Seems presumptive to slander an entire nations regulatory group on a single/couple of examples. By that metric the regulatory group in the US is completely bought out since they let 2008 happen.

There's a difference between "letting" something happen and actively doing something – it shows very different intentions. The events of 2008 were also caused by a cascading system failure involving lots of different components, which are hard for a single human to fully understand. The actions of the Indian regulator in the Adani case are much simpler, and their motivation is straightforward.

Is SEBI not the key regulator in this area?

To say it plainly, SEBI has been exposed for their selective enforcement on high-profile entities. If Jane Street’s in trouble with SEBI then it’s only because they failed to secure the same privileges as Adani, or Karvy, or Ramkrishna, or Sapre, or Kamath.

Does the size of a market have some positive impact on the reliability of its regulatory body that I am not aware of?

Yes, trust. Fully gamed systems will not have large willing participants.

A market being large doesn't mean it has large participants.

But even then (and as seems to be the case in this instance), the market might have large participants because they are the ones doing the gaming, and are therefore happy to participate (even if trust is low).

Slander? Now there’s a strong word.

Examples of the 2023-2025 activities of the Indian securities regulator SEBI seem pretty relevant to current news involving SEBI here in 2025. Which is the topic of discussion. Whatever US regulators were doing in 2008 has nothing to do with this.

    > Seems presumptive to slander an entire nations regulatory group on a single/couple of examples.

How about Germany's BAFIN regulator after VW's Deiselgate or Wirecard bankruptcy? BAFIN's response was weak and slow in both cases. I am willing to slander them for "just" those two mistakes.

That is not slander, you are being more then generous with them. BAFIN's employees were trading Wirecard for profit to skim profits, not just "weak and slow". Calling them highly corrupt is probably a fair statement and not slander

> By that metric the regulatory group in the US is completely bought out since they let 2008 happen.

Not sure that makes the point you think it makes.