> The SEC isn't going that far. It's just saying if you want to take peoples' money and pay a return on it, you need to do the things others who do the same must.
Like what? I'm not sure I understand. They're both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request. Staking feels like the same thing. Is the confusion because ETH itself has not yet been explicitly ruled to be a security?
> This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true
Would be an interesting debate but maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole :D
Broker-dealer regulations. Related-party transaction disclosures, audits, et cetera.
> both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request
What Kraken is and isn't approved to do is uncertain. They have a Wyoming banking license, but it's unclear what that permits with respect to staking and custody.
The actual outcome of this fine isn’t going to be that staking companies and exchanges start registering their products as securities. There’s just way too much regulatory overhead for that to make any sense. The actual outcome is that US customers will access staking through non-US exchanges and decentralized services, where they may face more risk. I think everyone involved in this decision understands that, including the SEC.
Like what? I'm not sure I understand. They're both approved to hold things for consumers, which is already a promise to redeem upon request. Staking feels like the same thing. Is the confusion because ETH itself has not yet been explicitly ruled to be a security?
> This is a valid hypothesis. To the extent it's been tested, the opposite has been (inconclusively) true
Would be an interesting debate but maybe let's not go down that rabbit hole :D