About half of the nation’s financial advisors personally own crypto. If this rule is enacted, upwards of a hundred thousand FAs will have to inform their B/Ds of their crypto holdings and seek written permission to keep them. If permission is not obtained, the FAs will be required to sell their crypto assets, transfer to another firm that permits their investments, or be terminated.

Re: Comment on FINRA Regulatory Notice 25-05 – Proposed Rule 3290

Submitted by: Desiree Moreno Pineyro

Date:05/05/2025

To:

Jennifer Piorko Mitchell

Office of the Corporate Secretary

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)

1700 K Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Dear Ms. Mitchell,

We do not need more regulation. We need less and financial advisors should be allowed to own digital assets!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Regulatory Notice 25-05. While I support efforts to streamline oversight, I oppose the proposed consolidation of Rules 3270 and 3280 in their current form.

The definition of "investment-related activities" is overly broad and risks encompassing low-risk or personal activities that do not warrant regulatory scrutiny. This may overwhelm firms with unnecessary reporting while distracting from truly material conflicts.

I am strongly opposed to this rule!! This is 2025, this will out us back into the dark ages!! This is another attempt at regulatory overreach!! Biden and Gensler are gone, thank God!!! Lets move forward not backwards!!

I am writing to express my strong opposition to FINRA’s Proposed Rule 3290 as outlined in Regulatory Notice 25-05. As a responsible investor who personally owns digital assets and utilizes a registered advisor through Digital Wealth Partners, I am deeply concerned about the proposed restrictions requiring financial advisors to seek written approval from their broker/dealer before engaging in personal crypto asset investments.

FINRA Regulatory Notice 25-05 and Proposed Rule 3290 - I'm writing to strenuously object to the adoption of this rule as being oppressive and a major step back in the bureau's efforts to be more pro-business and progressive. I deal with several advisers that would be negatively impacted by the adoption of 3290. This would cause them to leave their firms as I don't believe they would sell their holdings, I know I wouldn't and don't want them to. I'm not eager to find new advisors either.

I oppose Rule 3290. It is serious over reach into both the professional and personal lives of Financial Advisors. As I read elsewhere, this is akin to not allowing Real Estate Agents and there families from owning a home.

Do not pass this rule!