House Republicans Demand SEC Explain What's Up With Crypto Platform Prometheum

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2024-03-25Last updated on 2024-03-26

Abstract

The chairmen of two House committees want SEC Chair Gary Gensler to describe how the first special purpose crypto broker-dealer can legally handle ETH.

Influential House Republicans are demanding answers from Gensler on how ETH could legally be treated as a security by Prometheum.
A total of 48 members of Congress signed a letter to Gensler, expressing concerns about how listing ETH as a security could threaten the crypto industry.

As Prometheum Inc. nears an unprecedented moment in U.S. crypto history by beginning a custody operation that intends to hold customers' Ethereum tokens (ETH), the industry's friends in Congress are demanding the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) explain what it means to do about this first U.S. special purpose broker-dealer (SPBD) for digital assets.

19.1K

Former SEC Special Counsel: 'Wouldn't Be Surprised' at Internal Investigation After Fake ETF Tweets

"We are faced with an alarming scenario in which a SPBD has announced that it intends to offer custodial services for ETH under a regime that does not permit such activity," the Republican chairmen of the House Financial Services and Agriculture committees wrote in a letter to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, also signed by 46 other members of Congress. "This action, if allowed to proceed, could have irreparable consequences for the digital asset markets."

Prometheum had announced a plan to begin custody of ETH as a customer asset. The initial plan was to start in the first quarter of this year, though the launch is now likely to happen next quarter, a spokesman said on Tuesday.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Penn.), the chairmen of the two committees, and the other Republican lawmakers – many of whom have been staunch supporters of the crypto industry – argued in Tuesday's letter that ETH is not a security, making the asset illegal to handle by a securities firm like Prometheum.

The lawmakers also slammed Gensler's unwillingness to directly say ether is a security.

"Your unwillingness to clarify the treatment of ETH only exacerbates the confusion and uncertainty regarding ETH’s classification as demonstrated by the Prometheum announcement," the letter said.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment, saying Gensler would "respond to members of Congress directly," and the spokesman for Prometheum said company officials are still reviewing the letter.

ETH has represented a tug-of-war between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which has openly declared ETH to fit into its commodities jurisdiction, much like bitcoin does. While the SEC in earlier days seemed to agree, agency officials later suggested the decision on ETH isn't yet clear, especially after the Merge, a 2022 code update that shifted Ethereum from a so-called proof-of-work consensus mechanism to a proof-of-stake one. Meanwhile, ETH futures products have traded on CFTC-regulated platforms, and the SEC approved ether futures exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to begin trading last year.

The SEC has reportedly been probing the nature of ETH and the firms tied to it, potentially readying an answer to whether it's a security or not in the regulator's eyes.

Prometheum itself also represents a potential turning point in the U.S. treatment of the crypto sector. Gensler has more than once offered up Prometheum as an example of a firm seeking to leap through the necessary regulatory hoops to handle crypto legally in the U.S. If the SEC allows Prometheum to operate as a custody provider and trading platform for tokens the firm concludes are securities, it undermines the industry's core argument that it's impossible for crypto firms to do business under existing SEC rules. If the SEC instead puts a stop to Prometheum's business, it could demonstrate that the agency's request for crypto firms to come in and register was hollow.

ETH is not registered as a security with the SEC, which the lawmakers suggest make it impossible to handle as a security for Prometheum. The company's leaders, though, have argued in the past that it's not their job to register the assets that'll be held and traded in their business.

Congress has been working on legislation to better map the regulatory road for crypto in the U.S., but while some legislation has moved closer to floor votes in the House of Representatives, the Senate has been more sluggish.

"Allowing one market participant and regulation by enforcement to dictate the future of digital asset regulation is unacceptable," the lawmakers argued in their letter.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Recommended for you:

Edited by Nikhilesh De.

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit6h ago

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit6h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手6h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手6h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit8h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit8h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手10h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手10h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit11h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'