In a recent report from analyst and legal advisor Metalaw, attention is drawn to a significant moment in history: the bold move made by New York Attorney General (NYAG) Letitia James about a year ago. Attorney General James made waves by suggesting that Ethereum, a major player in the cryptocurrency world, should be treated as a security.

This interpretation wasn’t merely a statement but was backed by tangible action as the NYAG’s office issued a press release backing the development. 

Navigating the Regulations
While the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is still on the fence about how to classify Ethereum, mounting pressure from Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) could spur regulatory action. The ongoing lawsuit, led by the New York Attorney General against KuCoin, where Ethereum’s status as a security is contested, sheds light on why Ethereum’s regulatory status is being scrutinized.
The press release highlighted the seriousness of the situation, portraying the regulator’s move as a precedent-setting event. It emphasized the importance of the legal proceedings, showing that the NYAG is taking Ethereum’s classification seriously and is pursuing it through legal channels.
Ethereum Under Scrutiny
Metalaw’s analysis focuses on a crucial aspect of the lawsuit: the argument that Ethereum (ETH), a giant in the crypto world, should be considered a security. This interpretation marks a turning point in the courtroom, as it’s one of the first times a regulator has classified ETH this way. The lawsuit argues that ETH, along with other virtual currencies like LUNA and TerraUSD (UST), are speculative assets that need to be registered before trading.
This marks the first time the New York Attorney General’s office has explicitly labeled Ethereum (ETH) as a security, thanks to its innovative Proof-of-Stake transaction validation mechanism. This change allows people to earn rewards by holding onto Ethereum, similar to earning interest on investments.
With figures like SEC Chairman Gary Gensler suggesting that tokens like Ethereum could fall under securities laws because of this mechanism, the debate over Ethereum’s security classification intensifies as Ethereum staking becomes more popular.
The Debate Over Decentralization
The NYAG argues that Ethereum (ETH) lacks enough decentralization to avoid being classified as a security. They point to the significant influence of Vitalik Buterin and the Ethereum Foundation on ETH’s development, including the transition to Proof-of-Stake.

Additionally, they highlight ETH’s marketing as an investment opportunity and the significant stakes held by Vitalik Buterin and the Ethereum Foundation. Regulators believe that ETH’s governance structure and absence of traditional mining mechanisms indicate insufficient decentralization, thus warranting its classification as a security.

#write2earn🌐💹 #SECvsCrypto #GaryGensler $ETH #ETH（以太坊）

In a recent interview with Thinking Crypto, Bill Hughes, the Senior Counsel and director of Global Regulatory Matters at Consensys, opened up about Ethereum, how it was seen differently before, and how now it’s getting confusing with what the SEC thinks about it. There’s talk about subpoenas to the Ethereum Foundation and worries that it might change things for Ethereum users and the market. What’s been happening with Ripple?

The interviewer mentioned the Ripple case and the impact of the SEC’s ruling on Ripple XRP. While the case is ongoing, a significant ruling stated that XRP isn’t inherently a security. However, its classification depends on how it’s handled and distributed, such as through contracts.
Ethereum, Ripple, and the SEC: Understanding the Future of Cryptocurrency Laws
For instance, the judge differentiated between secondary market and institutional sales involving contracts and discussions with Ripple. This raises questions about how similar regulatory issues might affect Ethereum despite their different structures. How could this precedent influence Ethereum’s stance against the SEC?
Bill Hughes explained the differences between Ripple and others, such as in the Coinbase and Terraform Labs cases. In the Ripple case, the court focused on the Howey test, which assesses individual transactions or contracts to determine if they qualify as securities. However, in other cases, the courts looked beyond specific transactions or contracts to consider broader schemes. 

This poses a challenge because the SEC can broadly define schemes, potentially encompassing various activities such as securities transactions. Crypto industry stakeholders argue that a limiting principle is needed to prevent the SEC from indiscriminately labeling crypto activities as securities transactions. 
He feared that without such limitations, almost anything in the crypto space could be classified as a security, giving the SEC excessive authority. He calls for clearer legislation to provide coherent policies for regulating crypto rather than leaving the industry uncertain. Hughes raises the question of what will happen first: meaningful legislative action or continued ambiguity in crypto regulation.
#write2earn🌐💹 #SECvsRipple #SECvsCrypto $XRP $ETH

FTX investors and customers have decided to drop their claims against former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried in exchange for his help in taking legal action against celebrities who endorsed FTX. This comes after Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison for fraud related to FTX. 

As part of the agreement, investors would drop all current and future claims against Bankman-Fried, and in return, he would assist in pursuing legal action against the celebrities, who promoted FTX, resulting in financial losses for investors.
Details of SBF’s Cooperation
Bankman-Fried’s cooperation includes providing nonprivileged documents detailing his assets, investments in companies like Anthropic, and information about other defendants in the civil litigation. 

The combined lawsuit, filed in federal court, involves a diverse group of defendants, including celebrities like David Ortiz, Udonis Haslem, Orlando Bloom, Larry David, Katy Perry, Shaquille O’Neal, Gisele Bündchen, and Tom Brady.
Potential Recoveries
The potential outcome of the settlement extends beyond the immediate resolution of claims against Bankman-Fried. If successful, the plaintiffs stand to recover significantly more than the settlements offered by promoters involved in the pact, which total approximately $1.3 million.
One notable aspect of the settlement involves an agreement with Trevor Lawrence, quarterback for the Jacksonville Jaguars, who was recruited as an endorser for FTX in 2021. Lawrence’s involvement underscores the extent to which FTX leveraged celebrity endorsements to solidify its brand visibility.
No, Response!!!
While representatives for some celebrities named in the lawsuit, including Bundchen, O’Neal, and Brady, have yet to respond to requests for comment on the settlement, the outcome of the legal proceedings could have far-reaching implications for both FTX and the individuals involved.

#write2earn🌐💹 #SECvsCrypto #Ftx❓ #SamBankman-Fried $FTT