of another bill known as MiFID II.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Hester Peirce, a commissioner for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has expressed her disagreement with the agency’s denial of a petition to amend a rule that prevents defendants from denying any allegations in settlement enforcement actions.
According to an official statement from the commissioner, popularly known in the digital asset community as “Crypto Mom,” the prohibition of denials from defendants prohibits the American public from lodging criticisms against the government and assessing its credibility.
SEC Denies Petition to Amend Gag Rule
The gag rule is a part of the SEC’s policy adopted in 1972, which requires defendants to agree that they will not take any action or make public statements denying any allegations in the complaints brought against them.
In essence, the rule does not permit respondents to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the complaint’s allegations; otherwise, the SEC can ask the court to vacate the settlement. This is to ensure that they do not create the impression that the complaints are without factual basis.
Peirce explained that the result of the rule is that the respondent agrees to rescind past in-court statements contesting the truth of the regulator’s allegations, promising never to do so or permit others to challenge the accusations for the case to remain settled.
The petition, brought by the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), asked the agency to amend the rule to allow a defendant to consent to a judgment in which they admit, deny, or neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint.
However, the SEC denied the petition on the grounds that the NCLA’s arguments have no merit and that the gag rule is “a proper exercise of the Commission’s authority to decide how it will pursue its enforcement mission and settle cases.”
Undermining Regulatory Integrity
Despite the SEC’s claims, Crypto Mom believes otherwise.
“I agree with the petitioner that this issue warrants a spot on our rulemaking agenda. One thing I love about this country is that Americans can and often do criticize their government…This freedom to speak against the government and government officials is essential in a free society committed to the preeminence of the people,” she stated.
The commissioner insisted that the policy of denying defendants the right to criticize a settlement after it is signed publicly undermines regulatory integrity and raises First Amendment concerns.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has ordered cryptocurrency exchange Zipmex to suspend its trading and brokerage services temporarily.
According to an official announcement, Zipmex’s services will remain suspended for 15 days until the firm fixes its financial position and operational issues.
Zipmex Ordered to Halt Services
The SEC revealed that it issued a letter on January 12 ordering Zipmex to amend the maintenance of its net liquid capital, bring it up to the required amount by law, and fix its business management structure.
However, as of January 27, Zipmex had not met the requirements, and during the Commission’s February 1 meeting, the exchange’s efforts to fix the deficiencies were deemed insufficient. As a result, Zipmex must pause its operations until the corrections are implemented and can only resume services when the SEC permits.
While Zipmex’s business operations remain suspended, the exchange must allow customers to withdraw their assets at any time. The SEC said the firm’s management is mandated to comply with customers’ wishes on what to do with their funds.
Zipmex Suspended Thai Operations in November
By the time Zipmex submits the results of the corrections by February 17, the SEC expects that the financial position of the company has been corrected, a system has been created to prevent users’ deposits from being used or profited by any means, and appropriate personnel has been provided to avoid causing damage to customers.
“According to the process specified by law, if the digital asset business operator is unable to comply with the SEC’s orders under Section 35, paragraph two, within the specified period, the SEC may propose that the Minister of Finance consider revoking the order,” stated Anek Yuyuen, Deputy Secretary General and SEC Spokesperson.
The SEC’s order comes two months after Zipmex proposed repaying its creditors 3.35 cents per dollar for their claims as part of its restructuring efforts. The exchange has been troubled since July 2022 after it froze withdrawals amid the contagion from Terra’s collapse.
Zipmex temporarily suspended crypto trading and deposits for Thai customers in November to comply with the SEC’s requirements. The platform’s major creditors are also against the repayment proposal and have requested an independent review of its assets and liabilities.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
Tractor on farm track by Peter Holmes, via Wikimedia Commons
The progressive stranglehold of “climate change” policy in Europe has taken its toll on their farmers, and they have reached a critical breaking point. A breaking point that could be coming to America’s heartland in the very near future.
Europe has had a simmering level of discontent among its farming community over the last few years, with tensions in some countries starting to boil over as farmers intensify protests throughout the continent. Major highways have been blocked by tractors, bales of hay lit on fire, and access to airports and sea ports restricted by the protesters.
The increase in irritation from European farmers comes as the European Union Summit is set to commence. Farmers from Belgium to Italy and France to Spain are hopeful their voices will be considered as European leaders meet to plot new “climate change” regulations.
BREAKING: A Spanish farmers has announced they will also join the protests against climate policies.
European farmers are making waves across the continent as they flex their agricultural muscles to catch the attention of their elected leaders. French farmers recently blocked highways in and out of Paris with tractors and set hay bales on fire to block access to Toulouse-Blagnac Airport.
Belgian farmers blocked roads to the Zeebrugge container port. Farmers marched in the streets of Milan and Rome in Italy.
Last year, German and Polish farmers protested, and Spanish farmers have pledged to add their voices to the mix starting in February. Sporting protest signs with slogans such as: “Minister for awhile, Farmer for Life” these farmers are at their limit with the European Union bureaucrats.
German farmers in Stuttgart come out in the thousands to continue their protests as European farmers en masse are rising up against net zero policies. pic.twitter.com/WPjo8ldRh1
Why all the anger from seemingly mild-mannered European farmers? They argue that the EU’s oppressive regulations primarily aimed at climate change initiatives have made it almost impossible to thrive as a farmer in Europe and stay in business at all.
One such regulation is the requirement to devote 4% of their farmland to “non-productive” areas so “nature can recover” to receive subsidies from the EU. The requirement to leave land fallow to receive subsidies has put many farmers out of business, with rumors of some feeling so desperate they’ve resorted to suicide.
Where would such a nonsensical restriction come from?
Last year, the 28th Conference of the Parties, otherwise known as the COP28, met in Dubai. It is an annual event where world leaders meet to discuss policy changes that could be made to avert climate disasters. The meetings are often minimally covered by mainstream media.
Unfortunately, these extravagant get-togethers of the world elite tend to be where some of the worst ideas are born and then subsequently dropped into government policies affecting the unsuspecting masses. Last year’s event, in particular, showcased what they dubbed as “1.5 Celcius-aligned menus” focused on plant-based foods to show the importance of “climate-friendly food and farming.”
The COP28 Food Systems Lead Mariam Almheiri said of the menus:
“To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, to keep 1.5C within reach, we must address the connection between global food systems, agriculture, and the climate.”
Don’t be fooled by the eloquence of the line; when Mr. Almheiri mentions global food systems, he’s talking about farms and ranches. The United States naturally was in attendance last year and was one of over 150 countries that agreed to implement policies to align with the climate goals of the COP28, including:
“…simultaneously reduce the harmful environmental impacts of agriculture and to maximize the sector’s climate benefits.”
Europe attempts to “reduce the harmful” impacts of farming by tying subsidies to required fallow farmland. The question is, how is the United States pushing forward?
United Nations to declare war on meat at COP28 Climate Depot’s Marc Morano reacts to climate alarmists coming after the meat industry with livestock farming in the crosshairs at COP28 on ‘The Bottom Line.’ Source: Fox Business pic.twitter.com/UwkdFsawu1
Late last year, 12 state agriculture commissioners wrote a letter to six U.S. banks raising concerns about financial decisions the banks were making tied to climate change initiatives that negatively impact American farmers and ranchers. The six banks in question are a part of the United Nations-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance or NZBA.
The NZBA is “committed to financing ambitious climate action” with the intent that banks make financial decisions based on climate initiatives.
“Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture requires a complete overhaul of on-farm infrastructure – one of the goals of the NZBA.”
They go on to illustrate the damage the NZBA will inflict on American agriculture:
“Proposed net-zero roadmaps describe dramatic, impractical, and costly changes to American farming and ranching operations such as switching to electric machinery and equipment; installing on-site solar panels and wind turbines; moving to organic fertilizer; altering rice-field irrigation systems; and slashing U.S. ruminant meat consumption in half, costing millions in livestock jobs.”
That last bit should sound familiar. It sounds a lot like pushing plant-based foods like COP28 or, dare I say it…eating bugs instead of beef…
🔥BREAKING: A dozen AG Commissioners launch probe into big banks & warn their membership in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) may impact food availability, lead to higher process, limit credit for farmers, & have negative economic consequences #ESGscamhttps://t.co/JL1hL7rLKj
— State Financial Officers Foundation (@SFOF_States) January 29, 2024
Boring but important
If it’s not the banks that will bring American farmers to the streets in protest, it might be Congress. This year, Congress has to pass an updated Farm bill.
The Farm Bill encompasses all manner of non-sexy policy items related to SNAP benefits and farm subsidies. These farm subsidies, similar to those in Europe, are increasingly tied to climate initiatives.
Just as in Europe, the stranglehold on America’s heartland isn’t happening overnight, but in small, tiny moves throughout many years thanks to the persistent push of climate activists and international pressure from progressive European leaders. While the mainstream media brushes aside claims that European aristocrats and climate activists want to make us eat bug burgers and that techno-elites like Bill Gates gobbling up the largest amount of privately owned farmland in the country isn’t something to be concerned about, banks and congressmen are slowly encroaching on American ranchers and farmers to perpetuate their dangerous climate ideology.
Agriculture is the economic backbone for rural communities in WA states—but severe, long-term drought is devastating these rural areas. I’m working to make sure the risks these droughts pose to our growers, producers, and local economies are addressed in the next Farm Bill.
Last October, the Department of Agriculture’s Household Food Security report revealed that one in eight households in America had experienced food insecurity in the previous calendar year. With that, I’ll leave you with this final question – what is the end goal of starving out Europeans and Americans by slowly killing off farming and ranching?
Is it really about climate change, or is it about something else entirely?
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust. The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
USAF Retired, Bronze Star recipient, outspoken veteran advocate. Hot mess mom to two monsters and wife to equal parts… More about Kathleen J. Anderson
FREE NEWS ALERTS
Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.
By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.
DEBT Box, a company that primarily provides users of its services with crypto mining software, was taken to court last year by the SEC.
According to the regulator, DEBT Box had defrauded investors to the tune of $50 million by selling unregistered securities. The company, which provides an ecosystem to go along with its software, has its own token, DEBT, to facilitate payments across the ecosystem. However, it is a tool used primarily for the transfer of assets in-house.
Assets Frozen Erroneously
Back in August, the SEC asked the court to freeze DEBT Box’s assets, claiming that the company was putting users’ funds at risk due to “proof” of a $720k transfer to foreign bank accounts.
Additionally, the request was filed ex parte, meaning that DEBT Box was not made aware and, therefore, could not challenge it in court. The agency motivated this by stating that the firm’s lawyers were attempting to stop the SEC’s request, which is sort of what lawyers are hired to do.
Although the asset freeze was granted, new evidence later came to life, proving that the asset transfer in question was actually done domestically. The asset freeze was lifted, and DEBT Box lawyers wasted no time in requesting a dismissal of the case a few days later.
However, the SEC has since come forward with their own request for dismissal, requesting lighter sanctions than the ones requested by the defendant.
“I’m sorry, so sorry How long must you punish me? Why can’t we just move on? Let bygones be bygones But you never will What’s the difference If this time I’m the one that did the wrong? Should it matter?”
The SEC’s lawyers have been hit with a request to Show Cause, meaning that they must justify themselves before the court or face penalties.
According to Fortune, the SEC argued that the false evidence had not been provided maliciously and was based on a YouTube video made and posted by one of the defendants in the case.
“While the Commission recognizes that its attorneys should have been more forthcoming with the Court, sanctions are not appropriate or necessary to address those issues. Significantly, the Commission is continuing to take steps to address the issues the Court identified and to identify any other issues that may warrant further consideration.”
Due to the error which the SEC claims was unintentional, the regulator requests that the harsh penalties requested by the defendant be denied – although they agree that the case should be dismissed.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
DeFi regulation has been a major bone of contention among regulatory watchdogs across the world. A recent paper, authored by Rebecca Rettig, Katja Gilman from Polygon Labs, and Michael Mosier from Arktouros, proposes a strategy to classify truly decentralized DeFi protocols as critical infrastructure.
This classification would place them under the oversight of the US Treasury’s Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection (OCCIP). Although the OCCIP isn’t a typical financial regulator, it plays a crucial role in strengthening the security and resilience of critical infrastructure in the financial services sector.
It collaborates with financial institutions, industry associations, and government agencies to exchange information about cybersecurity risks and weaknesses.
Classifying DeFi As ‘Critical Infrastructure’
The 45-page research suggests it is possible to set up safety measures to tackle the risks of illegal money activities in DeFi Systems. Instead of bringing in middlemen forcefully into real DeFi Systems, it’s comparable to not making phone companies have switchboard operators again to confirm who’s using each phone.
Rather, genuine DeFi should be seen as “critical infrastructure” and overseen by OCCIP, similar to how the authorities handle illegal finance risks in other tech systems in finance.
The report clarified that classifying genuine DeFi Systems as “critical infrastructure” under OCCIP doesn’t automatically label them as “financial institutions” regulated by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). OCCIP isn’t bound by BSA regulations and isn’t limited to working solely with financial institutions.
Additionally. classifying genuine DeFi Systems as “critical infrastructure” aligns with efforts proposed by both industry and regulators to establish regulatory measures for neutral software. According to the paper, these measures include implementing cybersecurity standards, setting up information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs), automating risk indicators, and using other tools to mitigate risks.
While some of these initiatives are already underway in the DeFi sector, such as cybersecurity frameworks and an ISAC, collaboration between industry and regulators facilitated by OCCIP would enhance the effectiveness of these efforts.
Unclear Regulations Pose Barriers to DeFi Expansion
DeFi has been a major grey area for regulators. While North America has been a big user of DeFi, its share of activity has dropped recently, mainly due to regulatory uncertainty in the US.
Earlier this year, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) highlighted a problem with DeFi systems: the lack of clear accountability, which some industry structures intentionally overlook. The agency pointed out various risks for investors and consumers, like fraud, market manipulation, conflicts of interest, data breaches, and privacy violations, mainly because people don’t understand DeFi well.
The CFTC suggested that policymakers need to understand DeFi better by figuring out what’s already known and what still needs exploring. They advised policymakers to use mapping exercises to see if the financial products and services offered by DeFi projects fall under existing US regulations.
SPECIAL OFFER (Sponsored)
Binance Free $100 (Exclusive): Use this link to register and receive $100 free and 10% off fees on Binance Futures first month (terms).
