Home / Mark Cuban vs. John Reed Stark: Who is Right About SEC Crypto Crackdown?
5 min read

Mark Cuban vs. John Reed Stark: Who is Right About SEC Crypto Crackdown?

Last Updated June 26, 2023 10:34 AM
Teuta Franjkovic
Last Updated June 26, 2023 10:34 AM
Key Takeaways
  • John Reed Stark and Mark Cuban had a heated discussion about the present regulatory climate in the crypto sector
  • The argument started when Binance was recently the subject of a hearing for a temporary restraining order (TRO)
  • The two prominent crypto figures appear to have taken exception to the judge’s comments regarding the Binance case in particular

Famous investor and entrepreneur Mark Cuban and former SEC official John Reed Stark got into a heated argument on Twitter about how cryptocurrencies should be regulated.

The controversy was brought on by the SEC’s recent legal action against the largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, which Cuban slammed as being bad for the sector.

Different Perspectives On the Matter

First, Gary Gensler, the chairman of the SEC, was accused by Cuban of demonizing cryptocurrency and supporting a “regulation via litigation” strategy that impedes the development of cryptocurrency firms.

Many crypto enterprises, Cuban stated, are modestly sized, and so shouldn’t be subjected to onerous legal obligations.

The SEC’s actions, on the other hand, were praised by Stark, who emphasized the necessity of eradicating dishonest people and fostering transparency in the highly unregulated crypto business. He suggested that crypto-related businesses be treated like huge corporations.

The best way to regulate cryptocurrencies was further discussed. Stark opposed treating cryptocurrency assets like stocks, while Cuban argued for the SEC to issue more precise rules.

Despite their disagreements, all parties concurred that a sizable portion of blockchain businesses and tokens would fail, mirroring the dynamics of early Internet businesses.

Cuban, who coined the term “Crypto Derangement Syndrome,” urged against unreasonable dislike of the technology while expressing unflinching support for the potential economic impact of cryptocurrency.

The cryptocurrency industry is eagerly awaiting new developments in the area of regulation as the discussion rages on, hoping for a fair strategy that encourages innovation while guaranteeing investor protection.

On Token Utility and Digital Space Laws

As the discussion turned to the utility of tokens and the governance of the digital asset market, Stark argued that tokens shouldn’t be viewed as “pink sheets or stocks.” According to the former SEC officer, Tokens are significantly different from equities.

On the other hand, Cuban asserted that Stark’s viewpoint was skewed and that the regulator should make rules for tokens similar to those for conventional securities.

Mark Cuban kept praising the value of smart contracts and called for the SEC to encourage startups more while maintaining its responsibility to safeguard investors by drawing parallels between the early internet and cryptocurrencies.

Army of Securities Lawyers Needed to Determine Crypto Destiny

Cuban recently made a statement  regarding the Securities & Exchange Commission’s (SEC) legal action against cryptocurrency assets and exchanges. Cuban said that it is “near impossible” to determine which crypto assets are securities and that the regulator failed to give sufficient information for the registration of digital assets.

The multibillionaire businessman contended that compared to other areas of the economy, the SEC’s stance on cryptocurrency is less clear. Cuban recently stated on Twitter that it would take an army of securities attorneys to identify which cryptocurrencies are securities.

Cuban looked over the SEC’s letter about the Howey test  and tokens that go against their enforcement stance.


The document describes the criteria for crypto firms under US federal securities laws, but there is no step-by-step guide. In addition to other “essential managerial efforts” that affect the profitability of the firm, the regulator has mandated that all information required for investors to make “informed investment decisions” be disclosed.

Proposal for SEC Exchange Definition Receives Criticism from Crypto Industry

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has extended the comment period  for its proposed modifications to Rule 3b-16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, escalating the continuing conflict between the crypto industry and regulators.

The original June 13 deadline has been postponed to provide interested parties more time to express their concerns.

The SEC’s inability to specifically mention digital assets in the document’s first release is one of the main points of the suggested revisions.

Notably, the Blockchain Association and Republican members of the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services have also criticized the idea.

The SEC’s opposition to blockchain technology, according to the Republican committee members, is exemplified by the proposal. They also charged SEC Chair Gary Gensler with pushing his personal opinions without adequate research or justification.

The Blockchain Association, on the other hand, has so far submitted two sets of comments that criticize the SEC’s power and raise issues with the recently upheld big questions doctrine.


While Stark’s research provides a thorough examination of the legal framework and historical precedence, Cuban also makes the point that the crypto business needs to innovate quickly. However, both viewpoints are crucial in attempting to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and protecting investors.

The difficulties raised by Mark Cuban, like as the disproportionate compliance cost on small crypto businesses and the desire for legislative changes to spur innovation, are challenges that may be simpler to address in the web of challenges that this discourse has unwound.