Important! Comment period ends 10/30/23: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/29/2023-17565/gross-proceeds-and-basis-reporting-by-brokers-and-determination-of-amount-realized-and-basis-for#open-commentYou can also request to speak at the public hearing planned Nov. 7 & Nov. 8 if there’s enough requests to speak. Outlines to speak must be received by Oct. 30 or the public hearing will be cancelled. Submit your substantive, relevant comments before the deadline! You can do so over the net, and anonymously if you wish. You can use bing.com/chat and claude.ai to help you verify your comments are relevant and substantive. They're free and amazingly helpful. As an experiment, ask it to write you something and see how amazing it is. Ask it to expand on it. Ask it to include citations and quotes. Ask it to speak in the voice of a supreme court justice, for a laugh. Doing your own research has never been easier! Writing your own comments is fun! Also ends 10/30/23: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/30/2023-18667/safeguarding-advisory-client-assets-reopening-of-comment-period#addresses Now, for the first possible APA violation. Searching regulations.gov for: cryptocurrency, cryptocurrencies, virtual currency or virtual currencies in that box in the screenshots doesn’t bring up all the important and currently open for comment results. Saying you want comments, and then hiding the issues from people searching for them; misleading them that they don’t exist, is perhaps a violation of the APA. For instance, the second link in this post doesn't appear in the results. Richard Heart is not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Richard Heart hasn't read any of these. You should. You may make substantive and relevant comments anonymously by web form or alternative means. Time is running out. Richard is doing more to make the world a better place, by getting eyeballs and engagement for good rule making, than most. And mind you, for a country he hasn't lived in for 20 years. Freedom ain't free. Do the work. Let your voice be heard, submit your relevant & substantive comments now. The sooner you start, the sooner the regulators can be educated by you and fellow commenters may be inspired by reading your public comments as well. You have all the tools you need to make a positive impact. #cryptocurrency

Attorneys. Richard Heart is here to help. Regulatory agencies must consider all relevant comments. “Consider” means more than you might think. They must explain, in writing, what they relied on, a reasoned basis for such, and they must not have failed to consider any important aspect. If they don’t, they can be found “arbitrary and capricious” by the courts and their rules undone. Substantive, relevant comments lead to better rules, or no new rules, as it mandates regulators do a better job. Basically, if you make a relevant, substantive comment, and they don’t respond to it, it can invalidate the rule they made. Now that AI exists, it’s easier than ever to verify your comments are relevant and substantive. Furthermore, the courts might find that the agency didn’t provide you with good enough reasoning in their proposed rule for you to even make reasonable comments about, which is a different type of APA violation. Basically, the APA has lots of rules the agencies must follow, to the letter, or risk being overturned in court. Smart lawyers are referencing those rules in some of their comments. I’ve heard that by making more obvious the deficiencies in the agency’s notices, that if they make a bad rule final, that it might be easier in court to have it overturned. As you can show the judge what they ignored, what they violated, what they didn’t reason about properly, what they failed to disclose, etc. Then it’s easier for the judge to rule against them, as the agencies violations are made more obvious. Here’s an example of such a comment: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/f/?id=0000018a-8982-d776-a3ce-eff31e170000 I’m not an attorney, but I’ve been told I’d make a good one. Citations: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983). Section 553 of the APA (5 U.S.C. § 553):