Yuga Labs says SEC has dropped its investigation into the NFT firm

CointelegraphPublished on 2025-03-02Last updated on 2025-03-04

Abstract

Bloomberg first reported in October 2022 that the SEC opened a probe into Yuga Labs to determine if certain NFTs were more like traditional stocks and, therefore, securities under US laws.

Non-fungible token (NFT) conglomerate Yuga Labs says the US Securities and Exchange Commission has closed its investigation into the company.
“After 3+ years, the SEC has officially closed its investigation into Yuga Labs,” the company said in a March 3 X post. “This is a huge win for NFTs and all creators pushing our ecosystem forward. NFTs are not securities.”
Bloomberg first reported in October 2022 that the SEC opened a probe into Yuga Labs to determine if certain NFTs were more like traditional stocks and, therefore, securities under US laws.

Source: Yuga LabsThe regulator’s probe started under former Chair Gary Gensler and was part of a wider investigation into NFTs — which included probes on NFT creators and marketplaces — to see if some, such as fractional NFTs, were securities.
Yuga Labs was behind some of the most popular and high-priced NFT collections when the market was at its peak, including the Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC) and Mutant Ape Yacht Club (MAYC). It also bought the rights to CryptoPunks, an early NFT collection that had historically fetched huge sums.
The SEC’s reported abandoned investigation into Yuga Labs comes as the regulator has been easing its approach toward the crypto industry under the Trump administration.
Related: US crypto reserve no substitute for SEC clarity — Industry exec
Late last month, NFT marketplace OpenSea said the SEC closed its investigation into the platform, which came just hours after the regulator also dropped its lawsuit against crypto exchange Coinbase.
The SEC has dismissed other crypto-related enforcement actions it launched under former Chair Gensler, having also dropped a yearslong lawsuit against crypto exchange Kraken on March 3.
Cointelegraph contacted the SEC and Yuga Labs for comment.
Magazine: How crypto laws are changing across the world in 2025

Related Reads

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

DeFi in Peril: The Real Vulnerability Isn't in the Code April 2026 marked a paradigm shift in DeFi security, with over $625 million lost across 30 incidents—the worst month in crypto history by event count. Crucially, none of the major exploits (Drift Protocol: $285M, KelpDAO: $292M, Wasabi Protocol: $4.5M) resulted from smart contract vulnerabilities. Instead, failures occurred in the operational "plumbing": social engineering to compromise multi-signature councils, a single-point-of-failure 1-of-1 bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. These events expose a fundamental misalignment: the industry's security model has long focused on code audits, while the actual attack surface has shifted to privileged access points and off-chain infrastructure. The article introduces the term "OpenFi" to describe this reality: permissionless, on-chain, yet operationally dependent on trusted third parties (admins, validators, oracles) at key junctures. The KelpDAO exploit vividly demonstrated asymmetric "contagion risk." A configuration error in a smaller protocol triggered a panic, causing approximately $13.2 billion in outflows from larger, unaffected protocols like Aave within 48 hours, as users fled uncertain collateral. The core dilemma is the double-edged sword of centralization. Operational levers like emergency councils (e.g., Arbitrum freezing stolen funds post-KelpDAO) enable crisis response but also create catastrophic attack surfaces if compromised (e.g., Drift). The path forward demands radical honesty: protocols must clearly disclose their trust assumptions, operational levers, and failure modes. The industry must treat operational security (key management, configurations, incident response) with the same rigor as code security. Survival depends on building systems whose risks can be understood, priced, and insured, moving beyond the outdated "code is law" mantra to a mature model of disclosed and managed trust.

链捕手2h ago

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

链捕手2h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

Vitalik Buterin has published a lengthy response to recent community criticism directed at the Ethereum Foundation (EF). Acknowledging a sense of "unease," he addresses concerns about the EF's strategic direction, its perceived disconnect from ETH's price performance, and calls for its reduced central role. Vitalik rejects the notion that the EF should be the central governing body of Ethereum, framing it instead as one "node with a clear mandate" among many within the ecosystem. He highlights the EF's limited ETH holdings (≈0.16% of supply) compared to other blockchain foundations and states it will no longer sell significant amounts of ETH. Its future focus will be on long-term, critical projects that align with Ethereum's core values of censorship-resistance and decentralization, which might not otherwise happen. A core argument is that Ethereum must be "amazing," but not by merely chasing higher transaction speeds at the cost of decentralization. He proposes focusing on the "CROPS" dimensions: creating a Cryptographically provable, Reliable, Open, Private, and Secure network. This includes pursuing goals like a formally verifiable, bug-free Ethereum client and minimizing protocol-level reliance on intermediaries. The article concludes by noting that while Vitalik clarifies the EF's refocused role, he does not directly address community suggestions for creating a new organization explicitly aligned with ETH's economic interests. This "alignment gap" is presented as a key challenge for Ethereum's future.

链捕手2h ago

Vitalik's Article Emphasizes Ethereum Must Be 'Amazing', But Foundation Is Not the Center

链捕手2h ago

Galxe: How a Quest Platform Evolved into Web3's Growth Infrastructure

Galxe, once perceived as a simple Web3 quest platform, has evolved into a core growth infrastructure within the Web3 ecosystem. It addresses a fundamental Web3 growth dilemma: the lack of a mature, systematic user acquisition and retention system akin to Web2's advertising and analytics platforms. While users complete quests (social tasks, on-chain interactions) for rewards, Galxe's true innovation lies in transforming these fragmented, one-off actions into lasting, verifiable identity credentials. This process of *behavioral assetization* creates a persistent record of a user's activities across projects and chains. For users, their wallet accumulates a valuable history that can unlock future access and rewards, fostering a "profile-building" mentality. For projects, Galxe provides a pre-screened user pool with rich behavioral data, enabling targeted outreach to users based on their specific on-chain history and community engagement. Galxe employs a gamefied growth path, guiding users from low-friction social tasks into deeper, valuable on-chain interactions through a structured progression of quests. This solves the incentive-behavior mismatch common in Web3, filtering users by their willingness to engage. Beyond quests, products like Passport (identity verification) and Starboard (community analytics) position Galxe as a comprehensive growth operating system. The platform's defensible advantage is its self-reinforcing data and network flywheel: more projects attract more users, enriching behavioral data; richer data enables better user targeting, attracting more projects. Ultimately, Galxe is shifting Web3's growth logic from short-term "reward-driven" traffic towards a long-term "identity-driven" relationship model, where a user's accumulated on-chain履历 becomes a core asset.

marsbit2h ago

Galxe: How a Quest Platform Evolved into Web3's Growth Infrastructure

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片