Not that anybody is asking, however Coin Center inserted itself into the talk at hand. Is the Post-Merge Ethereum a safety now? Moving from Proof-Of-Work to Proof-Of-Stake with out pausing the operation was fairly a feat, however it got here with a price. Many issues are utterly totally different at this stage, and people new traits would possibly put Ethereum within the regulator’s visual field. Is staking an identical exercise to mining or are they completely totally different?
Besides that, what does this entire state of affairs need to do with Coin Center? The group defines itself as “the leading non-profit research and advocacy center focused on the public policy issues facing cryptocurrency and decentralized computing technologies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the like.” Coin Center’s article “Does the Merge change how Ethereum is regulated? (No.)” tackles the difficulty at hand.
“We do not believe that the technological differences between POS and POW warrant any different treatment,” Coin Center states summarizing its place. “On the securities law side, the SEC has always stressed that they look at the economic realities of transactions rather than the terms or technologies used to create those realites. The approach is substance over form,” they are saying summarizing the SEC place.
ETH value chart for 09/16/2022 on ForexCom | Source: ETH/USD on TradingView.com
Coin Center Thinks That Mining And Validating Are Basically The Same
To soften the blow from this part title’s affirmation, Coin Center limits the scope to “the economic realities of validating.” We all know what they’re saying, although.
“The economic realities of validating a chain through mining and validating a chain through staking are similar. In both cases validators are an open set of participants and the only precondition to participation is provably suffering some cost. In proof-of-work that cost is energy and computing resources, in proof-of-stake it is the time value of money (e.g. the opportunity cost of holding an asset needed for staking rather than spending it).”
In Bitcoinist’s first article about the Post-Merge Ethereum, we quoted Gabor Gurbacs, Strategy Advisor at VanEck, whose thesis was that “even if it’s not a security, Ethereum was bound to attract regulatory attention post-merge.” He just lately tweeted:
“I am not saying that ETH is necessarily a security because of its proof model, but regulators do talk about staking in the context of dividends which if one feature of what securities laws call a “common enterprise”. There are different elements within the Howey take a look at too.”
The Howey take a look at, in flip, refers to those “four criteria to determine whether an investment contract exists:”
- An funding of cash
- In a standard enterprise
- With the expectation of revenue
- To be derived from the efforts of others
That leads us to…
Coin Center Doesn’t Think That The Profits Derive From The Efforts Of Others
Now that we’re all acquainted with the Howey take a look at, this paragraph makes extra sense:
“Central to classification as a security is ongoing reliance for profits derived primarily from the efforts of others. Both consensus mechanisms are explicitly designed to avoid any such reliance by creating an open competition amongst strangers wherein any self interested participant can and will fill the gap left by any other unresponsive, corrupt, or censorious participant.”
That is perhaps true, however, what in regards to the effort of all the businesses and builders engaged on the Ethereum platform? They present worth that interprets into earnings. And folks shopping for ETH are investing in them, in a approach. Chairman Gensler’s other example included an extra ingredient. “If an intermediary such as a crypto exchange offers staking services to its customers, Mr. Gensler said, it “looks very similar—with some changes of labeling—to lending.”
Coin Center disagrees with excessive prejudice:
“Our analysis of the technology, however, suggests that there should be no differential treatment of projects based merely on the choice of one or another permissionless consensus mechanism.”
Not solely that, they go so far as to name them “commodities”:
“Otherwise decentralized cryptocurrencies that use proof of stake consensus are commodities, and, therefore, the CFTC has spot market policing authority and derivatives market supervisory authority.”
Maybe, however, is there a decentralized Proof-Of-Stake cryptocurrency? That’s definitely up for debate. Especially contemplating Proof-Of-Stake’s inherent propensity in the direction of centralization.
Featured Image by Ana Flávia on Unsplash | Charts by TradingView
