Cloud Hosting

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against Binance today in a move that has rocked the cryptocurrency industry.

The complaint notably includes language in which the SEC clearly elucidates that it considers many of the tokens that traded on Binance to be unregistered securities and lays out its case against several it considers notable offenders. The SEC identifies these crypto asset securities as including (but not limited to) Solana, Cardano, Polygon, Filecoin, Cosmos, The Sandbox, Decentraland, Algorand, Axie Infinity, and Coti.

Todays filing contains some of the SECs most explicit language to date in clarifying its judgment, but once again avoids taking on the big question: is Ethereum a security or not? If so, why is the SEC silent on it? And if not, what is it?

The SECs argument for designating these tokens as crypto asset securities is exhaustively outlined in Section VIII of the complaint (pages 85 through 123). Notable patterns emerge from the filing: the process of initial coin offerings (ICOs), vesting of tokens, allocations for the core team, and the promotion of profit generation through ownership of these tokens, are all repeated themes.

But Ethereum is not listed among these. Gensler has remained consistently vague on the question of whether Ethereum and its namesake coin count as securities. ETH is commonly held as an investment, suggesting it could be classified as a security, but it is also extensively used day-to-day as a medium of exchange across protocols, making its function more akin to cash or ACH settlement.

Gensler has previously suggested that everything other than Bitcoin in the crypto space could be seen as a security, but has notably refused to clearly state as much about Ethereum. When pressed to say the words, I believe Ethereum is a security, the Hon. Chair just will not do it. Genslers reluctance to classify Ether is curious when his SEC is so eager to claim as much for others. Why?

It might be a simple matter of intragovernmental contention. Ethereum could potentially fall under the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regards Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether as commodities, not securities. Not only do the two categories differ wildly from one another, this overlap could create a regulatory tug-of-war that would Genslers public stance on Ethereum while trying to avoid the appearance of infighting within the federal government.

Another analysis from Protos, argues that Genslers evasion on the matter may be a consequence of the SECs earlier inaction following the infamous DAO hack, which saw the blockchain fork into Ethereum Classic and put the entire ecosystem at risk. However, at the time the SEC did nothing, and now Gensler finds himself in the unenviable position of making up for his predecessors oversights. Now that the Ethereum ecosystem has spent years recovering and building credibility, retroactively declaring it an unregistered security would have unforeseen, but no doubt disastrous, consequences for investors.

In other words, protecting investors in this case would mean protecting them from the protector.

However, perhaps another reason could lie beneath Genslers reluctance to clearly classify Ethereum: he may not know.

Cryptocurrencies and their underlying technologies are innovative and novel. They represent a fundamental shift in how we understand finance and asset ownership, and in the case of decentralized ecosystems like Ethereum, they introduce entirely new paradigms.

If this is true, its not unreasonable to suspect that most peopleeven those deeply involved in the spacemay not fully understand the implications of these innovations just yet. Anything that is fundamentally new will resist categorization, and Ethereum does sothis lack of a concrete concept that both defines Ethereum but fits into previous understandings is the core problem around regulating it.

This regulatory ambiguity presents a complex challenge for Ethereum, but it does not lessen the urgency to address it.The advancement of the crypto industry hinges on obtaining clear legal definitions for Layer 1 (L1) tokens, such as Ethereum, that function simultaneously as mediums of daily exchange and investment vehicles within their respective ecosystems. The ambiguity in their status poses a significant hurdle, stalling progress and fostering uncertainty in a space that is ripe for growth and innovation.

The dichotomy of these tokens roles blurs the boundary between conventional asset classes, forcing us to confront inadequacies in existing legal structures. To propel the crypto industry forward, regulators must acknowledge and address this nuanced reality. Until a refined framework emerges that accurately captures the dual functionality of these L1 tokens, regulatory ambiguity will continue to shroud the industry, stifling its full potential and deterring mainstream adoption. This unique crypto space requires equally unique rulesones that can encapsulate its dynamism and complexity.

The path towards comprehensive crypto regulation is obscured by two significant obstacles, which must be addressed urgently for the sectors responsible advancement.

Firstly, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must establish a formal position on Ethereum. Given the SECs historical inaction in restraining Ethereums growth when opportunities were present, it has inadvertently fostered an environment where investors are left in regulatory limbo. The SEC, as the protector of investors, has a duty to provide some form of regulatory guidanceeven if it proves to be temporaryto offer a foundational starting point and eliminate the current state of speculation. The lack of clear regulation is not merely an inconvenience; it is a failure to provide the necessary protections for participants in an increasingly significant market.

Secondly, authentic, open-ended discussions about the nature of digital assets are crucial. This implies engaging in conversations devoid of preconceived notions, biases, ideological posturing, or empty rhetoric. We often speak of making space to have the conversation, but acknowledging that conversation needs to take place and actually having one are two very different exercises indeed. Perhaps everyone in the industryas well as those watching over itwould benefit from practicing the latter.

Commitment to Transparency: The author of this article is invested and/or has an interest in one or more assets discussed in this post. CryptoSlate does not endorse any project or asset that may be mentioned or linked to in this article. Please take that into consideration when evaluating the content within this article.

Disclaimer: Our writers' opinions are solely their own and do not reflect the opinion of CryptoSlate. None of the information you read on CryptoSlate should be taken as investment advice, nor does CryptoSlate endorse any project that may be mentioned or linked to in this article. Buying and trading cryptocurrencies should be considered a high-risk activity. Please do your own due diligence before taking any action related to content within this article. Finally, CryptoSlate takes no responsibility should you lose money trading cryptocurrencies.

More here:

The ETH Question: Why does the SEC avoid taking action against Ethereum when all else are fair game? - CryptoSlate