The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Crypto Task Force has announced the agenda and panelists for its rescheduled Roundtable on Financial Surveillance and Privacy. “New technologies give us a fresh opportunity to recalibrate financial surveillance measures to ensure the protection of our nation and the liberties that make America unique,” said Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, head of the Crypto Task Force. “I look forward to this chance for the SEC, other federal regulators, and the public to learn from the roundtable participants about how these new tools work.” The roundtable will be held at the SEC's headquarters at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. on Dec. 15 from 1 p.m. – 5 p.m. ET. The event will be open to the public and webcast live on the SEC’s website. Doors will open at 12 p.m. For in-person attendance, please register. For online attendance, registration is not necessary; a link to watch the event will be available on Dec. 15 on www.sec.gov. Please note that an invitation to participate in the roundtable does not serve as an endorsement of the project or any affiliate(s) of the project. The SEC does not endorse or sponsor any particular securities, issuers, products, services, professional credentials, firms, or individuals.   To learn more about the Crypto Task Force, please visit the Crypto Task Force webpage.   Agenda TimeSpeakers and Panelists 1:00 - 1:30 p.m.                                      Opening/Welcome Remarks from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Richard B. Gabbert, Chief of Staff, Crypto Task Force Chairman Paul S. Atkins Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda Commissioner Hester M. Peirce 1:30 - 3:00 p.m.  Discussion of Financial Surveillance and Privacy Moderator: Yaya J. Fanusie, Senior Advisor, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Global Head of Policy, Aleo Network Foundation Panelists: Jill Gunter, Chief Strategy Officer, Espresso Systems Zooko Wilcox, Founder, Zcash Koh, CEO and Executive Director, Aleo Network Foundation Simon Letort, Head of Strategic Initiatives, Digital Asset Nikhil Raghuveera, Co-Founder and CEO, Predicate Wayne Chang, Founder & CEO, SpruceID 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Break 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. Panel on Financial Surveillance and Privacy Moderator: Yaya J. Fanusie, Senior Advisor, Crypto Council for Innovation, and Global Head of Policy, Aleo Network Foundation Panelists: Katherine Kirkpatrick Bos, General Counsel, StarkWare Carole House, CEO, Penumbra Strategies Linda Jeng, CEO, Digital Self Labs Summer Mersinger, CEO, Blockchain Association Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, American Civil Liberties Union J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason Law School Steve Yelderman, General Counsel, Etherealize  

The Basel Committee has published a consultation on a standard format for machine-readable disclosures by banks. The proposed standard format would make existing disclosure by banks more accessible and easier to aggregate. Comments on the proposals are requested by 5 March 2026. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision today published a consultative document proposing additions to its disclosure standard to make the data disclosed by banks (so-called Pillar 3 disclosures) available in a machine-readable format. Pillar 3 disclosures by internationally active banks under the Basel Committee's standards are an important source of their key risk metrics. Most banks, however, currently publish their disclosures in PDF format only, which makes it difficult to aggregate, process and compare data across banks. To make Pillar 3 disclosure data more accessible, the Committee is proposing that they should be made available in standardised machine-readable formats across its member jurisdictions. The proposed standard would introduce a requirement and technical specifications to produce machine-readable quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures, without changing the underlying disclosure requirements for banks. National supervisors would decide whether banks should publish machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures on their own websites or via a centralised data repository. It is also envisaged that the proposed standard would not increase burdens on banks in jurisdictions where machine-readable Pillar 3 disclosures are already required. Instead, existing approaches would be integrated into the proposed global standard. The Committee welcomes comments on the proposed additions to the standard covering machine-readable quantitative Pillar 3 disclosures, which should be submitted here by 5 March 2026. All submissions will be published on the BIS website unless a respondent specifically requests confidential treatment. Background The Basel Committee is the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks and provides a forum for cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its mandate is to strengthen the regulation, supervision and practices of banks worldwide with the purpose of enhancing financial stability. The Committee reports to the Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision and seeks its endorsement for major decisions. The Committee has no formal supranational authority, and its decisions have no legal force. Rather, the Committee relies on its members' commitments to achieve its mandate. The Group of Central Bank Governors and Heads of Supervision is chaired by Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Basel Committee is chaired by Erik Thedéen, Governor of Sveriges Riksbank.  More information about the Basel Committee is available here.

Good afternoon and thank you for the flexibility in allowing me to deliver my remarks towards the end of the day due to scheduling issues. Earlier, the Committee engaged in discussions on corporate governance and tokenization and will later discuss artificial intelligence disclosures. Today, also, is the final Committee Meeting for our Investor Advocate. I want to extend my appreciation to Cristina [Martin Firvida] for her dedication and professionalism. Cristina is the second Investor Advocate in the Commission’s history. When she was selected, I was not quite sure what to expect from her. However, Cristina won me over by finding areas of mutual agreement and then executing upon them. One of Cristina’s important contributions is reforming the selection process for Committee members. As an SEC staff member, I was here at the very beginning of the Committee. It became clear that the departure of a significant majority of the Committee members every four years was not conducive to longer-term thinking. Through Cristina’s efforts, we now have a plan where approximately a quarter of the Committee will be replaced annually, thereby obtaining a smoother transition of new members into the Committee. Thank you, Cristina, for your outstanding service and I wish you the best in your future endeavors! The Role of Corporate Governance in Capital Markets Corporate governance plays a role in investor confidence and market integrity. It encompasses the systems, principles, and processes by which companies are directed and controlled. At its core, effective governance ensures that companies are accountable to shareholders and resilient in the face of evolving risks. Over time, the role of governance has expanded beyond traditional oversight. Companies are increasingly expected to navigate complex issues such as cybersecurity and emerging technologies. A well-functioning board must not only monitor management but also anticipate and adapt to systemic shifts that could affect long-term value creation. However, Congress specifically left the states in charge of governance under state corporate law. The federal securities laws and regulations play an important complimentary role in providing disclosure, describing the governance structure, the rights of shareholders, and potential risks associated with a company’s particular structure as well as for providing a regulatory framework for proxy solicitation. Yet, as we consider reforms, we must be mindful of the temptation to use the Commission’s disclosure authority for registration statements and proxy materials, as well as oversight of exchange listing requirements, to impose prescriptive governance mandates. It is inappropriate to mistake the “investor protection” and “public interest” standards contained in the federal securities laws as Congressional authority to set national corporate governance standards. Congress does not “hide elephants in mouse holes.”[1] Corporate governance is best left to the market to decide. If a potential shareholder does not like a particular governance framework — such as whether it is board composition, independence, expertise, then there is a simple solution: do not invest. Companies with corporate governance structures that are not well received by investors will have a higher cost of capital and a depressed stock price. Mandatory Arbitration and Acceleration of Effectiveness Similarly, another area of recent discussion is the Commission’s clarification regarding mandatory arbitration provisions in registration statements and how the presence of such provisions will not be an impediment to acceleration of effectiveness. Some panelists might have argued earlier today that this represents a reversal of prior Commission policy or weakening of investor protections. In fact, the Commission has never had a policy prohibiting such provisions. Our recent Policy Statement simply articulates that, absent a clear congressional directive, the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act was not overruled by the federal securities laws, and the existence of an arbitration provision is not grounds for denying effectiveness under Section 8(a) of the Securities Act. This approach is consistent with judicial precedent and ensures that our rulebook is clear, transparent, objective, and predictable. To suggest otherwise is to mischaracterize both the law and the absence of any prior Commission’s policy. During consideration of this Policy Statement at the open meeting, I specifically asked whether the Commission could adopt the opposite position. In other words, assume that the parade of horrible described by critics of mandatory arbitration provisions were to occur. Would the Commission have the legal authority to issue a policy statement specifically denying the acceleration of effectiveness of any registration statement if it disclosed the preference of a mandatory arbitration provision? The answer was essentially no — if the disclosure was adequate, then that would be essentially merit regulation, which was not authorized by the federal securities laws. Artificial Intelligence: Committee Recommendations and Regulatory Considerations Finally, let me express my appreciation for the Committee’s recent work on artificial intelligence disclosures. This is a rapidly evolving area of corporate activity. As AI becomes more deeply integrated into business operations, the need for material information by investors may grow. The Committee has proposed that issuers: Define what they mean by “artificial intelligence” in their disclosures; Disclose board oversight mechanisms, if any, for AI deployment; and Report separately on the material effects of AI on internal operations and consumer-facing matters. I recognize that these recommendations are grounded in a materiality-based approach and are designed to fit within the existing disclosure framework under Regulation S-K. Furthermore, the Committee’s decision to build on existing disclosure items—rather than propose a standalone AI regime—is a pragmatic one that avoids unnecessary structural complexity. That said, it is important to approach this area with caution. There are practical and conceptual challenges that merit further consideration. For example, the lack of a universally accepted definition of “artificial intelligence” could create interpretative and disclosure issues. Boards, management, and their outside counsel may struggle to determine what qualifies as AI, particularly when distinguishing between traditional automation and more advanced machine learning systems. Similarly, while board oversight is a critical governance function, mandating disclosures in this area may not always yield meaningful insight for investors—especially if oversight responsibilities are diffuse or still evolving. And while reporting on the material effects of AI is a reasonable goal, it may be difficult in practice to isolate those effects separately from regular business operations. Moreover, we must be mindful of the potential for regulatory overreach. Prematurely codifying rigid disclosure mandates could stifle innovation, particularly for smaller issuers that may lack the resources to implement complex compliance systems. A one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate in a space where use cases, risks, and maturity levels vary widely across industries. As we consider the Committee’s recommendation, our goal should not be to use the federal securities laws as a backdoor attempt to regulate AI. Rather, we must ensure that investors are not left in the dark about material risks and opportunities that may arise from the use of AI in business operations and strategy and to do so in a manner without being encumbered by prescriptive or duplicative requirements. The Committee provides a forum for this ongoing dialogue, and I look forward to continued engagement on this issue. [1] Ritter, Ling, Elephants in Mouseholes: The Major Questions Doctrine in the Lower Courts, 76 Stan. L. Rev. 1381, 1392 (2024), https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/06/Ritter-76-Stan.-L.-Rev.-1381.pdf. L

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced it will hold the second in its series of compliance outreach events regarding the 2024 adoption of amendments to Regulation S-P. The event, for transfer agents, is a webinar scheduled for December 17 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. ET. The third event in the series, for small firms, will be announced at a later date. The Regulation S-P compliance outreach events are tailored for each registrant type and scheduled according to the compliance deadlines published in the Regulation S-P rule amendments. Staff from the Divisions of Examinations and Trading and Markets will cover the new Regulation S-P compliance obligations, discuss what to expect when interacting with an exam team during an examination, and answer any remaining compliance questions. “When investors share their personal information with a firm, they deserve to know that this information will be protected,” said Keith Cassidy, Acting Director of the Division of Examinations. “We recognize that this is the first time transfer agents are required to comply with Regulation S-P’s Safeguards Rule, and our Division is committed to helping them understand their obligations under the rule to help protect investors’ personal information.” While not required, advance registration is preferred. Questions may also be submitted in advance. A link to watch the event will be available on Dec. 17 on www.sec.gov. Additional information about each Regulation S-P compliance outreach event, including the agenda and speakers, will be posted on the Reg Compliance S-P Outreach webpage.

Miami International Holdings, Inc. (MIAX) (NYSE: MIAX), a technology-driven leader in building and operating regulated financial markets across multiple asset classes, today reported November 2025 trading results for its U.S. exchange subsidiaries — MIAX®, MIAX Pearl®, MIAX Emerald® and MIAX Sapphire® (collectively, the MIAX Exchange Group), and MIAX Futures™. November 2025 and Year-to-Date Highlights MIAX Exchange Group set a year-to-date (YTD) market share record of 17.1% through November 2025, a 14.0% increase from the same period in 2024. MIAX Exchange Group reached a YTD average daily volume (ADV) record of 9.6 million contracts through November 2025, a 45.0% increase from the same period in 2024. MIAX Futures reached a record YTD ADV of 13,772 contracts through November 2025, a 6.4% increase from the same period in 2024. Additional MIAX Exchange Group and MIAX Futures trading volume and market share information is included in the table below. Summary statistics including trading volume and market share by business segment, as well as rolling three-month average revenue per contract and capture rates are available on the MIAX website at https://ir.miaxglobal.com/volume-rpc-reports. Average Daily Trading Volume (ADV) (1) Year-to-Date Comparison Nov-25 Nov-24 % Chg Oct-25 % Chg Nov-25 Nov-24 % Chg U.S. Multi-list Options Trading Days 19 20 23 228 231 U.S. Equity Options Industry ADV (000's) 62,132 50,547 22.9 % 67,193 -7.5 % 56,000 44,012 27.2 % MIAX Exchange Group Options ADV (000's) 10,915 8,152 33.9 % 13,057 -16.4 % 9,570 6,600 45.0 % MIAX Exchange Group Options Market Share      17.6 % 16.1 % 8.9 % 19.4 % -9.6 % 17.1 % 15.0 % 14.0 % U.S. Equities U.S. Equities Industry ADV (Millions) 18,794 14,601 28.7 % 20,996 -10.5 % 17,712 11,927 48.5 % MIAX Pearl ADV (Millions) 181 188 -3.9 % 218 -16.9 % 189 199 -5.0 % MIAX Pearl Market Share 1.0 % 1.3 % -25.3 % 1.0 % -7.2 % 1.1 % 1.7 % -36.0 % MIAX Futures Exchange  Trading Days 19 20 23 229 231 MIAX Futures ADV 13,153 17,117 -23.2 % 7,286 80.5 % 13,772 12,949 6.4 % 1)  Calculated as total volume for the period divided by total trading days for the period.

Today Moscow Exchange announced the results of the quarterly review for MOEX indices. All changes were made upon recommendations from the Index Committee and will be implemented from 19 December 2025. The Exchange has also set free floats and additional weighting factor for several companies. The MOEX Russia Index and the RTS Index will be modified by ordinary shares of IPJSC OZON, ordinary shares of PJSC DOM.RF and ordinary shares of IPJSC Cian being added to the constituent list of the Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC "Unipro" will leave the Index. The constituent list of the Blue Chip Index will be modified by ordinary shares of IPJSC OZON and ordinary shares of PJSC VTB Bank being added to the constituent list of the Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC Severstal and ordinary shares of PJSC NLMK will leave the Index. Ordinary shares of PJSC "Fix Price" and ordinary shares of IPJSC Etalon Group will be included in the constituent list of the SMID Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC "M.video" will be excluded from the Index. The constituent lists of the Broad Market Index will be modified by ordinary shares of IPJSC OZON, ordinary shares of PJSC DOM.RF, ordinary shares of PJSC "Fix Price" and ordinary shares of IPJSC Etalon Group being added to the constituent list of the Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC Kazanorgsintez, ordinary shares of PJSC Carsharing Russia, ordinary shares of PJSC "M.video" and ordinary shares of PJSC "Diasoft" will leave the Index. The constituent lists of the IT Index will be modified by ordinary shares of IPJSC OZON being added to the constituent list of the Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC "Diasoft" will leave the Index. Ordinary shares of PJSC DOM.RF will be added to the constituent lists of the Finance Index. Real Estate Index will be modified by ordinary shares IPJSC Etalon Group being added to the constituent list of the Index. The constituent lists of the Consumer Index will be modified by ordinary shares of PJSC "Fix Price" being added to the constituent list of the Index, while ordinary shares of PJSC Carsharing Russia and ordinary shares of PJSC "M.video" will leave the Index. Ordinary shares of PJSC Kazanorgsintez will be excluded from the constituent lists of the Chemicals Index. Ordinary shares of IPJSC Lenta and ordinary shares of PJSC "Rusagro Group" will be under consideration to be added to the MOEX Russia Index and the RTS Index. Ordinary shares of PJSC "UGC" will be under consideration to be excluded from the MOEX Russia Index and the RTS Index. Summary table of key changes in the Moscow Exchange Indices' Constituents Lists Index Included Excluded MOEX Russia Index and RTS Index IPJSC CIAN, Ordinary shares   PJSC DOM.RF, Ordinary shares IPJSC OZON, Ordinary shares PJSC "Unipro", Ordinary shares Blue Chip Index IPJSC OZON, Ordinary shares   VTB Bank (PJSC), Ordinary shares PJSC "Severstal", Ordinary shares   PJSC "NLMK", Ordinary shares SMID Index IPJSC Etalon Group, Ordinary shares   PJSC "Fix Price", Ordinary shares PJSC "M.video", Ordinary shares Broad Market Index PJSC DOM.RF, Ordinary shares   Etalon Group IPJSC, Ordinary shares PJSC "Fix Price", Ordinary shares IPJSC OZON, Ordinary shares PJSC Carsharing Russia, Ordinary shares   PJSC "Diasoft", Ordinary shares PJSC "Kazanorgsintez", Ordinary shares PJSC "M.video", Ordinary shares IT Index IPJSC OZON, Ordinary shares PJSC "Diasoft", Ordinary shares Finance Index PJSC DOM.RF, Ordinary shares - Real Estate Index Etalon Group IPJSC, Ordinary shares - Consumer Index PJSC "Fix Price", Ordinary shares PJSC Carsharing Russia, Ordinary shares   PJSC "M.video", Ordinary shares Chemicals Index - PJSC "Kazanorgsintez", Ordinary shares Innovation Index PJSC "Astra Group", Ordinary shares   PJSC PROMOMED, Ordinary shares PJSC "Element", Ordinary shares - MOEX 10 Index PJSC "Polyus", Ordinary shares   PJSC X5 Corporate Center, Ordinary shares PJSC "PIK Group", Ordinary shares   IPJSC YANDEX, Ordinary shares Equity Subindex (EPSI) IPJSC OZON, Ordinary shares   Lenta IPJSC, Ordinary shares PJSC DOM.RF, Ordinary shares PJSC "Positive Group", Ordinary shares   PJSC "RusHydro", Ordinary shares Summary table of changes in number of shares employed in the calculation of the Moscow Exchange Indices and included in the waiting lists, as well as free-float coefficients Ticker Issuer Current number of shares New number of shares Current free-float New free-float BSPB PJSC "Bank "Saint-Petersburg", Ordinary shares 445 828 521 445 368 521 28% 28% CNRU IPJSC CIAN, Ordinary shares 77 670 490 77 670 490 34% 37% DOMRF PJSC DOM.RF, Ordinary shares - 179 888 718 - 10% ELMT PJSC "Element", Ordinary shares 469 725 539 040 469 725 539 040 - 11% FIXR PJSC "Fix Price", Ordinary shares 100 000 000 000 100 000 000 000 17% 15% GECO GENETICO PJSC, Ordinary shares 83 000 000 90 000 000 16% 16% GLRX PJSC "GLORAX", Ordinary shares - 282 812 500 - 12% MAGE PJSC "Magadanenergo", Ordinary shares 463 838 268 463 838 268 - 36% MSRS PJSC "MOESK", Ordinary shares 48 707 091 574 48 707 091 574 10% 11% OZPH PJSC "Ozon Pharmaceuticals", Ordinary shares 1 098 571 440 1 167 690 558 14% 13% PMSBP PJSC "PESC", Preferred shares 11 353 500 11 353 500 34% 36% SGZH PJSC Group of companies "Segezha", Ordinary shares 15 690 000 000 78 450 000 000 25% 5% VKCO IPJSC "VK", Ordinary shares 227 874 940 572 904 180 47% 20% VTBR VTB Bank (PJSC), Ordinary shares 5 369 933 893 6 620 418 282 17% 50% WUSH PJSC "WHOOSH Holding", Ordinary shares 111 382 432 111 382 432 27% 32% YDEX IPJSC YANDEX, Ordinary shares 390 548 277 393 280 881 17% 30% From 19 December 2025, the following shares will be under consideration: Under consideration to be added to Moscow Exchange indices: Ticker Issuer Index ABIO PJSC "Artgen", Ordinary shares Broad Market Index DELI PJSC Carsharing Russia, Ordinary shares DIAS PJSC "Diasoft", Ordinary shares GLRX PJSC "GLORAX", Ordinary shares IVAT PJSC "IVA", Ordinary shares MRKY PJSC Rosseti South, Ordinary shares MRKZ PJSC Rosseti North-West, Ordinary shares MVID PJSC "M.video", Ordinary shares PMSBP PJSC "PESC", Preferred shares ZAYM PJSC "Zaymer", Ordinary shares LENT Lenta IPJSC, Ordinary shares MOEX Russia Index   RTS Index RAGR PJSC "Rusagro Group", Ordinary shares Under consideration to be excluded from Moscow Exchange indices: Ticker Issuer Index MGTSP PJSC "MGTS", Preferred shares Broad Market Index UGLD PJSC "UGC", Ordinary shares MOEX Russia Index   RTS Index For information regarding the lists of stocks employed in the Moscow Exchange Indices as well as the lists of securities employed in the Multi-Assets Indices of Moscow Exchange, please, follow the link. Read more on the Moscow Exchange: https://www.moex.com/n95884

A total turnover of 6.617 billion shares worth N113.224 billion in 109,590 deals was traded this week by investors on the floor of the Exchange, in contrast to a total of 4.140 billion shares valued at N115.889 billion that exchanged hands last week in 102,351 deals. Click here for full details.

The Supervisory Board of Deutsche Börse AG has extended the Executive Board mandate of Christoph Böhm (59) ahead of schedule by three years until the end of October 2029.   In his function as Chief Information Officer/Chief Operating Officer, Christoph Böhm leads the Information Technology division of Deutsche Börse Group. He has been a member of the Executive Board since November 2018. His current contract runs until the end of October 2026.

The Board of Directors of SIX has appointed André Helfenstein its new Chairman with effect from 1 January 2026. As announced in May 2025, Thomas Wellauer has decided not to stand for re-election at the 2026 Annual General Meeting. Thomas Wellauer was elected Chairman of SIX in 2020 and will hand over the role to André Helfenstein at the end of 2025. He will remain a member of the Board of Directors until the Annual General Meeting on 6 May 2026 to ensure a smooth transition. André Helfenstein has served on the SIX Board of Directors since 2020 and brings extensive national and international leadership experience with him. From 2020 to 2024, he was CEO of Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Ltd. and responsible for the group's Swiss business. Before that, he held various senior management positions in private, corporate and institutional client businesses since joining Credit Suisse in 2007. André Helfenstein also spent more than a decade with the Boston Consulting Group, where he was a Partner & Managing Director. He holds a master’s degree in business administration from the University of St. Gallen. Thomas Wellauer said: “It has been a privilege to lead SIX as Chairman of the Board of Directors and to contribute to the further development and growth of the company – at a time of significant political and economic challenges and changes. I congratulate André on his appointment and am confident that SIX will continue to strengthen its position under his leadership. The company can build on its innovative strength and stability, as well as its first-class services for Swiss and international financial markets.” André Helfenstein said: “I am very pleased to take over as Chairman of the Board of Directors of SIX and greatly appreciate the trust placed in me by my colleagues. On behalf of the Board of Directors, I extend my sincere thanks to Thomas for his dedication and service to the company. SIX is an important contributor to Switzerland’s competitiveness as a financial center. Together with the Board of Directors and the Executive Board, I will focus on driving forward the successful development of SIX, continuously strengthening our services and infrastructure, and offering our customers and shareholders clear added value.”

Key points ASIC recognises that small businesses are often time-poor and resource-stretched – and ASIC is working to ease some of the pressure through our regulatory simplification program. This includes by making our guidance and information clearer, simpler and easier to access and improving our registry services for the millions of small businesses who rely on them. While climate reporting obligations apply mainly to larger entities, over time they will have some impact on some small businesses and ASIC is working to help businesses prepare. Introduction I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land on which we meet today, the Yugambeh people. I pay my respects to their elders past and present – and extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today. Good morning, everyone. It’s lovely to be here. I want to thank the Small Business Association of Australia for inviting me to speak to you. The small business sector is ASIC’s largest stakeholder group. But that’s not typically what comes to mind when most people think of us. Present company excepted, of course. That’s probably because, when ASIC is covered in the media, it’s more often about some other aspect of our work – usually enforcement-related and usually involving a large or well-known entity. But, in fact, one of the key drivers for taking enforcement action is to help ensure a fair playing field and protect small businesses from unfair practices and harmful conduct. We regularly take regulatory and enforcement action, for example, against financial services and credit providers that engage in misconduct that impacts small business – and we have a dedicated small business enforcement team. We also have a highly active small business team, who engage with government agencies, industry associations and small business representatives to share insights, improve regulatory coordination, and minimise duplication and unnecessary regulatory burden for small businesses. In the last financial year, we took part in around 100 small business events and meetings – in every state and territory. This face-to-face engagement is a critical part of ASIC’s small business strategy. What I want to focus on today, though, is the important work that ASIC does to support the sector through our regulatory guidance and information – and by providing efficient registry services. In particular, I want to talk about the work we’re doing through our regulatory simplification program to improve those services – for the millions of small businesses who rely on them. I will also talk about climate reporting. These obligations apply mainly to larger entities. They’re new and still being phased in. But, over time, they will have some impact on some small businesses. So, we’re doing a range of things to help those businesses prepare. Regulatory simplification So, first to regulatory simplification. This is a multi-year program that touches on almost every part of our work, including our registry services. But, at its heart, it’s designed to make it easier for our regulated entities to meet their obligations – small businesses very much included. We understand that small businesses are often time-poor and resource-stretched. Unlike the big corporates, they don’t have legions of support staff to help out. So, it’s often very much a DIY situation – and that means time out of an already busy day. Time that could have been spent doing business. ASIC wants to give small businesses some of that time back – and that’s one of the things we’re aiming for with our regulatory simplification program. We’ve broken the program down into four workstreams: Improving access to regulatory information Reducing complexity in regulatory instruments Making it easier to interact with ASIC Simplification through law reform. I’m going to focus on the first and the third: ‘improving access to regulatory information’ and ‘making it easier to interact with ASIC’. These are the areas that will make the biggest difference to small businesses, day to day. We’ve already made some improvements, with more planned – as I’ll explain. Improving access to regulatory information So, to workstream number one: improving access to regulatory information. What have we done so far? We've redesigned the ASIC website. We heard that finding the right information could be ‘hit and miss’. So, we gave it an overhaul. We’ve improved the navigation, put in a better search function and removed more than 9,000 pages of duplicated content. This means users will be able to access the information they need quicker – and can be confident all the relevant information has been surfaced. The new website features a specific regulatory resources search – a click away from the homepage. Here, users can find all ASIC forms, instruments and regulatory documents in one place. You can filter these by topic and/or type by selecting the advanced search option at the top of the page. We’ve also got a business basics area, with useful information for small businesses including ‘registering a business name’ and ‘business name requirements for different types of businesses’. You can find that by entering it into the search bar on our homepage. Of course, being able to find the information you’re looking for is one thing. But if it’s confusing or hard to understand, then the benefits are limited. So as part of this workstream, we’re also looking at how to make our information simpler and clearer. That’s not just about how it’s written, though that’s obviously important. It’s also about thinking through how the different materials we produce work together. While all designed to help our regulated populations understand their obligations, we understand that the range of materials available can be a source of confusion in itself. Users have told us they don’t always feel sure they’re looking at the most relevant information for their purposes – or that they’ve found all the information they need on a topic. So, we’re working to better structure these materials – and are considering some proposals to take this forward. To help us, we engaged some experts. As part of their work, they reviewed the needs of our different audiences – including small businesses and directors of small companies. This is an important audience group for us – and one that has distinct needs. We appreciate that it can be difficult for them to find materials that really help them – and it can be equally difficult to find the time to engage with them if they do. One way we’re working to address their needs is through a regulatory roadmap we’re developing for small-company directors. This will guide users through all the stages of starting and running a company – as well as closing and/or reinstating it. So that’s some of what we’ve done so far – and some of what’s to come. Making it easier to interact with ASIC Turning now to workstream number three: making it easier to interact with ASIC. I’ll start with some of the pain points we know users are experiencing and that we’re working to address. To begin with, we’ve got multiple portals, each with their own purpose, access and authentication methods. That’s creating a fragmented experience for users. There are also issues with navigation and usability, system slowness – and difficulties being able to quickly lodge and update information. There’s a time cost to all of that – and, to my earlier point, that’s time that could be spent doing business. So, what are we doing about it? We have a major multi-year program of work underway to improve our business registry related technology and processes. Through that program, which we call RegistryConnect, we are working to stabilise, secure and modernise the ASIC registers. Importantly, from a user’s perspective, this will enable simpler and more reliable interactions with ASIC. It will also improve the quality and integrity of our registry data. While these longer-term improvements are being implemented, we’ve been working to ease the pressure through some short-term solutions to some of the most pressing issues. For example, we’ve started accepting email lodgements in place of any paper forms that can’t be lodged online. We now accept electronic signatures on all ASIC forms. We’ve also cut call waiting times – by expanding our team of customer service officers and investing in new technology. We’ve upgraded ASIC’s mainframe, which supports our online registry services, to help address that system slowness. We’ve also reduced scheduled downtime for planned maintenance, delivering more reliable access to company searches. We’ve got a new professional registers search, with a refreshed and modern interface and advanced search functionality across multiple registers. It also incorporates a simple and secure payment process. In addition to these relative quick fixes, as I mentioned, we have other, more substantial improvements underway in relation to our registry services. In this next phase of our RegistryConnect program, we’re working to improve online company registration and lodgement services. This will provide a better user experience, allow users to track the status of their interactions with ASIC and make secure digital payments. We’ll also expand our streamlined digital services to support more professional registrations and licence types. This is part of a broader effort to reduce the number of transaction channels – responding to the issue of fragmentation I mentioned earlier. Separately, through our new and improved companies register search, it will be easier to access company information – thanks to its enhanced search functionality and improved service availability. We are also working to improve the integrity of the data held on our registers by strengthening our authentication processes. This will reduce the risk of fraudulent or misleading lodgements and provide greater assurance to users and the public. Lastly, another key priority will be to link director IDs to the companies register. Over time, this will improve the traceability of director–company relationships and further prevent the use of fraudulent identities. In doing so, it will provide the public and stakeholders – including small businesses – with greater certainty about who they are dealing with when engaging with directors and corporate entities. As our work in this area develops, we will continue engaging with our stakeholders in the design of future services. This includes ongoing collaboration through the Registry Business Advisory Group, whose membership includes end users of these services. We will also continue to engage with Treasury and others, including on policy and law reform to improve registry outcomes. Climate reporting Turning now to a different category of law reform – and that’s the new mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements, which came into effect just over a year ago. We’re still some way from this being fully phased in. But are expecting to see the first reports – from the largest of the three cohorts – from around March next year. These requirements won’t directly apply to any small businesses. They’ll only apply to large companies that meet two of the three following criteria: revenue of over $50 million, assets of over $25 million and/or companies with more than 100 employees. However, many small businesses form part of the value chains of larger businesses. That means they may need to engage with climate reporting considerations in the future. Even though they do not have any direct climate reporting obligations. So, if a small business has a customer or supplier that is a large business or financial institution, they may request further information to help them meet their reporting obligations. For example, that large business or financial institution may need to report on their energy usage – and may ask for records, such as electricity bills, so they can create a full picture. ASIC has been developing our capability in this area for a number of years – and we’ve been working with reporting entities to help them prepare. So, it’s been a learning experience for all – and we do appreciate that there are some concerns. In fact, it’s acknowledged by academia – and was identified in public submissions to the law reform process – that there is a need for capacity-building in this area across the financial system. So, in that sense, small business is not alone on the learning journey. But, for all the reasons mentioned previously, we recognise that the smaller the business the bigger the relative impact of any additional requirements. That said, there will be time to prepare – and ASIC will be assisting with that however we can. For those who want more detail, I would recommend visiting our sustainability reporting for small business page, which, incidentally, you can also find by using the search bar on our homepage. There’s some good information there. We’re also developing a suite of educational materials in partnership with the University of Technology Sydney and the Australian Accounting Standards Board. They’re aimed at the smallest reporting cohort as well as SMEs who are required to submit emissions-related information – and they’re focused on the foundational concepts underpinning the sustainability reporting requirements. These educational materials will help those who are interested to understand, for example, the basics of climate change, what climate-related physical risks and transition risks are, case studies on identifying climate-related opportunities, and an introduction to emissions accounting. Once these materials are complete, we’ll make them available on our website – and will also be holding a series of roadshows to take people through them. Conclusion So, finally, I just want to thank you all for your time. I hope that has been useful. I know we have a Q&A session coming up. So, if there’s anything more you want to know about these topics – or anything else – I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

ASIC today released the exam results from the 31st Financial Advisers Exam cycle, held in November 2025. The exam, conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), follows a rigorous process to ensure all candidates in each cycle are tested to the same standards. In the November exam cycle: 308 people sat the exam 67.5% (208) passed the exam, and 75.6% (233) sat the exam for the first time. Candidates receive a pass or fail result, as prescribed in the Corporations (Relevant Providers – Education and Training Standards) Determination 2021. As has been the practice for previous cycles, unsuccessful candidates will receive general feedback from ACER on the areas where they underperformed. The next exam will be held on 5 March 2026. The booking period for this exam opens 23 January 2026 and closes 13 February 2026. Background To date, 22,386 individual candidates have sat the exam. Of these, 20,754 (92%) candidates have passed the exam, demonstrating they have the skills to apply their knowledge of advice construction, ethics and legal requirements to the practical scenarios tested in the exam. For more information visit Financial adviser exam.

LSEG announces it has purchased the following number of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each from Citigroup Global Markets Limited ("Citi") on the London Stock Exchange as part of its share buyback programme, as announced on 04 November 2025. Date of purchase: 04 December 2025 Aggregate number of ordinary shares purchased: 175,000 Lowest price paid per share: 8,696.00p Highest price paid per share: 8,898.00p Average price paid per share: 8,750.79p   LSEG intends to cancel all of the purchased shares. Following the cancellation of the repurchased shares, LSEG has 512,921,021 ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in issue (excluding treasury shares) and holds 24,051,599 of its ordinary shares of 679/86 pence each in treasury. Therefore, the total voting rights in the Company will be 512,921,021. This figure for the total number of voting rights may be used by shareholders (and others with notification obligations) as the denominator for the calculation by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change to their interest in, the Company under the FCA's Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules. In accordance with Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (the Market Abuse Regulation) (as such legislation forms part of retained EU law as defined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as implemented, retained, amended, extended, re-enacted or otherwise given effect in the United Kingdom from 1 January 2021 and as amended or supplemented in the United Kingdom thereafter), a full breakdown of the individual purchases by Citi on behalf of the Company as part of the buyback programme can be found at: http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3593K_1-2025-12-4.pdf This announcement does not constitute, or form part of, an offer or any solicitation of an offer for securities in any jurisdiction. Schedule of Purchases Shares purchased:      175,000 (ISIN: GB00B0SWJX34) Date of purchases:      04 December 2025 Investment firm:         Citi Aggregate information: Venue Volume-weighted average price Aggregated volume Lowest price per share Highest price per share London Stock Exchange 8,750.79 175,000 8,696.00 8,898.00 Turquoise        

ASIC has extended the transitional relief for foreign financial services providers (FFSPs) by an additional 12 months. This relief exempts FFSPs from the requirement to hold an Australian financial services (AFS) licence when providing financial services to Australian wholesale clients. Under the current arrangements, ASIC’s sufficient equivalence relief and limited connection relief were due to expire on 31 March 2026. With this extension, the transitional relief will remain in place until 31 March 2027. On 26 November 2025, the Australian Government introduced legislation for a new licensing exemption regime for FFSPs under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025 (the Bill). The new regime is due to commence 12 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. FFSPs that have been granted a foreign AFS licence will be able to continue to operate their financial services business in Australia under the licence issued by ASIC. Background ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers) Instrument 2025/798 remakes the relief previously provided under ASIC Corporations (Repeal and Transitional) Instrument 2016/396. As a result, FFSPs currently relying on an individual relief instrument—where the expiry is linked to 2016/396—can continue to rely on that relief until 31 March 2027. ASIC Corporations (Amendment) Instrument 2025/799 extends the relief contained in the following instruments: ASIC Corporations (CSSF-Regulated Financial Services Providers) Instrument 2016/1109, and ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Limited Connection) Instrument 2017/182. The date of commencement of ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Funds Management Financial Services) Instrument 2020/199 will be 1 April 2027. This is subject to the passage of the Bill.

Dec 17, 2025 1:00PM – 2:00PM ET The Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the second of three virtual compliance outreach events regarding the 2024 adoption of amendments to Regulation S-P. The Regulation S-P compliance outreach events will be tailored for each registrant type and scheduled according to their corresponding compliance deadline published in the Regulation S-P rule amendments. This second event will focus on transfer agents. Staff from the Division of Examinations and the Division of Trading and Markets will cover the new Regulation S-P compliance obligations, discuss what to expect when interacting with an exam team during an examination, and answer any remaining compliance questions. While not required, advance registration is preferred. Questions may also be submitted ahead of the event. A livestream will be available on the day of the event.  Final Rule: Federal Register Version Fact Sheet Press Release Small Entity Compliance Guide Compliance Outreach on Regulation S-P for Large Firms Webcast: Webcast Compliance on Regulation S-P for Large Firms AGENDA Panel A: Historical discussion of Regulation S-P and the rule’s new provisionsThis panel will discuss the history of the regulation, including an overview of core aspects of the regulatory framework and discussion of past risk alerts on the subject. The panel will also discuss the rule amendments, which entities are subject to the Regulation S-P Amendments, incident response program expectations, and SEC perspectives on the monitoring process. There will also be a discussion on the expected format and production requirements for notices to customers by the entities.Panel B: Exams’ approach moving forward, including a discussion of potential Risk Alerts and other SEC publicationsThis panel will provide SEC perspectives on the examination lifecycle for entities subject to Regulation S-P, including the expected maintenance and production of certain policies, procedures, books, and records.

On Thursday, December 11, Secretary of the Treasury Scott K. H. Bessent will preside over a meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) at the Treasury Department. The meeting will consist of an executive session and an open session. The preliminary agenda for the executive session includes an update on the Council’s workstreams, as well as an update on the Council’s interpretive guidance on nonbank financial company determinations and the Council’s analytic framework for financial stability risk identification, assessment, and response.* The preliminary agenda for the open session includes a presentation and vote on the Council’s 2025 annual report, and an update on banking supervision and regulatory reforms. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requires the Council to convene no less than quarterly, but the Council has historically convened on a more frequent basis. The meetings bring Council members together to discuss and analyze emerging market developments and financial regulatory issues. The Council is committed to conducting its business as openly and transparently as practicable, given the confidential supervisory and sensitive information at the center of its work. Consistent with the Council's transparency policy, the Council opens its meetings to the public whenever possible. Open session Council meetings are made available to the public via live webcast and can also be viewed after they occur. Upcoming Council meeting dates and times are posted following the official notification to Council members of an upcoming meeting. Meeting minutes and readouts for past Council meetings are available below. Meeting minutes for the most recent Council meeting are generally approved at the next Council meeting and posted online soon afterwards. * In accordance with the Council’s Transparency Policy, which is available at www.fsoc.gov, this portion of the meeting will be held in a closed session to prevent the potential disclosure of information contained in or related to investigation, examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial markets or financial institutions; information which would lead to significant financial speculation, significantly endanger the stability of any financial market or financial institution, or significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action; information exempted from disclosure by statute or by regulation, or authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret; trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; and inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not otherwise be available by law. 

Good morning. Welcome to the members of the Committee as well as the panelists. This is the final Investor Advisory Committee meeting of my tenure as an SEC Commissioner, so today’s meeting is bittersweet for me. First and foremost, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all of the members of this Committee. Your work on behalf of investors is deeply important; it is meaningful and tireless; it is thoughtful and balanced. You do this work in your free time, even though, for many of you, it could be a full-time job. You bring diverse expertise to the table, as well as the clear-eyed, common goal of making the markets better for investors, so that Americans of all stripes can live their own versions of the American Dream. That is no small task, but it is one that you all have approached with steel and grace. These are more than just platitudes. I want each of you to know that I’ve listened to your recommendations and they have universally improved our policy making. As you move forward, I hope you will continue to bring energy and enthusiasm to the tasks that lie ahead. As the Commission will no doubt continue to deregulate in the months ahead, please act as a voice for those investors who stand to benefit from those rules that will be threatened with potential revision or repeal. I have no doubt that you are up for the challenge. And for my fellow Commissioners, I hope that you will continue to seek a diversity of viewpoints as you select Committee members in the future, because I believe sincerely that a robust and respectfully dissonant discussion leads to more considered policy advice and outcomes. And another big thank you to Cristina [Martin Firvida], who leaves us at the end of this month. You have been a leader and a friend, and your work will benefit investors well beyond your time here. The agency will miss you. I wish you great success in your future endeavors. Changing Corporate Governance Landscape Shifting gears, there is no better topic to underscore the important work of this Committee on behalf of investors than the changing corporate governance landscape. In under one year, this landscape has shifted dramatically. Staff rescinded Staff Legal Bulletin 14L, making it easier to exclude certain shareholder proposals;[1] Staff has determined not to weigh in on the majority of no-action requests as part of the 14a-8 process, except that it will issue “no objection” relief to those who ask for it, based on no substantive review of underlying requests;[2] the Chairman has indicated that the Commission will greenlight the exclusion of most precatory proxy proposals, based not on changes in state law, but on the speculations of certain Delaware practitioners;[3] the Commission has issued a policy statement effectively permitting public companies to employ mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent shareholders from litigating either their singular or class-action claims in federal court;[4] staff has granted no-action relief to allow retail shareholders to “check the box” to a standing instruction that automatically votes their shares in conformance with board recommendations, without individual consideration of specific issues, including, potentially, merger or divestiture votes;[5] staff has issued guidance under Rules 13D/G that limits investor interaction with management to chill those communications;[6] and, as stated by the Chairman, we know it is his intention to seek to reduce the cadence of quarterly reporting requirements, and diminish disclosures in areas such as executive compensation.[7] And that is just the beginning. Any one of these changes would be groundbreaking; together, they represent a seismic shift in the corporate governance landscape happening right under our feet. And yet, as my colleagues know because I keep reminding everyone, not a single one of the changes effected to date has been done through notice-and-comment rulemaking. That means that we have not had the benefit of statutorily mandated economic analysis to assess the impacts of the deeply important policy shifts that we’re making. We haven’t measured the economic costs or benefits of any single change, and we certainly have not measured the cumulative effect of these policy changes, which I have been told repeatedly in the past is important to members of the industry. Moreover, we have not benefitted from the considered feedback of impacted investors – investors who will have fewer disclosures; less input over how the management of the companies they own put their investor dollars to work; and, potentially fewer (if any) avenues of redress when they are the victims of fraud. Indeed, all of these changes lopsidedly inure to the benefit of management and to the detriment of shareholders, corporate accountability, and the governance structures that provide checks on corporate decision makers. That’s why today’s panel is so timely and so important. Help us understand both the singular and cumulative impacts that our deregulatory efforts in this space will have on investors. Bring data, analysis and precedent to the conversation. Help lend a voice to investors who didn’t have the opportunity to weigh in before these changes were made because the Commission chose to leave them out in the cold. Tokenization I am also looking forward to today’s panel on tokenization, which will tackle the many challenges associated with tokenized equity products. As I have said before,[8] tokenization raises a host of complex, novel issues on how tokenized securities could be issued, traded, cleared, and settled. Altering established regulatory standards to accommodate these novel processes would carry significant risk, both to market integrity and to investors. At the same time, new rules may be warranted to address these products’ unique risks. For example, tokenized equities are commonly marketed as “wrapped securities” that provide exposure to an underlying asset. Some are touted as expanding access to assets, such as private company shares, that are typically inaccessible to retail investors. But in truth, these tokenized products are far from one-to-one replicas of the underlying asset to which they are supposedly linked. The ownership rights and entitlements are different, often unclear, and potentially entirely unconnected to the issuer of the underlying asset. They are generally less liquid than traditional securities and much harder to price and trade. How can investors, or their advisors, fairly evaluate the risks of these wrapped tokenized securities? Should the regulatory requirements that govern them be relaxed just because the product exists on a blockchain? Do wrapped tokenized securities offer any clear benefits to investors that may justify their heightened risks? Most importantly, what are we actually trying to achieve by tokenizing equities in secondary markets? If the purpose is to achieve settlement efficiencies, then that presents a much different use case than if the purpose is to allow tokenized equities to trade without any front-end investor protections, which would create an environment ripe for regulatory arbitrage at the expense of the traditional equities markets. If this new ecosystem does not provide either common market transparency about price or visible customer protections, I ask again—what is the goal and the likely outcome here? These are difficult and complex questions, and I look forward to hearing the panelists’ views. *** Many thanks again to the Committee for both your hard work leading up to today—including what I thought was a very helpful recommendation on disclosures around artificial intelligence—and thank you in advance for your continued work in the future. I sincerely hope that our paths will cross again.  [1] S.E.C. Division of Corporation Finance, Shareholder Proposals: Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14M (Feb. 12, 2025); see also Commissioner Caroline A Crenshaw, Statement on Staff Legal Bulletin 14M (Feb. 12, 2025). [2] S.E.C. Division of Corporation Finance, Statement Regarding the Division of Corporation Finance's Role in the Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 Process for the Current Proxy Season (Nov. 17, 2025); Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Statement on Division of Corporation Finance’s Announcement on the 14a-8 Process (Nov. 17, 2025). [3] See S.E.C. Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Keynote Address at the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance’s 25th Anniversary Gala (Oct. 9, 2025) (State law governs whether a proposal is a “proper subject.” So, are precatory proposals a “proper subject” for action by shareholders under Delaware law? . . . [A]t least one Delaware practitioner has recently concluded that precatory proposals are not a “proper subject” because Delaware law does not confer to stockholders an inherent right to vote on precatory proposals.); see also Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Statement on Division of Corporation Finance’s Announcement on the 14a-8 Process (Nov. 17, 2025) (“The Chairman’s speech is a not-so-implicit invitation for any lawyer (knowledgeable or not) to write an opinion favorable to their client, and then the Division will give its seal of approval to jettison a sweeping slate of shareholder proposals. The speech leaves the uncanny impression that the Commission is now anointing itself the newest Vice Chancellor on the Delaware Court of Chancery, effectively creating new state law (which it can then itself bless), to carry out an agenda that affords companies sweeping rights to reject shareholder proposals without impediment or regard for precedent.”). [4] Securities & Exchange Commission, Acceleration of Effectiveness of Registration Statements of Issuers with Certain Mandatory Arbitration Provisions; Rel. Nos. 33-11389, 34-103988 (Sept. 19, 2025); Caroline A. Crenshaw, Mandatory Dis-Agreements: The Commission’s Policy of Quietly Shutting the Door on Investors (Sept. 17, 2025). [5] S.E.C. Division of Corporation Finance, Office of Mergers and Acquisitions, Letter from Tiffany Posil to David A. Kern, et al. (Sept. 15, 2025). [6] S.E.C. Division of Corporation Finance, Shareholder Proposals: Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14M (Feb. 12, 2025); Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Statement on Staff Legal Bulletin 14M (Feb. 12, 2025).  [7] See S.E.C. Chairman Paul S. Atkins, Squawk Box (Sept. 19, 2025). [8] Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw, Tokenization: Our Field of Dreams? Remarks at the Crypto Task Force Roundtable on Tokenization (May 12, 2025).

One cannot jump to the “How” when the “What” has NOT been properly defined. Despite the EU being the first to come up with their Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act and Canada being at the forefront of digital assets laws, there is NO first mover advantage in rule making. It is better late than never if we can get it right when framing the regulatory solutions to the problems in the AI and Crypto spaces. This 3-part sequel aims to decipher the noumenon of and define what AI, DeFi, tokenization and cryptocurrencies truly are. Definition of AI AI is NO ordinary “machine-based systems” or “automations”, but a “cognitive system” capable of “learning” to continuously improve the Functioning of a Computer / to any Other Technology or Technical Field (e.g. a GPS Satellite system is NOT AI, but traffic predictions and personalized recommendations are). By referring to AI as “cognitive”, the focus is on the system’s internal (mental like) processes, rather than SOLELY on external behaviors and consequences. Learning per the “Dog Salivating Theory” that nurtures voluntary behavior by pairing external conditioned stimulus to associate two or more phenomena, such technique alone does NOT constitute it as AI. Computational techniques that mimic pet training in itself are insufficient or unlikely to pose an existential threat to humanity, except exploitation of Dopamine for addictive behaviors. Also, the presence or absence of “operant conditions” could merely be automation in itself to modify voluntary behavior through external consequences (reacting to the laws) of reward and punishment. Without combining it with other internal (mental like) computational techniques, such systems should NOT be considered as AI. CAPTCHA – a security test that uses a "Turing test" to differentiate between humans and bots is NOT AI in itself.  However, Google reCAPTCHA system is part of an AI that consists of internal processes (e.g. keylogging to track and analyze user interactions, such as mouse movement and typing patterns) to determine if a user is human. Keylogging without a user’s consent could be invasive to privacy; hence it should be a regulated activity. Another computing activity that should be regulated is – the use of AI to help bots bypass CAPTCHA or the like security test, except when used for ethical hacking. fA crawler or web scraper that automatically extracts data from an external environment (web) is NOT inherently an AI. When combining crawler’s function with internal processes involving intelligent data analysis to enhance the data collection with contextual understanding (rather than just the keywords search), then such system is an AI. A scanner or camera to surveil the public area outside of private property is NOT an AI. Adding a sophisticated system that has internal processes to control one or orchestrate multiple surveillance camera(s) to enhance the monitoring with contextual awareness (e.g. facial recognition to analyze identity) is an AI. We despise heavy-handed government policies to brutally force AI firms to censor / filtering so-called “unsafe behaviors / outputs” or require adversarial training to ban or reveal what authoritarian may constitute as “vulnerabilities”. We are thankful for Vice President JD Vance remarks at the AI Action Summit, in particular “AI must remain free from ideological bias, and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship.” It helps address civic concerns over massive government surveillance. NOTE: “Ideological bias” is a human bias driven by political or social belief. Whereas “bias” in many domains – especially competitive ones like defense or finance – bias is not just inevitable, it is essential to: prioritize certain outcomes (e.g. speed over accuracy, stealth over transparency), reflect strategic performance (e.g. risk tolerance, adversary modeling), and/or to exploit asymmetries (e.g. alpha in trading, deception in war). There are different AI machine learning algorithms, some use cognitive reasoning for multi-step strategic plans (e.g. chess game) where “bias” is essential. Others use non-reasoning (or generative) models excel at fast, pattern-based tasks like content generation or chatbots where consensus building and/or optimization for the most commonly accepted respond (consistency in reproducibility of outcomes) is prioritized. One size does not fit all. Bias can be “conscious” and “unconscious”. A cognitive system does NOT have to be conscious. Neuroscientists believe consciousness could be a distributed process that does not depend on a singular “self”. Unconscious bias can inflict harm amid unintentional – negligence. Cognitive systems with no recommendations should NOT escape AI responsibilities. “Bias” depends on social norm. Social norm evolves overtime. “Signal amplification” is an absolute necessity in sequencing technologies. It enables detection, ensures accuracy via redundancy, and is particularly useful when working with limited input material. However, amplification inherently introduces “technical bias” into sequencing data – a known and acknowledged challenge, but it may be better than the inability to generate any data at all. The US trade surveillance process objectively checks if a trade has the effect of altering the worth of a target. It is a red flag of market manipulation if the trade caused a “bias” in market mechanism. The challenge is how to distinguish between a systematic technical bias or human-made artifact in data, from natural evolutionary bias or selection. Content preference and context bias are highly dependent on the specific use case or application, i.e. largely subjective and situational. “Normalization” is the statistical data smoothing process that meant to address “bias”. Yet, whenever one applies computational methods to the data, the relationship between the true “signal” and the technical “noise” is inherently altered. There is a trade-off in gaining clarity of signal at the potential cost of introducing subtle “new biases” or suppressing real, but weak, “signals”. Strive for the most timely, accurate, relevant, and complete data where possible to avoid excessive manipulation in normalization for the best sequencing results. Unfortunately, consolidated tape without time-lock encryption to make market data available securely in synchronized time caused “initial bias” that exacerbates the gap between subscribers of proprietary feeds and the public SIPs. Hallucination is considered an output that is out of norms. Hallucinations are like dreams (a state of consciousness that one’s “awareness” of external environments may be out of synch), except dreams may be more vivid / emotion than hallucinations. Human’s five senses are less active when dream. When AI sensory attenuation primarily focused on language or visual images, it undermines other sensory inputs, such as sound, touch, smell and taste, etc. AI is often being mythologized by humans as all-knowing. People expect instant gratification. Yet, AIs are like replicas of humans. There will be occasions of “I don’t know”, irrelevant fluff being generated, stuttering, or words could not catch up with thoughts. The ability to form and process complex thoughts is distinct from the ability to articulate fluently and coherently. Improve context awareness, better adversary training, use of ensemble learning, and multimodality all contribute to reducing AI hallucinations but cost extra time, efforts, and may introduce noise. Unlike data extraction that can be timely, accurate and complete if one is willing to pay extra, intelligence may never be 100%. I.e. AI prediction or advice seldom possess all attributes simultaneously due to in inherent constraints, such as information asymmetry, the tension between speed and quality, cognitive limitations, and the dynamic nature of reality.   Do NOT lambast AI for hallucination. Humans often fail to think critically, unable to synthesize information from various sources for evaluating information to find deeper meaning, and lack adaptability and creativity. Yet, humans like to dream and imagine. Should cognitive systems be allowed to dream – a possible indicator of Artificial General Intelligence? AI hallucinations may discover unknown unknowns which were previously nonsensical to human. To better understand nuances and enhance AI performance, policy makers should incentivize the industry to turn “unknowns” into “knowns.” The last administration inappropriately assumed or interpreted “AI bias” as systematic and repeatable error in a computer system that creates unfair outcomes, such as disadvantaging a particular gender or race. This contradicts with the current administration’s merit-based policy (EO 14173) that dismantles Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trying to “neutralize” biases in pursuit of consensus or fairness can dilute the US strategic advantage, especially when foreign adversaries are not playing by the same rules. The EU AI Act mandates development of a Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI is problematic. Best practice sharing is not wrong. Concern is – how they would consider “the Code’s design and build coherence where needed”? Regurgitating GRC tools as AI compliance is the wrong approach. “Coherence” limits creativity. Differentiation is what drives innovation. The EU Digital Markets Act aims to ensure “fair competition and practices among large online ‘gatekeeper’ platforms like search engines and app store” is nothing but a protectionism policy. Invoke Antitrust laws may suffice. China recently released their “AI Safety Governance Framework 2.0” (CN-AISGF2). Their cybersecurity law, computer crime criminal law (Articles 285-287), and Personal Information Protection Law are their broader policies that prioritize their national security and state control. CN-AISGF2 looks undeniably comprehensive as we compared it against the 2022 version of the US NIST-AIRMF (see pages 9-10 of our comment letter). Their usage of familiar GRC best practices make it appealing for foreign jurisdictions to adopt it. The US NIST-AIRMF playbook and related guidances if blindly continuing the oversimplified “Govern” in center of “Map, Measure, and Manage” (GMMM) path may end-up similar to CN-AISGF2. In order for the US to exert influence on Global AI policies, the US AI regulatory regime should re-center the focus on the identified key AI risks (energy; addictive, herd and/or polarized behaviors / destroy humans’ abilities to think independently; censorship; hyper optimization; insurgent / unhealthy competition) to mitigate the downfall of humanity. Policy Makers should consider the Asimov’s Three Laws and Zeroth (Forth) Law for AI. The ISO 23894 Risk, ISO 42001 management system, and ISO 38507 governance frameworks should be redirected accordingly. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has a narrower statute if compared to other jurisdictions.   CFAA is meant to target external hackers’ unauthorized access and damage; it does NOT impute liability to internal workers who disregard a use policy. Bypassing code would constitute a cybercrime ONLY if the code is a “real barrier” as opposed to a “speed bump”. “Function creep” is concern we identified with the FINRA Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) system. Adverse scenarios with government and bank systems have happened with serve consequences. The original inventor may never come up with an exhaustive list of usage purposes or anticipate the possible repurpose of his/her technology. It is unjust to require AI firms to “establish comprehensive and explicit enumeration of AI systems’ context of business use and expectations.”  Do not expect examiners to truly understand every bit of “contextual factors may interact with AI lifecycle actions”, for they are rule and law enforcers not technologists.  Free enterprise should NOT be obligated to reveal the secret ingredient of their technologies, unless it is being identified with evidence for suspicious crime. We agree with the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (NIST-AIRMF) Playbook (page 63 - Map 1.4) where it said, “Socio-technical AI risks emerge from the interplay between technical development decisions and how a system is used, who operates it, and the social context into which it is deployed.” Yet, these are applicable to all technologies, not just AI. There are already a long list of US data / information security standards and technical safeguarding requirements, such as PCI DSS, GLBA, SOX DS 5.7, 5.8, 5.11, 11.6, HIPPA ePHI §164.306, §164.312, etc. Rights to revoke a user agreement with a standard provision, such as “no illicit or manipulative use of technology” may suffice. The collective thoughts above lead us to recommend a revised definition of AI under 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3) to preempt state AI laws, we suggest using the following or the like: “Covered AI technologies refer to cognitive systems (beyond learning from pairing a neutral stimulus that becomes a conditioned stimulus), comprise of memory AND topology of known lessons, that learn from regularities and irregularities of pattern(s) / knowns and unknowns / models/ simulations, AND the system’s internal process EITHER comprises of multi-steps reasoning (understand in a way that mimics humans; NOT merely extracting signals to generate alerts; NOT unconscious thinking) OR capable of generating datum uniquely different from a plagiarized copy, that manipulates or presents at least an abstracted phenomenon (person or avatar, thing or computer-generated element, or real or virtual event that is hypothetical or observed to exist or happen in a distanced past, real-time, or irrespective of space-time) in a metaverse, real, or virtual environment autonomously OR follow commands/ instructions, to generate expectations, make-believe, or assert that certain selected or perceived phenomenon is or will occur / available for use (regardless of the system internalizes, consumes, or makes feed(s) / datum available to its users in a domain, a dark web, or any iteration of the internet or intranet), AND through action (including provision of customized or generic recommendation that reinforces, strengthen or weaken an ideology) OR inaction to stimulate the thought processes of at least an individual human OR the operations of a machine.”   By Kelvin To, Founder and President of Data Boiler Technologies Data Boiler is a Type C organization member of the European Commission’s Data Expert Group. Between my patented inventions in signal processing, analytics, machine learning, etc. and the wealth of experience of my partner, Peter Martyn, we are about Market Reform, Governance, Risk, Compliance, and FinTech Innovations to create viable paths toward sustainable economic growth. By Kelvin To, Founder and President of Data Boiler Technologies Data Boiler has patented inventions (US, Canada, Singapore, Japan, Europe, and Australia). It is a crossover between Music and Trading in signal processing, trade analytics, machine learning, time-lock cryptography, etc. We commented frequently on regulatory policies, was a Type C organization member of the European Commission’s Data Expert Group, and a former committee of BITS (Banking Policy Institute). With over 12 years in business, we remain deeply passionate about the long-term development of capital markets.

GPW Benchmark announces the quarterly adjustment of WIG20, mWIG40, sWIG80 and WIG30 indices portfolios. Changes will come into force after close of business on December 19, 2025.  As a result, the WIG20, WIG20TR, mWIG40 and mWIG40TR portfolios will remain unchanged. In the sWIG80 and sWIG80TR portfolios there will be following changes: new companies: ARLEN, MLPGROUP; removed companies: MOLECURE, RANKPROGR. In the WIG30 and WIG30TR portfolios there will be following changes: new companies: BENEFIT, ENEA; removed companies: 11BIT, TEXT. Detailed information on the quarterly adjustment is available here.  

The FINRA Investor Education Foundation (FINRA Foundation) released today new research, Investors in the United States: Results from the FINRA Foundation’s National Financial Capability Study, which offers insights into the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and experiences of retail investors in the U.S. “The latest FINRA Foundation research on investors provides rich insights into how market conditions, technology and generational shifts are changing the profile of investing and reshaping investor behaviors and attitudes,” said Jonathan Sokobin, FINRA Foundation Chair and Chief Economist at FINRA. “This research can serve as a roadmap and essential resource for policymakers, researchers, educators, firms and financial professionals as they continue their efforts to help educate and protect investors.” FINRA Foundation President Gerri Walsh noted that the findings point to the needs of younger, less experienced investors. “They still struggle with gaps in investing knowledge and risk assessment, which can leave them vulnerable to costly missteps,” Walsh said. “Investor education efforts remain critically important.” The findings are drawn from the investor survey component of the FINRA Foundation’s latest National Financial Capability Study (NFCS), including a total of 2,861 respondents in the U.S. with non-retirement investment accounts. The report builds on previous NFCS Investor Survey reports (conducted in 2021, 2018 and 2015), and includes new or expanded topics, such as attitudes towards risk, reliance on finfluencers and awareness of investment fraud. Key Findings: New investors. The pace at which new investors are entering the market has declined significantly. In the 2024 NFCS, 8% of investors reported beginning to invest within the last two years—a sharp drop from the 21% who began investing in the two years preceding the 2021 NFCS. Investor characteristics. While the overall proportion of U.S. adults with investments held outside of retirement accounts did not materially change from 2021, fewer young adults (21% vs. 26% in 2021), men (40% vs. 43% in 2021), and persons of color (29% vs. 36% in 2021) reported owning non-retirement investments in 2024, largely erasing the gains made in the prior wave. Risk attitudes. The proportion of those willing to take substantial risks in their investment portfolios declined to just 8% in 2024 from 12% in 2021. Among investors under 35, those willing to take substantial risk dropped to 15% from 24%. Despite this, over one-third of investors (34%) feel they need to take big risks to reach their financial goals, including 62% of investors under 35. Risk-taking. Compared to older investors, those under 35 are more likely to engage in investment behaviors that can carry greater risk, including trading options (43% vs. 10% of those 55 and older) and making purchases on margin (22% vs. 4% of those 55 and older). Social media. Twenty-nine percent of investors report relying on social media as an information source. When asked separately about the social channels they use for investing information, YouTube emerged as the most popular, used by 30% of respondents overall and 61% of those under 35. Finfluencers. Over a quarter of investors (26%) use recommendations from social media influencers when making investment decisions, including 61% of those under 35 and 57% of those with less than two years of investing experience. Meme stock popularity. Thirteen percent of investors report buying meme stocks or other viral investments, including nearly one-third (29%) of investors under 35. Crypto interest. While the percentage investing in cryptocurrency in 2024 did not change from 2021 (27%), fewer investors reported considering cryptocurrency investments (either purchasing more or for the first time), dropping to 26% in 2024 from 33% in 2021. Investment information sources. The most commonly used sources of investment information are research and tools provided by brokerage firms (75%), recommendations from financial professionals (69%), business and finance articles (67%), and word of mouth from friends/family/colleagues (65%). Investment fraud. Concern over investment fraud has increased somewhat. Thirty-seven percent of investors are worried about losing money due to investment fraud, up from 31% in 2021. Still, the vast majority (89%) do not believe they have been targeted in an investment scam. Low investing knowledge. On average, respondents answered slightly less than half of the investing quiz questions correctly (5.3 out of 11 questions). Questions about margin and short selling had the most incorrect answers, with over half of respondents answering each incorrectly (55% and 54%, respectively). Notably, 75% of those who actually make purchases on margin incorrectly answered the margin question. NOTE: The FINRA Foundation will hold a virtual press conference about the report, Investors in the United States: Results from the FINRA Foundation’s National Financial Capability Study, at 11 a.m. E.T. today. Unauthorized use of the press conference video or audio is not allowed. Please reach out to media@finra.org by 10:45 a.m. to register. About the FINRA Investor Education Foundation The FINRA Investor Education Foundation supports innovative research and educational projects that empower Americans with the knowledge, skills and tools to make sound financial decisions throughout their lives. For more information about FINRA Foundation research and education initiatives, visit www.finrafoundation.org.

The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) announced the launch of InnovateSafe, a regulatory sandbox designed to allow CIRO-regulated firms to safely test innovative products and technologies in a controlled environment with CIRO oversight. As the financial industry continues to evolve rapidly, keeping pace with the change is crucial for CIRO to retain the trust of investors and the organizations and people it regulates. InnovateSafe reinforces CIRO’s commitment to delivering efficient, effective regulation that responds to the evolving needs of investors, dealers, and markets. “InnovateSafe reflects CIRO’s vision to be an agile and trusted regulator – helping the industry deliver the right financial outcomes for investors,” said Alexandra Williams, Senior-Vice President, Strategy, Innovation and Stakeholder Protection. “This initiative will ensure we are enabling innovation while keeping our mandate of investor protection and supporting fair and efficient markets at the forefront.” InnovateSafe will support CIRO-regulated firms in building compliant solutions that are ready for full market deployment by granting temporary approvals and, where warranted, targeted exemptive relief. The testing environment could help accelerate the adoption of transformative or novel products, services, ideas or technologies that could help position Canada as a global leader in financial innovation. InnovateSafe would also enable CIRO to gather essential evidence and insights needed to provide regulatory clarity in areas that have not been previously addressed. “By providing a controlled environment to responsibly test new products and technologies, we will also be able to collect real data needed to shape clearer and more complete regulatory positions on matters we haven’t dealt with before,” said Williams. “This initiative will advance our ability to become a more data-driven regulator.” InnovateSafe will operate under CIRO oversight, with safeguards in place to protect investors. Approved projects will have mandatory reporting requirements throughout the testing period, which include reporting deviations from the test plan and unexpected outcomes. Key metrics and performance data reported by participants will also enable CIRO to generate regulatory insights that will help it better understand risks and their implications, as well as shape future policy development and supervisory approaches. More information on InnovateSafe, including how to apply and details on approved projects, will be available in the coming weeks on CIRO’s website.