> In a regulated securities market, this would be considered insider information, and this could lead to jail time
Per the SEC's definition (and thus prevailing law of the land), this is already illegal insider trading. That said, it's a low enforcement priority, largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic.
> the victims here are literally the people who need protecting the most
If you look at my comment history, you'll see I'm for enforcement. When I've advocated for it, this is what I've been told: crypto enthusiasts aren't a sympathetic victim block. That leads to reduced enforcement when they're the victims. When it's regular folk, like those depositing with Gemini Earn, we get enforcement.
Same reason we don't see enforcement against dealers of adulterated illegal drugs in respect of their adulteration. The victims aren't sympathetic.
If you’re for enforcement, you should be appalled at this answer. According to non-crazy metrics, up to 13% of Americans held crypto currencies at some point.
Don’t tell me 13% of all Americans don’t deserve enforcement at least of the rules by which crypto currencies should operate. I’m not asking for the moon here.
You are incorrect. The only time that the SEC has been to court on the issue of that definition, the court ruled against them. The SEC does not have the power to determine what is a security anyway. That rests with statutory law and court precedent.
Per the SEC's definition (and thus prevailing law of the land), this is already illegal insider trading. That said, it's a low enforcement priority, largely on account of the victims being unsympathetic.