Staking creates an investment contract. The Howey Test's 'expectation of profit from the efforts of others' is satisfied when users lock assets expecting future airdrop rewards. This transforms a protocol's native token from a utility tool into a regulated security from day one.
airdrop-strategies-and-community-building
Blog
Why Staking-Based Airdrop Criteria Invite Greater Regulatory Scrutiny
An analysis of how requiring capital commitment (staking) to qualify for token distributions transforms airdrops from marketing tools into potential securities offerings under the Howey Test, increasing legal risk for protocols.
introduction
THE REGULATORY TRIGGER
The Staking Airdrop Trap
Using staking as a primary airdrop criterion transforms a community reward into a financial incentive that regulators classify as a security offering.
Proof-of-Work avoided this trap. Early airdrops for Bitcoin and Ethereum miners were rewards for a provable, costly service (hashing). Staking-based distribution, as seen with Celestia and EigenLayer, rewards capital allocation, not work, which aligns perfectly with the SEC's enforcement framework.
The metric is explicit contribution. Regulators target airdrops where >50% of tokens go to stakers or liquidity providers. This creates a clear paper trail of financial consideration, unlike retroactive grants for developers on Gitcoin or Optimism who provided verifiable public goods.
key-trends
WHY STAKING AIRDROPS ARE A TARGET
The Regulatory Red Flags
Using staking and delegation as primary airdrop criteria transforms a community reward into a high-risk financial offering.
01
The Howey Test Trigger
Regulators like the SEC view an airdrop where tokens are earned from staking as an investment contract. The criteria create a common enterprise with an expectation of profit solely from the efforts of the core team and validators.
- Key Risk: Converts a 'gift' into a security under U.S. law.
- Precedent: Cases against Ripple and Telegram hinge on similar expectations of profit.
~90%
Of Airdrops
SEC v. Ripple
Key Precedent
02
The Unregistered Broker-Dealer
Protocols that incentivize delegation to specific validators or pools for airdrop points may be acting as unregistered broker-dealers. They are effectively steering capital and earning commissions (via protocol fees) from that activity.
- Key Risk: Violates Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
- Evidence: Direct UI prompts to 'stake here for points' are a clear solicitation.
0
Registered Protocols
§15(a)(1)
Act Violation
03
The Wash Trading & Sybil Loophole
Staking-based criteria create perverse incentives for wash staking—moving capital between validators to farm points—and sophisticated Sybil attacks. This artificial activity misrepresents genuine protocol usage and network security.
- Key Risk: Provides grounds for fraud and market manipulation charges.
- Consequence: Undermines the 'decentralization' narrative crucial for regulatory safe harbors like the SEC's Framework.
$100M+
Sybil-Locked Value
>50%
Fake Volume
04
The Centralized Control Paradox
The team's unilateral power to set, change, and execute airdrop criteria based on staking demonstrates centralized control over the reward distribution. This contradicts the 'sufficiently decentralized' defense and mirrors a corporate dividend program.
- Key Risk: Strengthens the 'common enterprise' argument in the Howey Test.
- Example: Last-minute snapshot rule changes by teams like EigenLayer highlight this control.
1 Team
Final Arbitrer
0 Oversight
Community Vote
05
The Taxable Event Creation
In jurisdictions like the U.S., airdrops are taxable as ordinary income at fair market value upon receipt. Basing distribution on staking activity creates a clear, trackable income event for thousands of users, inviting IRS scrutiny.
- Key Risk: Forces protocols into a 1099 reporting dilemma.
- Amplifier: High-value airdrops (e.g., $ARB, $STRK) create massive, visible tax liabilities.
100%
Taxable Income
Form 1099
Reporting Trigger
06
The Global Compliance Maze
Staking is regulated as a financial service in many jurisdictions (e.g., EU's MiCA, Singapore, UK). An airdrop tied to staking may require local licensing, KYC/AML checks, and adherence to capital requirements, making global distribution legally untenable.
- Key Risk: MiCA explicitly regulates 'crypto-asset services' including staking.
- Result: Forces geo-blocking, which itself can be a securities law violation (unequal access).
27 Countries
Under MiCA
VASP License
Required
REGULATORY RISK MATRIX
Airdrop Evolution: From Usage to Investment
Comparison of airdrop qualification criteria and their associated regulatory implications under U.S. securities law frameworks.
| Regulatory Risk Vector | Usage-Based (e.g., Uniswap, ENS) | Staking-Based (e.g., EigenLayer, Blast) | Investment-Based (e.g., ICOs, SAFTs) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary User Action Required | Protocol interaction (swap, vote, mint) | Capital deposit & delegation | Capital contribution for future tokens |
Howey Test 'Investment of Money' Prong | Typically not met (no capital risked) | Explicitly met (capital at risk via slashing) | Explicitly met (direct purchase) |
Howey Test 'Common Enterprise' Prong | Weak (decentralized, user-driven) | Strong (rewards tied to pooled security of protocol) | Strong (funds pooled for developer effort) |
Howey Test 'Expectation of Profit' Prong | Ancillary to core utility | Primary driver (APR, points, airdrop) | Sole driver (speculative token value) |
SEC Enforcement Precedent | None (treated as marketing) | Active scrutiny (Kraken, Lido settlements) | Established (2017-2018 ICO crackdowns) |
Likely SEC Classification | Not a security (utility reward) | Potential security (investment contract) | Security (investment contract) |
Mitigation Strategy | Retroactive reward for past actions | Require active service (e.g., running a node) | Full Reg D / Reg S exemption |
User Capital at Direct Risk |
deep-dive
THE LEGAL FRONTIER
Howey's Four Prongs and the Staker's Dilemma
Staking-based airdrop criteria directly trigger the Howey Test, transforming community participation into a regulated investment contract.
Staking is an investment of money. The act of locking ETH or other assets in protocols like Lido or Rocket Pool constitutes a capital contribution. This satisfies the first prong of the Howey Test, which defines a security.
A common enterprise exists. The staker's rewards and airdrop eligibility are inextricably linked to the protocol's success. This creates a horizontal commonality where profits depend on the managerial efforts of the core team.
Expectation of profits is explicit. Airdrop campaigns like those from EigenLayer or Starknet create a clear profit motive. Stakers do not participate for utility; they stake to farm a future token with monetary value.
Profits come from others' efforts. The appreciation of the airdropped token relies entirely on the development and marketing work of the founding team. The staker is a passive investor, not an active user of a consumptive product.
counter-argument
THE LEGAL FICTION
The Builder's Defense (And Why It Fails)
Protocols argue stakedrop criteria are technical, but regulators see them as financial.
The 'Technical Contribution' Argument fails because regulators apply the Howey Test's substance-over-form doctrine. A user's staked ETH or SOL is a capital investment, not a technical service. The SEC's case against Coinbase's staking program established this precedent.
Automated Sybil Detection is Irrelevant. Projects like LayerZero and EigenLayer tout on-chain attestation proofs to filter bots. This proves technical activity, not a lack of investment intent. The SEC targets the economic reality of the transaction, not post-hoc filtering.
The 'Usage = Utility' Fallacy conflates protocol engagement with investment purpose. Using Jito for MEV bundles or EigenLayer for AVS restaking requires a financial stake. This creates a unified transaction where usage is inseparable from the capital risk, meeting the Howey Test's 'common enterprise' prong.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 Wells Notice to Uniswap explicitly cited its fee switch and UNI token governance as creating an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others—a framework that directly applies to stakedrop rewards.
case-study
THE REGULATORY TRAP
Precedent and Peril: Recent Examples
Recent enforcement actions reveal a clear pattern: regulators treat staking-based airdrops as unregistered securities distributions, not community rewards.
01
The Uniswap Labs Wells Notice
The SEC's core allegation is that Uniswap's UNI token, distributed via historical usage, functions as an investment contract. The protocol's $1.6B+ treasury and governance rights created an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of Uniswap Labs.
- Precedent: Retroactive, usage-based airdrops are not safe from scrutiny.
- Peril: The "sufficient decentralization" defense is being actively challenged in court.
$1.6B+
Treasury Size
2021
Airdrop Year
02
The BarnBridge DAO Settlement
The SEC charged the DAO for offering unregistered securities via its "SMART Yield" bonds, which pooled user funds. The $1.4M settlement set a critical precedent for on-chain, staking-like yield products.
- The Problem: Pooling assets and sharing yields is viewed as a collective investment scheme.
- The Signal: The SEC pursued the contributors, not just the protocol, establishing personal liability for developers.
$1.4M
SEC Settlement
DAO
Entity Targeted
03
The Lido & Rocket Pool Dilemma
While not yet targeted, these $30B+ TVL liquid staking giants represent the apex of the regulatory risk curve. Their staking derivative tokens (stETH, rETH) are explicitly designed to accrue value from the protocol's efforts.
- The Trap: The Howey Test's "common enterprise" prong is easily met by pooled staking.
- The Fallback: Protocols like EigenLayer are experimenting with non-transferable, non-financialized points to defer this reckoning.
$30B+
Combined TVL
LSTs
Risk Vector
04
The Solution: Work-Based Distribution
Protocols like Gitcoin and Optimism's RetroPGF avoid securities law by framing rewards as payment for verifiable work, not passive investment. This aligns with the "consumptive use" argument.
- Key Shift: Reward proven contributions (code, content, moderation) not capital stake.
- Key Benefit: Creates a regulatory moat by linking tokens to utility, not speculation on managerial efforts.
RetroPGF
Model
0
SEC Actions
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Builder FAQ: Navigating the New Reality
Common questions about why staking-based airdrop criteria invite greater regulatory scrutiny.
Staking airdrops can be deemed securities because they resemble an investment contract. The Howey Test examines an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from others' efforts. Staking tokens to earn a future airdrop from a project like EigenLayer or Celestia can fit this definition, inviting SEC scrutiny.
takeaways
REGULATORY RISK
TL;DR for Protocol Architects
Staking-based airdrops create a direct line from user activity to token distribution, which regulators are increasingly classifying as investment contracts.
01
The Howey Test's New Favorite Target
Staking for a future token reward creates a clear expectation of profit from the efforts of others—the core of the SEC's Howey Test. This transforms a community reward into a regulated security offering.
- Key Risk: Creates a documented on-chain history of an investment contract.
- Key Consequence: Exposes the foundation, core team, and potentially stakers to retroactive enforcement.
100%
Of Criteria
SEC v. Coinbase
Precedent
02
The Centralization & Control Paradox
To enforce staking criteria, a core team must control the distribution logic and token supply, directly contradicting decentralization narratives crucial for regulatory safe harbors.
- Key Risk: Undermines the "sufficiently decentralized" defense used by protocols like Uniswap and Ethereum.
- Key Consequence: Invites scrutiny over who is the 'common enterprise' driving the profit expectation.
Core Team
Single Point
~0%
Defense Strength
03
The Wash Trading & Sybil Attack Amplifier
Staking criteria incentivize capital-efficient, low-risk farming (e.g., stablecoin pools) that generate massive, artificial TVL and transaction volume without real utility.
- Key Risk: Creates a false signal of protocol adoption, attracting regulatory action for market manipulation.
- Key Consequence: Forces protocols like EigenLayer and Blast to implement complex, costly Sybil filters that often fail.
$10B+
Farmed TVL
>90%
Wash Volume
04
The Solution: Proof-of-Use & Non-Financial KPIs
Shift criteria to measurable, non-speculative utility. Reward governance participation, smart contract deployments, or contributions to public goods.
- Key Benefit: Aligns with the ENS airdrop model, which rewarded past usage, not investment.
- Key Benefit: Builds a defensible narrative of rewarding past contributions, not future profits.
ENS
Model Precedent
-99%
Regulatory Risk
05
The Solution: Retroactive Public Goods Funding
Frame the airdrop as a retroactive reward for ecosystem development, similar to Optimism's RPGF rounds. This severs the direct 'investment for reward' link.
- Key Benefit: Mirrors grant-making, a well-understood non-security activity.
- Key Benefit: Attracts high-quality, long-term builders instead of mercenary capital.
Optimism
RPGF Model
Builder-First
Alignment
06
The Solution: Transparent, Capped Merkle Distributions
Use a snapshot-and-claim model with a fixed, pre-announced token budget. Avoid open-ended, formulaic distributions based on ongoing staking.
- Key Benefit: Eliminates the ongoing 'investment contract' during the staking period.
- Key Benefit: Provides legal clarity; the reward is a one-time gift for past actions, not a yield.
Fixed Cap
Legal Clarity
Uniswap
Historical Model
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