This makes no sense.

[verifybyhash]

I think that this project has a lack of concrete details for what it is trying to convey. Speaking very genuinely, it's difficult to understand what you are trying to convey, and how you arrived at your conclusions. Given that, I don't think that it's very convincing, and could use some improvement.

Definitions and Terms

I think that weak or not very useful definitions were used, and it doesn't help your audience understand you. For example, you defined keys as some sort of data being transmitted in one of your videos. However, you use keys in the context of (what you refer to as)cryptography, and especially, in the context of alleged private communications. In that context there's already a very different notion of "keys", and it makes this very hard to discuss. Adding terms with more common language would probably help people understand this.

"Cryptography"

In your videos, you say you are a cryptographer, but you have left out any technical cryptographic details from this document, which I would not expect from anyone who can make such a claim. I'm left with endless questions: What key type did you discover was being used based on the patterns you saw? What privacy mechanism was used, and how much private data is transmitted? If there were messages discovered, what about them convinced you that the subjects were indeed on trades? Did you find a way to demonstrate concretely how someone could perform this type of encrypted communication? Why are there identifiable patterns in the data if it was secure in the first place? I would look into prior research in this area.

Premise

It's not clear what data the banks are communicating concretely, and why it needs to be private. When I google "SMA"s(I am not a finance guy). I understand that this data may be obtainable publicly, and is just a very ordinary part of everyday technical analysis. Why would I need to reason privately with another party about publicly obtainable data? Can you provide an example of where and how this can be beneficial? I admit this question may be due to my severe misunderstanding, but I think you could clarify or provide more context on this financial subject and its significance and application.

You made a point that the firms cannot simply communicate directly with one another, as that would be fraudulent in some way. I'm not sure its the case, but if we grant that, and then imagine this private messaging system is implemented... would it not work in practice the exact same way as a private messaging system that wouldn't have been allowed under the rule. In that case, this system would likely just be investigated in the same way as a messaging system which is not transmitted over trading data. If a firm were sneaky enough to avoid suspicion as you allege, why would they not be better off just sending private messages over the web like normal. It'd be cheaper, faster, and have more bandwidth than sending data over trades

Evidence and Warrant

I'm not able to interpret your warrant because I'm not familiar with SMAs, but also because the connection between the two is just not explained. Judging by the comments on the videos, I think most people are probably in the same boat as well. I think this could be made more convincing if you are able to provide a strong explanation here.