Reason for the removal of staking from Ethereum ETFs to secure SEC approval

The exclusion of staking from Ethereum ETFs has been influenced by regulatory pressures from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Issuers revised their ETF applications to omit staking provisions before receiving approvals on May 23. This tactical change is intended to comply with the SEC’s regulatory standards to facilitate the approval of their Ethereum ETFs.

Is staked ETH a security?

Staking, which entails locking up cryptocurrency to validate transactions in return for rewards, is a key aspect of Ethereum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) system. Nevertheless, the SEC perceives staking services as potentially qualifying as unregistered securities offerings. This viewpoint has resulted in actions against prominent crypto platforms like Coinbase and Kraken for providing staking services and alleging breaches of federal securities regulations. As a result, ETF issuers eliminated staking from their proposals to evade similar legal issues.

The SEC’s determination of staked ETH as a security relies on the application of the Howey Test, which assesses whether an asset meets the criteria of an investment contract. The SEC asserts that staking involves the investment of funds when users lock up their ETH in exchange for possible returns, fulfilling the first criterion of the Howey Test. The second criterion, a joint enterprise, is satisfied as stakers contribute to a communal ecosystem and depend on the collective efforts of network validators and developers to secure and uphold the network. The third criterion, the expectation of profits, is met as stakers look forward to rewards in additional tokens. Ultimately, the SEC contends that these profits primarily arise from the efforts of others, such as the validators and developers who ensure the network’s operation and security. This interpretation aligns staking with the traits of an investment contract, thus subjecting it to securities regulations.

Why staked ETH is not a security

Critics argue that staking should not be categorized as a security because it fundamentally differs from conventional investment contracts. Staking involves locking tokens to support network functions and earn rewards, resembling a technical service more than an investment scheme. The rewards from staking originate from the network’s protocol and market dynamics, rather than from the managerial actions of a third party, which challenges the application of the Howey Test’s “efforts of others” criterion.

The SEC’s enforcement actions against staking services, including those involving Kraken and Coinbase, have faced criticism for lacking clear guidance and fostering a climate of regulatory ambiguity. Detractors assert that the SEC’s reliance on enforcement instead of providing clear regulatory frameworks leaves crypto firms and investors in a vulnerable position, uncertain about how to adhere to the law. This approach is viewed as inefficient and unjust, especially in a developing industry that necessitates clear and consistent regulations to promote growth and innovation.

Furthermore, the decentralized nature of numerous staking activities complicates the SEC’s claim that stakers primarily depend on the efforts of others. In decentralized networks, validators and stakers function independently, and the network’s security and operation are maintained through collective efforts rather than centralized management. This decentralization challenges the assertion that staking constitutes a joint enterprise under the Howey Test.

Additionally, critics contend that the SEC’s actions could drive staking activities abroad, diminishing the United States’ influence in the global crypto market and potentially jeopardizing investor protection. By pushing staking services to regions with more favorable regulations, the SEC may inadvertently promote less oversight and greater risks for US investors.

Ultimately, the SEC’s position may impede the broader adoption and advancement of blockchain technology. Staking is an essential element of proof-of-stake networks, which are designed to be more energy-efficient than their proof-of-work counterparts. By enforcing strict regulations on staking, the SEC could restrict the potential advantages of DeFi and other blockchain-based innovations.

Staked ETH and Ethereum ETFs

The SEC’s approval process for Ethereum ETFs requires the submission of 19b-4 forms for exchange listings and S-1 forms detailing fund management. While the SEC has approved the 19b-4 forms, the S-1 forms remain under review. The exclusion of staking from these filings is essential to comply with the SEC’s regulatory requirements and facilitate the approval process.

The removal of staking from Ethereum ETFs has ignited discussion within the crypto community. Many investors place high value on staking for the yield it produces, and its absence in Ethereum ETFs could significantly reduce their appeal compared to direct purchases of Ethereum, where investors can participate in staking activities. Brian Rudick, a senior strategist at GSR, emphasized the “immediate opportunity cost” of holding Ether in an ETF that does not provide staking.

Despite these concerns, the potential advantages of the Ethereum blockchain continue to be a subject of interest. The exclusion of staking from ETFs could have broader implications for supply, network security, and decentralization due to a decrease in staked ETH.

In contrast to the U.S., Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is contemplating allowing staking for Ethereum ETFs. This strategy aims to enhance the appeal of these ETFs by providing passive income opportunities through staking, potentially increasing investor interest and supporting Hong Kong’s aspirations to become a global crypto hub.

In conclusion, the exclusion of staking from Ethereum ETFs is a direct response to the SEC’s regulatory concerns and legal actions against staking services. This strategic modification by ETF issuers seeks to align with regulatory expectations and secure approval, even if it may reduce the attractiveness of these ETFs compared to direct Ethereum investments.

Will staking be permitted in the future? Only time will reveal, and all attention will be focused on the SEC and its decision regarding the classification of Ethereum and staked ETH in the upcoming weeks and months.

The post Why staking was removed from Ethereum ETFs to get SEC approval appeared first on CryptoSlate.