Ethereum Attracts SEC Scrutiny After Successful Merge

cryptodailyPublicado em 2022-09-16Última atualização em 2022-09-16

Resumo

Ethereum’s shift to Proof-of-Stake, while highly celebrated, has also attracted closer scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Ethereum’s shift to Proof-of-Stake, while highly celebrated, has also attracted closer scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with SEC Chair Gary Gensler hinting at a closer look at Ethereum from regulatory authorities. 
Gensler stated that exchanges offering staking services to users look “very similar” to lending services. 
An Increase In Regulatory Scrutiny 
Ethereum’s Merge was the talk of the town, as the protocol successfully transitioned from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake. However, this shift could bring about additional regulatory scrutiny, as the Securities and Exchange Commission Chair, Gary Gensler, hinted on Thursday. Gensler told reporters after a Senate hearing that the SEC could take a closer look at Ethereum and regulate it as a security. 
Speaking to reporters, the SEC also mentioned the Howey test, used by regulators to determine if a particular asset is a security. Gensler stated, 
“From the coin’s perspective…that’s another indicia that under the Howey test, the investing public is anticipating profits based on the efforts of others.”

Gensler did, however, mention that he was not referring to any particular cryptocurrency. He maintained that Proof-of-Stake blockchains that generate new coins for users take on investment contract-like attributes, a move that could bring them under the SEC’s purview. 
Strict Rules For Securities 
Securities are assets that include stocks and bonds. Any securities issuer must file extensive disclosures with the SEC, mandated by laws in place since the 1930s. Brokers and exchanges facilitating the trading of securities are required to comply with stringent rules to protect investors from any conflict of interest. Cryptocurrency issuers stand to face stringent penalties if they are selling any asset deemed to be a security by the SEC. 
Staking is utilized by cryptocurrencies to verify transactions on their networks and is used by some of the most prominent players in the market, such as Solana, Cardano, and now, Ethereum. Investors can lock up their assets for a fixed period of time and earn returns. According to the SEC chair, if an intermediary such as a crypto exchange offers staking services to its users, these services are quite similar to lending. 
Over the past year, the SEC has repeatedly signaled that firms offering crypto-lending products are required to register with the agency. Back in February, the SEC forced BlockFi to pay a fine of $100 million for failing to register with the agency. 
Jostling For Jurisdiction 
Meanwhile, federal agencies, and the congressional committees they answer to, are competing with one another for jurisdiction over the crypto space. The Senate Agriculture Committee, the body overseeing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), held a hearing on Thursday to discuss and vet a crypto bill. Meanwhile, the Senate Banking Committee, overseeing the SEC, also held a hearing so members could question the SEC Chair. 
CFTC’s Crypto Bill 
The crypto bill proposed by the leaders of the agriculture group proposes designating Bitcoin and Ethereum as digital commodities instead of securities. Digital commodities do not fall under the purview of federal regulators under current law. Essentially, this bill would grant the CFTC the authority to regulate digital commodities. Crypto exchanges would be required to register with the CFTC, monitor trading activities, protect investors, and only offer assets resistant to manipulation. Additionally, the exchanges would also be required to disclose some information about the assets they list. 
However, consumer protection advocates have expressed their discomfort with the CFTC, stating that the body lacks the resources and experience to protect small investors in a market described by the SEC Chair as the Wild West. CFTC has a fraction of the staff when compared to the SEC, with the markets it watches over dominated primarily by banks, hedge funds, and other large companies. 
Crypto Industry Prefers CFTC Over SEC
On its part, the crypto industry has stated that it would prefer to be regulated by the CFTC and not the SEC. According to crypto lobbyists, the SEC has a rigorous disclosure regime which they believe is impractical and expensive. Crypto firms and lobbyists have already spent millions lobbying Congress to align with their interests. 

Leituras Relacionadas

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbitHá 1h

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbitHá 1h

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHá 4h

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHá 4h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHá 4h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHá 4h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片