Governance tokens are securities. They represent a direct claim on protocol cash flows and voting power, mirroring traditional equity. The Howey Test applies cleanly, as seen in the SEC's cases against Uniswap and LBRY.
the-stablecoin-economy-regulation-and-adoption
Blog
Why Regulators Will Target Governance Tokens Before They Target Stablecoins
A first-principles analysis of why the SEC's logical, low-hanging fruit is classifying governance tokens as unregistered securities, creating a regulatory choke point for DeFi and stablecoin ecosystems long before a direct asset attack.
introduction
THE LEGAL PRECEDENT
Introduction
Governance tokens present a clearer, more actionable legal target for regulators than the complex financial instrument of stablecoins.
Stablecoins are a policy quagmire. Regulating USDC or DAI means defining a new monetary instrument, a slow legislative battle. Attacking governance tokens is a faster, low-hanging fruit for agencies like the SEC to establish jurisdiction.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 Wells Notice to Uniswap Labs targeted the UNI token's distribution and promotional activity, not the DEX's core swapping mechanics. This is the blueprint.
key-insights
THE REGULATORY FRONTIER
Executive Summary
Stablecoins are the obvious target, but governance tokens present a more immediate and legally actionable threat to financial regulators.
01
The De Facto Security
Governance tokens like UNI, AAVE, and COMP directly represent a claim on future protocol fees and profits. This transforms them from utility tokens into unregistered securities under the Howey Test. The SEC has already signaled this view in the Uniswap Wells Notice.
- Direct Revenue Claims: Protocols are formalizing fee-switch mechanisms, creating clear profit expectations.
- Precedent Exists: The DAO Report of 2017 established that voting rights on a common enterprise can constitute a security.
- Low-Hanging Fruit: Easier to prosecute than the complex, bank-like systems of USDC or USDT.
$10B+
Market Cap at Risk
100%
Of Major Tokens
02
The Control Paradox
Decentralization is a spectrum, and most "DAO-governed" protocols are controlled by concentrated capital. Regulators target control, and on-chain voting exposes it.
- Voter Concentration: <5% of token holders often control majority voting power, mirroring corporate shareholder structures.
- Actionable Governance: Votes directly control Treasury funds ($B+), smart contract upgrades, and fee parameters.
- Regulatory Hook: This level of demonstrable, centralized control is a gift to agencies like the SEC and CFTC, providing a clear nexus for enforcement.
<5%
Holders Control Vote
On-Chain
Proof of Control
03
The Narrative Mismatch
The industry defends stablecoins as payment tools, aligning with existing money transmission laws. Governance tokens have no such narrative defense.
- Stablecoin Alignment: USDC (Circle) actively seeks federal charters, framing itself within the existing financial system.
- Governance Misalignment: Tokens are marketed as "community ownership" while functioning as speculative equity—a regulatory red flag.
- Strategic Enforcement: Targeting governance first lets regulators set a sweeping precedent that cripples the DeFi stack's coordination layer without immediately disrupting the payments rail.
First
Wave of Enforcement
Precedent
Setting Action
thesis-statement
THE REGULATORY VECTOR
The Core Thesis: Control, Not Currency
Governance tokens represent a direct, unlicensed claim on protocol control, making them the primary regulatory target over stablecoins.
Governance is the attack surface. Regulators target control, not just payments. A governance token like UNI or AAVE is a direct claim on a financial protocol's rulebook, a function historically reserved for licensed entities. This is a clearer legal violation than a stablecoin's utility as a medium of exchange.
Stablecoins are a distraction. While USDC and USDT face scrutiny, they are digital dollars operated by identifiable entities. The existential threat is the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). A DAO controlling a multi-billion dollar lending market like Aave or Compound operates without a charter, bypassing every financial licensing regime.
The precedent is securities law. The Howey Test evaluates investment contracts with an expectation of profit from others' efforts. Governance tokens that grant fee-sharing rights or direct protocol upgrades fit this framework. The SEC's case against LBRY established that even utility tokens can be securities if sold to fund development.
Evidence: The UNI Enforcement. The SEC's 2023 Wells Notice to Uniswap Labs targeted the UNI token and interface, not the underlying automated market maker (AMM) code. This action confirms the thesis: the regulator's priority is the governance and distribution layer, not the purely functional smart contracts.
market-context
THE LEGAL FRONT
The Current Battlefield: Uniswap and Beyond
Governance tokens present a clearer legal target for regulators than stablecoins due to their explicit profit-seeking and control mechanisms.
Governance tokens are securities. The Howey Test hinges on an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others. UNI and AAVE holders vote on fee switches and treasury allocations, creating a direct profit expectation absent in pure utility tokens.
Stablecoins are payment rails. Regulators treat USDC and USDT as digital dollars, focusing on reserve transparency and AML compliance. Attacking these systemic infrastructure risks destabilizing the entire crypto economy, a politically fraught move compared to targeting a single protocol's governance.
The SEC's playbook is evident. Its lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance specifically allege that their staking services and certain tokens are unregistered securities. Uniswap Labs' Wells Notice signals the next logical enforcement target is the decentralized exchange's own governance model.
Evidence: The DAO Report of 2017 established the precedent that token-based governance constitutes a security. Modern veTokenomics models like Curve's CRV explicitly tie voting power to financial rewards, strengthening the regulator's case.
WHY TOKENS ARE THE LOW-HANGING FRUIT
The Governance Token Attack Surface: A Regulatory Scorecard
A first-principles comparison of the legal and technical vulnerabilities that make governance tokens a primary target for enforcement actions, contrasted with the more complex case against stablecoins.
| Attack Vector / Regulatory Lens | Governance Tokens (e.g., UNI, COMP, MKR) | Algorithmic Stablecoins (e.g., UST, FRAX) | Fiat-Backed Stablecoins (e.g., USDC, USDT) |
|---|---|---|---|
Direct Financial Instrument Classification (Howey Test) | High Risk: Voting rights + fee revenue sharing = clear 'expectation of profit from others' efforts'. | Medium Risk: Primary utility is as a medium of exchange, but secondary markets create speculation. | Low Risk: Explicitly framed as a digital representation of a deposited fiat claim. |
Centralized On-Chain Control Points | 1-5 Multisigs controlling treasury, upgrades, and fee switches (e.g., Uniswap, Aave). | DAO-controlled parameters (e.g., Frax Finance) or Foundation control (e.g., Terraform Labs). | Single corporate entity with full mint/burn authority and asset custody. |
Explicit Promises to Tokenholders | Yes: Governance proposals frequently cite token price and holder value. | Implied: Stability peg is the core promise; failure is catastrophic. | No: Explicit disclaimers; redemption right for $1, not price speculation. |
SEC Precedent & Established Case Law | Strong: Ripple (XRP), LBRY (LBC), Telegram (GRAM) rulings target 'ecosystem' tokens. | Limited: SEC case vs. Terraform Labs focused on UST as a security, establishing a new frontier. | Weak: No successful SEC action against a pure, audited fiat-backed stablecoin. |
Ease of Jurisdictional Nexus | Global, permissionless DEX listings create immediate US jurisdictional hook. | Global usage, but peg stability mechanisms are the primary regulatory focus. | Clear US corporate entity and banking relationships provide a direct target. |
Primary Regulatory Agency | SEC (Securities) | SEC & CFTC (Securities & Commodities) | State Money Transmitter Licenses, OFAC, NYDFS (Payments, Sanctions). |
Defense Narrative Strength | Weak: 'Sufficient decentralization' is a factual, untested defense in court. | Moderate: Argue utility as a stable medium of exchange, not an investment. | Strong: Argue it's a regulated payment instrument, not a security. |
Estimated Time to Regulatory Clarity via Enforcement | 12-24 months | 24-36 months | 36+ months |
deep-dive
THE LEGAL WEDGE
First Principles: Why Tokens Are an Easier Target Than Stablecoins
Governance tokens present a lower-friction, higher-certainty enforcement path for regulators than the complex financial instrument of stablecoins.
Governance tokens are securities. The SEC's Howey Test analysis for tokens like Uniswap's UNI or Compound's COMP is straightforward: investment of capital in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others. The legal precedent is established.
Stablecoins are payment systems. Targeting USDC or USDT requires the SEC to argue they are securities or the CFTC/OFAC to treat them as money transmission. This triggers complex, inter-agency jurisdictional battles and systemic financial stability concerns.
Enforcement creates immediate chilling effects. A case against Aave's AAVE token governance model directly threatens every DAO. This is a force multiplier for regulators, achieving broad compliance with a single, low-risk action against a clear legal target.
case-study
THE PRECEDENT PATH
Case Studies: The Slippery Slope in Action
Regulators don't invent new rules; they apply old ones to new targets. Governance tokens are the perfect legal bridge from traditional securities law into DeFi.
01
The Howey Test's Perfect Target
Governance tokens are a prosecutor's dream: they explicitly represent an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits derived from the efforts of others. The SEC's case against LBRY set the precedent, proving utility does not negate security status. This legal framework is established, tested, and ready for mass application.
100%
SEC Win Rate
LBRY, XRP
Key Precedents
02
Uniswap & The Fee Switch Dilemma
The Uniswap (UNI) governance vote to activate protocol fees transforms the token from a 'utility' instrument into a clear profit-sharing security. This creates a direct, on-chain record of profit expectation—the exact evidence regulators need. The moment fees are distributed, the SEC's case writes itself.
$1.6B+
Annual Fee Potential
UNI
Token at Risk
03
MakerDAO: A De Facto Corporation
Maker (MKR) holders vote on core business operations: treasury management, real-world asset collateral, and profit distribution via buybacks. This mirrors corporate shareholder governance, making it indistinguishable from a security under the Reves test. Its $8B+ RWA portfolio is a giant flag for the CFTC and SEC.
$8B+
RWA Exposure
MKR
Governance Token
04
Aave's Political Wrapper
The Aave (AAVE) ecosystem uses governance for risk parameterization and treasury allocation, but its creation of GHO stablecoin and Aave Companies creates a centralized development team. Regulators will argue token value is tied to this team's efforts, not just protocol utility, satisfying the Howey Test's 'efforts of others' prong.
GHO
Stablecoin Arm
Aave Companies
Central Entity
05
Compound & The Legal Memo That Backfired
Compound (COMP) famously published a legal memo arguing its token was not a security. However, its governance controls interest rates and lists assets—core financial functions. The memo provides a roadmap for regulators to attack, proving the team was acutely aware of the legal risk, which can be used as evidence of intent.
Public Memo
Self-Incrimination
COMP
Governance Token
06
The Stablecoin Distraction
Stablecoins like USDC and USDT are framed as payment systems—a harder regulatory fit. Targeting them first risks disrupting the $150B+ payments rail that TradFi increasingly depends on. Governance tokens are the softer target: their collapse doesn't break the economy, but sets the legal precedent needed to later control the stablecoin issuers.
$150B+
Stablecoin Market
Lower Stakes
Regulatory Risk
counter-argument
THE POLITICAL REALITY
Steelman: "But Stablecoins Are the Bigger Threat"
Regulators will target governance tokens first because they are a direct, unregulated threat to corporate and state power.
Governance tokens are political weapons. They enable decentralized coordination that bypasses traditional corporate and state structures. A DAO like Uniswap or Compound can mobilize billions in capital and change global market rules without a board of directors or a national charter. This is a more immediate existential threat to legacy power than a payment rail.
Stablecoins have a regulatory on-ramp. Tether and Circle operate within the existing financial system, holding reserves at banks like BNY Mellon. Their clear utility for payments and Treasury yields creates a lobbying path for a bespoke regulatory framework. Governance tokens have no such off-ramp; their value is pure coordination power.
The enforcement precedent is set. The SEC's cases against Ripple (XRP) and ongoing actions against DeFi protocols establish that any asset facilitating a decentralized network is a security. This legal theory cleanly captures Aave's AAVE and Maker's MKR but struggles with pure payment instruments like USDC.
Evidence: The 2022 Tornado Cash sanction was a dry run. OFAC did not target the stablecoins flowing through it; it targeted the governance token holders and developers who controlled the protocol's upgrade keys, establishing that code governance equals liability.
future-outlook
THE REGULATORY FRONTLINE
The 24-Month Outlook: Protocol Paralysis
Governance tokens present a more immediate and legally actionable target for regulators than stablecoins, threatening core protocol operations.
Governance tokens are securities. The SEC's case against Uniswap Labs establishes the precedent. Tokens granting profit rights or voting on treasury allocation fit the Howey Test's 'expectation of profit' prong. This is a cleaner legal argument than proving a stablecoin is an unregistered money transmitter.
Targeting governance freezes development. A successful enforcement action against Compound's COMP or Aave's AAVE creates regulatory paralysis. Teams will halt upgrades fearing liability, creating a two-year innovation gap as protocols like Optimism and Arbitrum navigate compliance instead of scaling.
The evidence is public. The SEC's Wells Notice to Uniswap explicitly cites its UNI token as a security. This direct focus on a top-tier DeFi protocol's governance mechanism is the blueprint. Stablecoin cases, like those against Tether, involve complex monetary transmission laws and take years to litigate.
takeaways
GOVERNANCE IS THE SOFT TARGET
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
While stablecoins are the prize, governance tokens are the easier legal and political target for regulators. Here's the tactical breakdown.
01
The Legal Wedge: Howey Test vs. Functional Utility
Regulators don't need to win the stablecoin war to make an impact. They can establish precedent by targeting governance tokens, which often fail the Howey Test more clearly than a payment-focused stablecoin.\n- Clear Investment Contract: Token sale + expectation of profit from a common enterprise.\n- Low Political Cost: Attacking UNI or COMP is easier than destabilizing the $150B+ stablecoin market.\n- Strategic Precedent: A win here sets the framework for broader enforcement.
SEC 3-0
Howey Scorecard
$150B+
Stablecoin TVL
02
The Control Paradox: Decentralization Theater
Most governance is a liability, not a feature. Voter apathy and whale dominance create a centralized point of failure that regulators can easily identify and attack.\n- <5% Participation: Low turnout makes 'decentralization' claims laughable in court.\n- Whale-Driven Votes: A handful of a16z or Paradigm wallets can swing proposals, proving de facto control.\n- Actionable On-Chain Evidence: Every vote is a permanent, auditable record of centralized influence.
<5%
Avg. Voter Turnout
1-5 Wallets
Decides Most Votes
03
The Enforcement Blueprint: Follow the Money & Influence
The SEC's playbook is simple: trace the flow of funds and influence from token sale to treasury control. Governance tokens are the perfect map.\n- Treasury Control: Tokens like UNI govern $2B+ treasuries—clear 'common enterprise'.\n- Fee Switch Debates: Proposals to enable protocol fees directly link token ownership to profit rights.\n- Builder Implication: Founders and VCs who marketed token appreciation while retaining outsized voting power are primary targets.
$2B+
UNI Treasury
100%
Of Major Tokens
04
The Investor's Dilemma: Equity-Like Risk, Meme-Like Security
VCs and funds are holding bags with the regulatory risk of equity but without the legal protections. This mispricing of risk is a ticking clock.\n- No SAFE Harbor: Tokens lack the disclosure and registration of traditional securities.\n- Concentrated Holdings: Large funds are visible, non-compliant, and liquid.\n- Portfolio Contagion: A ruling against one major governance token (AAVE, MKR) re-prices the entire sector.
0
Legal Protections
High
Contagion Risk
05
The Builder's Playbook: Minimize Surface Area
Smart teams are preemptively architecting to minimize regulatory attack vectors. This isn't about avoiding governance, but designing it correctly.\n- Non-Transferable Governance: veToken models (like Curve) or soulbound tokens reduce speculative 'investment contract' claims.\n- Pure Utility Tokens: Gas tokens, storage credits, or payment-only mediums.\n- Legal Wrappers & DAO LLCs: Creating a legal entity as a buffer, though this admits regulatory reach.
veTokens
Leading Model
LLC
Legal Buffer
06
The Endgame: A Purge Before Clarity
Expect a wave of enforcement actions against prominent governance tokens to clear the field before any meaningful stablecoin legislation passes. This is a feature, not a bug.\n- Regulatory Signaling: Clear 'bad actors' to justify new rules.\n- Market Consolidation: Weak projects with poor legal structures will fold or settle.\n- Path to Legitimacy: The survivors will operate under a new, de facto compliance framework, paving the way for the real target: the $1T+ future stablecoin market.
2024-2025
Enforcement Wave
$1T+
Future Prize
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