Brian Brooks

Looking forward to participating in this great initiative from @a16z with a class on compliance and securities law for crypto startupshttps://twitter.com/jessewldn/status/1204763667524444160 …

Thank you @ChrisSandsTech for hosting me on the podcast. I enjoyed our conversation on the past and future of the global financial system.https://twitter.com/ChrisSandsTech/status/1204458731729084417 …

why it's important for there to be standards that require full, audited collateralization of stablecoins. These standards should call for full, transparent accounting attestations provided by third party auditors, just as #USDC does. https://www.centre.io/pdfs/attestation/grant-thornton_circle_usdc_reserves_20191011.pdf …

why it's important that we have a robust market of regulated exchanges in the US. US regulators would be able to pick up evidence of market manipulation, whereas these unregulated foreign exchanges don't have that real-time scrutiny, and

While there are many interpretations of the report’s findings, this is a clear example of:

According to the WSJ and Bloomberg, a single large player manipulated the price of bitcoin as it ran up to a peak of nearly $20,000 two years ago.

The U.S. is the world's leader in technology innovation, but that leadership is provided by the private sector, not by the government. The world is moving in the direction of digital currency, and technology innovators like Coinbase are here to help.

But there is no more need for the government to control the blockchain policy of stablecoin issuers than there is for the government to dictate the tech used by commercial banks.

The U.S. government has a large role to play in regulating digital assets - it already plays a role in supervising stablecoin issuers to ensure they are holding the underlying dollar assets as advertised.

There’s much debate around the role of digital currency, much of it driven by conversation around Libra. But it’s worth noting that there are compromises. An example is a crypto that’s fully backed by U.S. dollars - a “stablecoin” like the one Coinbase and Circle created, USDC.

But does government really need to create the digital dollar, or can the private sector can do it better? I believe the best path forward employs the skills of each actor. This means letting innovators in the private sector invent, and letting government set standards.

This is a truly bipartisan issue: Top Fed officials, the fmr CFTC chairman and CIO, along with dem and GOP members of Congress are all discussing how the U.S. can create and run a dollar-based digital token and ledger.

The US should promote and distribute digital dollars into the economy to maintain US leadership in the global financial system. Not all stablecoins are up to this task, but a few (like USDC) are.

USDC and TrueUSD are great examples of how the US can lead without the government exerting control over the tech. The government doesn't dictate tech for banks, and it shouldn't dictate tech for stablecoin issuers.

The way for the US to lead is for the government to retain control over monetary policy, and to harness the innovation of our private sector by adopting tokens built by innovative private companies.

But there is confusion about whether the US gov. needs to create the digital dollar, or whether it can be created by the private sector. The US leads the world in tech innovation -- but that leadership is provided by the private sector, not by the government.

Yesterday, the former chairman of the CFTC advocated for the creation of a tokenized Greenback. The reasons are clear: the USD is under pressure as the globally dominant currency. Other countries (China, Russia, and the UK) are exploring the viability of digital fiat currency.