The Howey Test is the battlefield. The SEC's core argument is that staking-as-a-service constitutes an investment contract, a position solidified by actions against Coinbase and Kraken. This legal framework treats delegated staking rewards as profits derived from the efforts of others.
crypto-regulation-global-landscape-and-trends
Blog
The Future of Proof-of-Stake Under the SEC's Gaze
The SEC's war on crypto is entering a new phase: targeting the core mechanics of Proof-of-Stake. This analysis deconstructs how delegation, slashing, and reward distribution create a regulatory minefield for protocols like Ethereum, Solana, and liquid staking derivatives.
introduction
THE REGULATORY FRONTIER
Introduction
The SEC's aggressive stance on Proof-of-Stake is forcing a fundamental re-evaluation of network security and decentralization.
Pure decentralization is the only defense. Protocols like Ethereum and Solana must architect for validator dispersion, not just technical performance. The SEC's gaze makes Nakamoto Coefficient a compliance metric, not just a theoretical ideal.
Liquid staking derivatives (LSDs) are the primary target. The Lido DAO and Rocket Pool models, which tokenize staked assets, are under intense scrutiny. Their widespread adoption creates a systemic risk vector that regulators will not ignore.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 settlement with Kraken forced the shutdown of its U.S. staking program, establishing a precedent that centralized staking services are securities offerings.
thesis-statement
THE REGULATORY FRONTIER
Core Thesis: Staking is the New Security
The SEC's enforcement actions are redefining staking services as investment contracts, forcing a technical and legal bifurcation in the PoS ecosystem.
Staking-as-a-Service is dead. The SEC's actions against Kraken and Coinbase established that centralized, custodial staking offerings are securities. This legal reality forces a hard pivot towards non-custodial, permissionless staking protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool, where users retain control of their keys.
The Howey Test now targets middleware. The SEC's focus extends beyond exchanges to the staking infrastructure layer. Services providing 'efforts of others' through centralized node operations or token delegation mechanics, as seen in early versions of Solana or Cardano, face existential regulatory risk.
Restaking introduces compound risk. Protocols like EigenLayer create a recursive security dependency by staking staked assets. This financial innovation amplifies both network security and regulatory scrutiny, as it layers new yield-bearing contracts atop a potentially regulated base asset.
Evidence: Following the SEC settlement, Kraken's staking AUM dropped 70% within a quarter, while non-custodial liquid staking token (LST) markets on Curve and Balancer saw a 40% increase in TVL, demonstrating the capital migration.
key-trends
THE SEC'S NEXT FRONT
The Regulatory Trajectory: From Sales to Systems
The SEC's Howey Test is a blunt instrument for a programmable world; the real battle is over the control of economic and governance systems, not token sales.
01
The Problem: The Staking-as-Security Trap
The SEC's core argument is that staking delegations constitute an investment contract. This misapplies Howey to a core protocol function, threatening ~$100B+ in staked ETH and the security of all major L1s. The precedent would criminalize fundamental blockchain mechanics.
- Legal Precedent: The Kraken settlement created a dangerous blueprint.
- Systemic Risk: Invalidates the economic model of Ethereum, Solana, and Cardano.
$100B+
TVL at Risk
3
Major L1s Targeted
02
The Solution: The Protocol-as-Utility Defense
Projects must architecturally and legally decouple the native token's utility from any promoter's efforts. The protocol must be sufficiently decentralized, and staking must be framed as a permissionless network service, not a managed investment pool.
- Architectural Purity: Follow the Lido model of non-custodial, validator-agnostic staking.
- Legal Narrative: Emphasize client diversity and governance minimization to defeat the "common enterprise" prong of Howey.
>30%
Client Threshold
0
Promoter Control
03
The Precedent: Ethereum's 2018 No-Action Victory
The SEC's 2018 declaration that Ethereum was sufficiently decentralized is the only playbook. It set a de facto standard: a network transitions from security to commodity when no central party is essential for its function or success. This is the benchmark for Solana, Cardano, and future L1s.
- Key Metric: Development decentralization and node distribution.
- Strategic Imperative: Achieve irreversible decentralization before the SEC moves.
2018
Critical Ruling
1
Viable Path
04
The Endgame: Commodity vs. Security Exchanges
The regulatory bifurcation will force a tectonic shift in infrastructure. Expect a formal split between SEC-regulated security token exchanges (for tokens with active development teams) and CFTC-regulated commodity platforms (for "finished" decentralized protocols). This will fragment liquidity and redefine market structure.
- Infrastructure Divide: CEXs will need segregated trading engines and custody.
- Winner: Truly decentralized protocols that achieve commodity status early.
2
Regime Split
Fragmented
Liquidity Future
SECURITY ANALYSIS
The Howey Test Applied to Major PoS Protocols
A first-principles breakdown of how major Proof-of-Stake protocols map to the SEC's Howey Test criteria for an investment contract.
| Howey Test Prong | Ethereum (Post-Merge) | Solana | Cosmos Hub | Cardano |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Investment of Money | ||||
Common Enterprise | ~$90B staked in single network | ~$70B staked in single network | ~$350M staked in hub; IBC connects 50+ chains | ~$15B staked in single network |
Expectation of Profit | From block rewards & MEV (~4.5% APR) | From inflation rewards (~7% APR) | From inflation rewards (~10% APR) | From treasury & transaction fees (~3% APR) |
Profit from Efforts of Others | Reliant on core devs (EF, ConsenSys) & professional validators | Reliant on Solana Labs & Jito, etc. for client & MEV infra | Profit derived from own validator's work; minimal promoter control | Reliant on IOG, EMURGO for protocol development |
SEC Enforcement Precedent | Explicitly named in Coinbase/SEC suit | Named as security in SEC vs. Coinbase complaint | No explicit action; ATOM deemed security in Kraken suit | Declared not a security in SEC vs. Ripple ruling |
Primary Legal Argument | Passive income via delegation is a security | Centralized development + profit expectation | Sovereign chain model; profit from own work | Sufficient decentralization per Hinman Doctrine |
Staking Control | User can run validator or delegate to 30+ providers | User can delegate to 1000+ validators; Jito dominates MEV | User must bond & actively validate; no simple delegation | User can delegate to 1200+ stake pools |
deep-dive
THE LEGAL FRICTION
Deconstructing the Attack Vectors: Delegation & Slashing
The SEC's Howey test scrutiny transforms technical staking mechanics into legal liabilities.
Delegation creates a security. The act of a user delegating tokens to a validator like Figment or Chorus One creates an investment contract under the SEC's framework. The user expects profits from the validator's entrepreneurial efforts, which is the core of the Howey test. This legal reclassification is the primary vector for enforcement.
Slashing is a control mechanism. The protocol's ability to slash a validator's stake for misbehavior demonstrates a common enterprise. This punitive, programmatic control is a hallmark of centralized management, which regulators equate with a security. It negates the 'sufficiently decentralized' defense used by networks like Ethereum.
Custodial staking services are primary targets. Platforms like Coinbase Earn and Kraken's staking service were the first enforcement actions because they directly control user assets and distribute rewards. Their centralized interface makes the investment contract relationship explicit and easy for the SEC to prosecute.
Non-custodial models face indirect pressure. While protocols like Lido (via stETH) and Rocket Pool abstract direct delegation, their tokenized derivative models create secondary markets. The SEC argues these liquid staking tokens (LSTs) are themselves securities, creating a regulatory contagion that pressures the underlying validators.
protocol-spotlight
THE SEC'S HOWEY TEST
Protocols in the Crosshairs: A Risk Assessment
The SEC's aggressive stance on staking-as-a-service is a direct threat to the fundamental economic model of major L1s and DeFi protocols.
01
The Centralization Paradox
The SEC's core argument: pooled staking services constitute an unregistered security because investors rely on a third party's managerial efforts. This directly targets Lido, Coinbase, and Kraken. The legal risk forces a re-evaluation of the entire staking stack, from node operators to liquid staking tokens (LSTs).
- Target: Lido's $34B+ stETH, Coinbase's cbETH
- Risk: Service shutdowns or crippling compliance costs
- Outcome: Pressure to prove sufficient decentralization or face enforcement
$34B+
TVL at Risk
>30%
Eth Staked via Lido
02
Solo Staking as the Only Safe Harbor
The clearest path to regulatory safety is the elimination of any intermediary. Running your own validator with 32 ETH is the purest form of non-security participation. This reality advantages Ethereum's base layer and penalizes users without significant capital, pushing staking further toward institutional dominance.
- Solution: Native ETH staking via client software
- Barrier: 32 ETH (~$100k) capital requirement
- Trend: Rise of DVT (Distributed Validator Technology) like Obol and SSV to democratize solo staking
32 ETH
Minimum Stake
0% Fee
Managerial Cut
03
The Rise of Non-US Staking Jurisdictions
Protocols will geographically segment their services. Expect a hard fork in staking infrastructure: US-compliant, custodial offerings vs. global, permissionless pools. Jurisdictions like the EU (with MiCA) and Singapore will become hubs for innovative staking models, while US users get a neutered product.
- Shift: Legal domicile becomes a core protocol feature
- Entities: Kraken, Binance already pivoting services regionally
- Innovation: DeFi-native staking (e.g., Rocket Pool's permissionless node operators) moves offshore
MiCA
EU Framework
0%
US Market Share Risk
04
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) Under Scrutiny
If the staking service is a security, then the derivative token (stETH, rETH) is likely one too. This puts the entire DeFi Lego tower at risk, as these tokens are foundational collateral. Protocols like Aave, Maker, and EigenLayer face secondary exposure from their massive LST integrations.
- Contagion: $10B+ of DeFi TVL backed by LSTs
- Precedent: SEC's case against Terra's UST set a tone for derivative assets
- Response: Protocols may need to de-list or cap LST collateral types
$10B+
DeFi TVL Linked
Aave, Maker
Protocol Exposure
counter-argument
THE LEGAL MISMATCH
The Bull Case: Why the SEC Might Fail
The SEC's rigid framework is structurally incompatible with the technical and economic reality of modern proof-of-stake networks.
The Howey Test fails to capture the operational reality of decentralized staking. Validators on networks like Ethereum or Solana perform a computational service, not a passive investment. The SEC's 'common enterprise' argument collapses when node operators are globally distributed and non-custodial.
Staking is a utility, not a security. The SEC's case relies on a fundamental misclassification of the staking yield mechanism. Protocols like Lido and Rocket Pool separate token ownership from validation, creating a service layer that further decouples the asset from any investment contract.
Regulatory arbitrage is inevitable. The SEC's aggressive posture will push core development and protocol governance offshore to jurisdictions with clear digital asset frameworks, such as the EU's MiCA. This creates a permanent enforcement gap the SEC cannot bridge.
Evidence: The SEC's case against Coinbase staking hinges on custodial arrangements, not the underlying Ethereum protocol. This legal distinction proves the agency's reach is limited to centralized intermediaries, not the decentralized networks themselves.
takeaways
THE REGULATORY RECKONING
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The SEC's aggressive stance on PoS tokens as securities is forcing a structural evolution, not a retreat.
01
The Problem: The "Investment Contract" Trap
The SEC's Howey Test hinges on a common enterprise and expectation of profit from others' efforts. PoS delegation and governance token rewards are a direct bullseye. This creates massive liability for any U.S.-facing protocol.
- Legal Risk: Projects like Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), and Polygon (MATIC) are primary targets.
- Chilling Effect: Stifles U.S.-based validator innovation and institutional staking services.
~$100B+
Market Cap at Risk
0
SEC-Approved PoS Tokens
02
The Solution: Architect for Decentralization & Utility
Mitigate the "common enterprise" claim by engineering protocols where token value is derived from utility, not managerial promises. This is a first-principles design shift.
- Work Tokens: Frame staking as payment for a service (e.g., security, compute).
- Non-Financial Governance: Limit token voting to protocol parameters, not treasury allocation.
- Client Diversity: Actively foster a permissionless, geographically distributed validator set.
>66%
Target Client Diversity
Utility-First
Design Mandate
03
The Pivot: Liquid Staking's Existential Moment
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like Lido's stETH are a double-edged sword. They enhance capital efficiency but concentrate validation power, attracting regulatory scrutiny.
- Regulatory Target: LSTs resemble interest-bearing securities; providers are clear "managers."
- Builder Play: Decentralize the LST layer. Look to SSV Network and Obol for Distributed Validator Technology (DVT) as critical infrastructure to disaggregate node operation.
$30B+
LST TVL
~33%
Lido's Ethereum Share
04
The Opportunity: Restaking's Regulatory Shield
EigenLayer's restaking model cleverly sidesteps core securities law by leveraging the base security of Ethereum. The "profit" is not from EigenLayer's efforts, but from the actively validated services (AVSs) built on top.
- Legal Arbitrage: Restaked ETH is a collateralized security deposit, not an investment in EigenLayer Inc.
- Investor Thesis: The regulatory moat for permissionless cryptoeconomic security is immense. This is the new infrastructure layer.
$15B+
TVL in EigenLayer
AVS-Centric
Value Accrual
05
The Frontier: Institutional-Grade Compliance Stacks
Demand will explode for on-chain tools that provide regulatory clarity. This is a new product category.
- Proof-of-Decentralization: On-chain attestations for validator/client distribution.
- Tax & Compliance Oracles: Real-time reporting on staking rewards for institutional holders.
- Build Here: The winners will be compliance-native infrastructure providers, not just protocols.
New Market
Product Category
Institutional
Primary Customer
06
The Verdict: A More Resilient PoS Emerges
The SEC's pressure is a forcing function for genuine decentralization. The next generation of PoS networks will be more robust, legally defensible, and institutionally palatable.
- Bullish Outcome: Regulation separates the wheat (utility, decentralization) from the chaff (security-like promises).
- Investor Action: Back teams with legal co-founders, a focus on client diversity, and a utility-first token model.
Stronger
Networks Post-SEC
Legal Tech
New Stack Requirement
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall