Is anything wrong with this idea? There needs to be a crypto-governing body in America that is independent from the SEC and the CFTC that works with them from time to time under appropriate circumstances.

During the last bull run we were only beginning to see proof-of-concepts that were accompanied by quick cash-grabs.

For those of you who don't know what that means, I'll briefly explain with a true story. In the mid 90s, there was a website called "broadcast.com" which was originally started as a website that did sports broadcasting in radio format. Once it got started, eventually Mark Cuban became an investor. Although it is not listed on the wikipedia page for broadcast.com, I believe it also eventually evolved to support broadcasting video. Yahoo eventually bought this website in 1999 for 5.7 billion USD worth of its stock, and after the dot com bubble, it failed on a practical level and went bankrupt and got liquidated. What is the main reason? Very few households had high speed internet, which was probably 1-10% of American households at the time, if that. Speculation permits that their business model would be similar to modern day netflix - purchase a monthly subscription for unlimited access. However, it was simply to early for its time due to the massive lack of high speed internet availability across the US. Fast forward to 2005 and you got justin TV which eventually became Twitch.

What is a similar concept in crypto / blockchain / nfts? I saw a company that I think was also too early for its time. You could bind your ERC 20 wallet to their website and then buy an NFT that would then allow you early access to their "metaverse" application which was only accessible on the Meta quest and only the Meta quest. The idea was interesting in that any 2D or 3D or Video-file NFTs could be imported into a unity-based VR application, but there were too many limiting factors such as the ones I've already mentioned.

The thing is, I feel as though in the near future there could be digital collectibles that actually are worth thousands of dollars apiece - They already exist thanks to Valve and the CS:GO skins market. The only real question is, "Why would America have to let other countries and territories try to capitalize on something like this as opposed to allowing American game companies to pioneer it themselves?"

I'm making a prediction, but not a bet: some other crypto-friendly country or another will actually make a game that tons of people play - either crypto-native or not and then something crypto-related will get implemented and will be hailed or welcomed, and then quite a few jobs and companies will go there to set up shop. Regulators in America will be presented with these successful companies and/or games with case studies and then they'll say, "Ok we can do this but we need a governing body that says, 'this is okay and this is not okay to do' because we're old white men with grey hair."

I'm okay with something like the "ESRB of Crypto" getting set up and then being able to stamp something as a security or non-security along with the authority to punish anyone who is trying to intentionally subvert regulation or act on insider-trading opportunities.

This is just my two cents.