The Howey Test is a trap. Its 'expectation of profit' prong is crypto's original sin, creating a legal paradox where functional utility and financial speculation are inseparable. A protocol like Uniswap is simultaneously a public good for decentralized exchange and a speculative asset through its UNI token.
crypto-regulation-global-landscape-and-trends
Blog
Why the Howey Test's 'Expectation of Profit' is Crypto's Original Sin
The legal doctrine requiring an 'expectation of profit from others' efforts' is fundamentally incompatible with the speculative nature of all early-stage digital assets, creating a permanent, unwinnable regulatory trap for the industry.
introduction
THE ORIGINAL SIN
Introduction: The Unwinnable Game
The Howey Test's 'expectation of profit' framework forces crypto projects into a legal paradox that stifles protocol-level innovation.
Protocols cannot escape speculation. The SEC's enforcement actions against Coinbase and Ripple demonstrate that any network effect or token utility inherently creates profit expectation. Building a useful L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism automatically implicates its governance token in securities law.
This chills core innovation. The legal risk forces builders to prioritize regulatory compliance over technical merit, diverting resources from scaling solutions like zkEVMs or intent-based architectures. The system penalizes the network effects it claims to protect.
Evidence: The market cap of tokens the SEC has labeled securities exceeds $100B. This legal overhang creates a multi-billion dollar innovation tax, measured in delayed upgrades and avoided R&D.
key-trends
HOWEY'S HANGOVER
The Regulatory Contradiction
The SEC's reliance on a 1946 orange grove case to govern digital assets creates a foundational conflict that stifles innovation and misclassifies utility.
01
The Problem: The 'Investment Contract' Trap
The Howey Test's third prong—'expectation of profit from the efforts of others'—is crypto's original sin. It conflates a protocol's native utility token with a security, ignoring its function as a permissionless access key or gas for computation. This misapplication has led to $2B+ in SEC fines and a chilling effect on U.S. development, pushing projects like Solana and Cardano into legal limbo.
$2B+
SEC Fines
70%+
Tokens Targeted
02
The Solution: The Hinman Doctrine & Functional Approach
Former SEC Director William Hinman's 2018 speech outlined a pragmatic path: a token can transition from a security to a commodity as the network becomes sufficiently decentralized. This functional approach, echoed in the Ethereum 2.0 non-action, recognizes that Bitcoin and Ethereum are commodities. It provides a framework for protocols to architect their way out of securities law by achieving credible neutrality and removing reliance on a central promoter.
2
Major Commodities
2018
Key Precedent
03
The Workaround: Protocol-Controlled Liquidity & Airdrops
Projects are engineering around 'efforts of others' by eliminating the initial capital raise. Protocol-Controlled Liquidity (PCL) models, pioneered by Olympus DAO, bootstrap treasuries without a token sale. Massive, permissionless airdrops to active users—like those by Uniswap and EigenLayer—frame tokens as rewards for past work, not investments. This shifts the narrative from profit expectation to utility and governance participation.
$10B+
Airdrop Value
PCL
New Model
04
The Precedent: Why Ripple's XRP Ruling Matters
The 2023 SEC v. Ripple ruling created a critical distinction: programmatic sales on exchanges to retail are not securities transactions. The court found no 'investment contract' where buyers had no direct relationship with Ripple Labs. This undermines the SEC's blanket enforcement theory and provides a legal shield for secondary market liquidity, a lifeline for CEXs like Coinbase and the entire trading ecosystem.
2023
Landmark Ruling
Secondary
Market Safe
05
The Architecture: Intent-Centric & Non-Custodial Design
The next frontier is designing systems that are legally inert. Intent-based architectures (e.g., UniswapX, CowSwap) and non-custodial staking (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) structurally separate user intent and asset control from any central 'effort'. By making protocols pure, autonomous settlement layers, they argue the token is a consumable resource, not a security—a technical rebuttal to Howey's legal framework.
$20B+
Staked Eth
Intent
New Paradigm
06
The Endgame: Legislation vs. Litigation
The current path of regulation-by-enforcement is unsustainable. The real solution is congressional action, like the FIT21 bill, which would grant the CFTC clear authority over digital commodity markets and create a pathway for decentralization. Until then, the industry's strategy is aggressive litigation (following Ripple's playbook) and offshore development, creating a $100B+ innovation gap for the U.S. as jurisdictions like the UAE and Singapore adopt clear rules.
FIT21
Pending Bill
$100B+
Innovation Gap
deep-dive
THE LEGAL MISMATCH
Deconstructing the Trap: Why 'Efforts of Others' Fails
The Howey Test's 'efforts of others' prong is structurally incompatible with decentralized protocol economics.
Decentralization negates 'efforts': A protocol like Uniswap or Ethereum has no central promoter. Its value accrual is driven by a permissionless network of users, LPs, and builders, not a managerial team.
Profit expectation is network effect: Token appreciation stems from the Lindy effect of adoption, not corporate strategy. The 'effort' is the collective work of the ecosystem, not a single entity.
The SEC's flawed analogy: Regulators incorrectly map token value to a company's P&L. In reality, a token like ETH or SOL is a consumable resource for block space, analogous to AWS credits, not corporate equity.
Evidence: The SEC's case against Ripple established that XRP sales on secondary markets are not securities transactions, highlighting the irrelevance of a central 'effort' for liquid assets.
THE EXPECTATION OF PROFIT
Case Study Matrix: Howey in the Courtroom
A comparative analysis of landmark crypto cases, deconstructing how the SEC's application of the Howey Test hinges on the 'expectation of profit' derived from the efforts of others.
| Howey Test Prong / Case Factor | SEC v. Ripple (XRP) - Programmatic Sales | SEC v. Telegram (GRAM) | SEC v. LBRY (LBC) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary 'Efforts of Others' Argument | Ripple's ecosystem development & XRP Ledger promotion | Telegram's post-TON development roadmap & marketing | LBRY's continuous development of protocol & content ecosystem |
Court's Ruling on 'Investment Contract' | |||
Key Differentiating Factor | Blind bid/ask sales vs. direct institutional sales | $1.7B raised from 171 entities with explicit promises | Token functionality deemed secondary to investment purpose |
% of Token Supply Sold in Disputed Offering | ~0.5% (Programmatic Sales) | 100% of GRAM supply | 100% of LBC supply |
Post-Sale Purchaser Restriction Period | None (immediate secondary trading) | Lock-up until network launch | None (immediate secondary trading) |
Explicit Promises of Profit Made? | |||
Primary Use Case at Time of Sale | Medium of Exchange / Bridge Asset | Future currency for TON network | Access to decentralized publishing platform |
Ultimate Outcome for Token | Not a security (Programmatic Sales) | $1.2B disgorgement, offering halted | Permanent injunction, $22M penalty |
counter-argument
THE ORIGINAL SIN
Steelman: Isn't Speculation the Problem?
The Howey Test's 'expectation of profit' framework misdiagnoses speculation as the core flaw, ignoring crypto's foundational role as a new coordination primitive.
The Howey Test misapplied treats all crypto assets as securities by default. This legal framework from 1946 cannot parse the difference between a corporate profit-sharing scheme and a permissionless state machine like Ethereum. It collapses utility and speculation into a single illegal category.
Speculation is the bootstrap mechanism. The initial capital formation from token launches funded the development of Uniswap, Aave, and Lido. This speculative phase built the decentralized infrastructure that now processes billions in non-speculative transactions like stablecoin transfers and NFT mints.
The real failure is misaligned incentives, not speculation itself. Protocols with extractable value and founder-controlled treasuries (e.g., early SushiSwap) prove the problem. The solution is credible neutrality and on-chain governance, as demonstrated by the maturation of Compound's and MakerDAO's token models.
Evidence: Over 50% of Ethereum's daily gas is spent on DeFi and stablecoins, not pure speculation. The financialization layer (speculation) directly subsidizes the utility layer (smart contract execution), creating a flywheel that pure utility tokens could not.
takeaways
THE HOWEY PARADOX
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The 'expectation of profit' doctrine is a legal trap that forces protocols to cripple their own utility to survive.
01
The Problem: Utility Creates Securities
The SEC's core argument: if a token's value is tied to a common enterprise's efforts, it's a security. This makes protocol-driven value accrual (e.g., staking rewards, fee sharing) a direct liability. Builders must choose between a functional token and legal safety.
- Legal Catch-22: A successful, useful protocol inherently creates profit expectations.
- Chilling Effect: Killed projects like LBRY and ongoing cases against Coinbase and Ripple show the stakes.
100%
Of Top 20 Tokens
$2B+
SEC Fines
02
The Solution: Intent & Abstraction
Decouple token value from core protocol function. Follow the blueprint of Uniswap (UNI as governance-only) and intent-based architectures like UniswapX and CowSwap. The token is a coordination mechanism, not a dividend.
- Shift to Fee Abstraction: Let users pay in any asset; settle internally. See Across Protocol and LayerZero's design.
- Pure Utility Focus: Token use must be non-financial (e.g., Filecoin storage, Helium network access).
0%
Fee Token Required
Gov-Only
Safe Design
03
The Investor's Dilemma: Speculation vs. Utility
VCs and funds are trapped. The assets with the highest return profiles are, by definition, the most likely to be deemed securities. This misaligns investment with long-term protocol health.
- Perverse Incentive: Investing in 'useless' tokens for regulatory safety.
- Market Reality: ~90% of token value is driven by speculative trading, not utility, creating an unavoidable profit expectation.
90%
Speculative Value
High Risk
VC Portfolios
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