CoinDeskPolicyPubblicato 2024-05-09Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-05-10

Introduzione

Judge William H. Orrick is scheduled to hear the matter on June 12.

  • Kraken's lawyers have asked a court to dismiss SEC's claims against to avoid a "significant reordering" of the U.S. financial regulatory structure.
  • The matter appears to be boiling down to whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the cryptocurrencies Kraken listed.

Crypto exchange Kraken has asked a U.S. court to dismiss the claims brought against it by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to avoid a "significant reordering" of the U.S. financial regulatory structure, according to court filings submitted in the Northern District of California on Thursday.

The SEC initially sued Kraken last November, alleging it did not register as a broker, clearinghouse or exchange. This was months after settling charges over Kraken's former staking service.

In February 2024, the crypto company moved to kick out the SEC's lawsuit. It argued that cryptocurrencies – at least, those listed in the SEC's complaint – should be treated like commodities and not securities, CoinDesk reported earlier.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Last month, the SEC filed a 39-page opposition to Kraken's motion to dismiss in which it said "it is simply not the case that this enforcement action exceeds the authority Congress granted the SEC."

"The SEC was created by Congress to enforce the Securities Act and Exchange Act, including the requirement that securities intermediaries register with the SEC," the filing from April said. "In applying the Howey test in its determination that Kraken must register, the SEC is simply following its Congressional mandate."

The SEC further argued that it is not "assuming new powers" and Congress does not need to "enact bespoke laws to each new technology that emerges."

Kraken's latest reply to the SEC's motion to dismiss hinges on the extent to which one can interpret the SEC's jurisdiction by using the Howey test which determines what is and is not a security. It does so by determining whether four criteria are met - an investment of capital, in a common enterprise, with the expectation of profit, driven by the efforts of others.

"The SEC cannot satisfy Howey’s additional requirements that there be investments of money in a common enterprise with a reasonable expectation of profits based on the efforts of others," Kraken's lawyers wrote. "This would gut Howey by significantly expanding the SEC’s jurisdiction to a host of investment activities that were never delegated to the agency. Such a significant reordering of the U.S.’s financial regulatory structure should be debated in Congress, not in the courts."

Advertisement
Advertisement

Judge William H. Orrick is scheduled to hear the matter on June 12.

Nikhilesh De contributed to this report.

Edited by Parikshit Mishra.

Letture associate

EF's Epic Reorganization: 20% Layoffs, Budget Halved, Is Ethereum Gearing Up for a Leaner Future?

The Ethereum Foundation (EF) has announced a major organizational restructuring, involving a 20% staff reduction (approx. 54 employees) and a division into functional clusters like Protocol, Access, User, Community, and Institutional layers. Co-founder Vitalik Buterin further revealed plans to cut the EF's budget by around 40% over the coming years, aiming to reduce its annual spending rate from about 15% to roughly 5% by 2030, transitioning to an endowment-driven model. This overhaul is seen as a long-overdue correction to the EF's ambiguous role. As Ethereum grew, the foundation faced persistent criticism over ETH sales, perceived lack of execution, and unclear strategy, often becoming a focal point for community frustration amid ETH's price stagnation. The reform aims to redefine the EF's boundaries, narrowing its focus to core protocol research, public goods funding, and ecosystem coordination, while offloading more applied development work to the broader market. Concurrently, ecosystem forces like the newly formed Ethlabs (founded by ex-EF researchers) and other independent groups are stepping in to fill the space, signaling a shift from a centralized model to a more distributed, collaborative ecosystem structure. The move was notably praised by Solana co-founder toly, who viewed a "leaner" EF as potentially more decisive and agile.

Odaily星球日报30 min fa

EF's Epic Reorganization: 20% Layoffs, Budget Halved, Is Ethereum Gearing Up for a Leaner Future?

Odaily星球日报30 min fa

Dragonfly Partner Haseeb: The Fastest-Growing Companies of the Future May All Get Stuck at 149 Employees

Dragonfly partner Haseeb explores the distorted economics of AI model pricing, drawing parallels to tax policy. He notes that startups and small teams (under 150 users) enjoy heavily subsidized, fixed-price AI subscriptions (like Claude Code), where the marginal cost of an additional token is effectively zero. This creates a powerful incentive for them to maximize token usage ("token-maxxing") and innovate aggressively with AI automation. In contrast, large enterprises (over 150 users) are forced onto "Enterprise" plans, paying per-token API fees with high (~75%) markups. This acts like a steep "tax" on AI-powered labor, disincentivizing marginal automation and experimental use, and encouraging them to retain more human workers. Haseeb argues this pricing creates a "150-person cliff," a regulatory notch similar to labor laws in France that discourage firms from growing past 50 employees. He predicts the fastest-growing future companies may deliberately cap their headcount at 149 to avoid the punitive enterprise pricing. This would foster an "AI-first" management philosophy obsessed with automation and outsourcing to stay lean. While not intentionally designed, this bifurcated pricing could become one of the most influential de facto tax policies, shaping how AI replaces labor—not through mass layoffs at big firms, but through agile, AI-native startups outcompeting them.

marsbit42 min fa

Dragonfly Partner Haseeb: The Fastest-Growing Companies of the Future May All Get Stuck at 149 Employees

marsbit42 min fa

How xBubble Breaks Through in the VC-Heavily-Backed OPC Economy

xBubble: Addressing the Structural Gap in the VC-Backed OPC Economy The concept of OPC (One Person Company) is evolving from a buzzword to a significant AI-driven market. While AI coding tools like Replit and Lovable have validated demand from non-technical users wanting to build applications, a key gap remains: the leap from creating a demo to running a stable, evolving business. These tools still require users to manage the development process, including technical judgments for integrations, modifications, and deployments—a major hurdle for OPCs. xBubble, by DAPPOS, tackles this by shifting from "Prompt-to-Code" to "SOP-to-Business." Instead of generating code from instructions, its core is a system of pre-organized SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) that translate business goals—like "sell World Cup merchandise"—into complete, executable workflows. This includes generating cohesive assets, pages, payment systems, and backend logic. The platform is augmented by a network of third-party service providers who handle infrastructure (hosting, domains, payment setup), acting like "on-site service engineers." Users can pay for these services directly with xBubble credits, simplifying onboarding. This ecosystem aims to deliver not just an app, but a complete, modifiable business launch path. xBubble targets a clear OPC segment: small commercial nodes (e.g., creators, merchants) with existing products, customers, or channels, but for whom a full tech team is unjustifiable. Its potential lies in SOPs accumulating expertise from real cases, improving reliability and reducing delivery costs over time. Additionally, its native support for crypto payments caters to global or digital-native OPCs. In summary, as AI democratizes software creation, xBubble's opportunity is to prove that "SOP-to-Business" provides more immediate value for launching a real, operational business than a powerful but unstructured AI coding tool.

链捕手44 min fa

How xBubble Breaks Through in the VC-Heavily-Backed OPC Economy

链捕手44 min fa

If It's Not a Clear Yes, It's a No: A Nine-Year Retrospective by a VC Who Survived Four Cycles

**"Invest Only When Certain": A Nine-Year Retrospective from a VC Across Four Cycles** IOSG founder Jocy shares hard-earned lessons from nine years and over a hundred investments in Web3. The core challenge isn't identifying successful founders, but understanding why talented founders with solid ideas still fail. Through building a "failed founder database," IOSG identified six recurring failure patterns. **Founder Trait Red Flags:** 1. **Emotionally Unstable:** Founders who react defensively to criticism or publicly lash out under pressure (e.g., 80% drawdowns) often fail. Resilience is key. 2. **Lacking Hunger / Having a Fallback:** Founders with significant safety nets (family wealth, cushy fallback jobs) may lack the "do-or-die" commitment needed to survive crypto's brutal cycles. 3. **Unchecked Ego:** Includes "polished execution machines" who excel in known frameworks but struggle when paradigms shift, and "professor-types" who are technically brilliant but resistant to commercial feedback or coaching. **Project Structure Red Flags:** 4. **Token-First, Not Product-First:** Treating the token solely as a fundraising tool with no real utility or connection to product value is a major warning sign. The project should have value even if the token goes to zero. 5. **No Day-1 Exit Thesis:** Founders must have a clear, staged capital strategy from the start, understanding what each funding round needs to prove to unlock the next. "Exit before entry" is crucial. 6. **No Full-Cycle Experience:** Founders who haven't lived through a complete crypto bull/bear cycle (e.g., 2018, 2022) often underestimate their vulnerability. IOSG limits initial checks for such teams to $250k, sizing for risk. **The Positive Flipside: Desirable Founder Traits** The ideal candidate exhibits: obsessive problem-depth, being a second-time founder with a non-consensus vision, strong communication skills with *controlled* ego, relentless perseverance, and a global perspective with agency and taste (increasingly vital in the AI era). **Three Survival Tips for Founders:** 1. **Cash Flow Over Narrative:** Real revenue is what sustains projects, not vanity metrics. 2. **Tokens Are a Liability:** Avoid issuing a token unless absolutely necessary. The hidden costs (market making, liquidity, compliance) are immense, often a multi-million-dollar burden. 3. **Respect Liquidity:** Sell during peaks to build treasury, buy back to support the protocol during troughs. Be realistic about valuations and your ability to deliver for the next round. The final principle is simple yet paramount: **"If it's a borderline 'yes' or 'no,' don't invest."** In an industry that reinvents itself every few years, the discipline to consistently say "no" is the ultimate secret to longevity.

Foresight News1 h fa

If It's Not a Clear Yes, It's a No: A Nine-Year Retrospective by a VC Who Survived Four Cycles

Foresight News1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片