Passive Income is a Legal Trigger. The SEC's Howey Test defines an investment contract by a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from others' efforts. Marketing a token as a source of 'passive income' explicitly satisfies this prong, inviting regulatory scrutiny.
the-sec-vs-crypto-legal-battles-analysis
Blog
Why 'Passive Income' Is a Red Flag in SEC Howey Analysis
An analysis of how marketing staking, lending, or rewards as 'passive income' directly satisfies the 'expectation of profits from the efforts of others' prong of the Howey Test, drawing on SEC actions against Kraken, Coinbase, and Ripple.
introduction
THE HOWEY TRAP
Introduction: The Marketing Siren Song That Summons the SEC
Promising 'passive income' is a direct trigger for the SEC's investment contract analysis, turning DeFi marketing into legal evidence.
DeFi's Marketing is Its Own Prosecutor. Protocols like Lido (stETH) and Aave (aTokens) frame staking and lending as yield generation. This language creates a paper trail the SEC uses to argue users are passive investors, not active participants in a utility network.
The Counter-Intuitive Reality. A protocol's technical architecture is irrelevant if its marketing promises profits. The SEC's case against Ripple's XRP centered on promotional materials, not the underlying XRP Ledger's utility for payments or cross-chain bridges like Wormhole.
Evidence: The LBRY Precedent. The SEC successfully argued LBRY Credits (LBC) were securities because the company promoted them as an investment that would appreciate. This established that promotional language, not code, often dictates the legal outcome.
key-trends
SEC HOWEY ANALYSIS
The Enforcement Pattern: Passive Income in the Crosshairs
The SEC's primary weapon is the Howey Test, and its most effective trigger is the promise of passive income derived from the efforts of others.
01
The Howey Test's Third Prong: 'Expectation of Profits'
This is the SEC's kill shot. Marketing a token as a yield-bearing asset or a 'staking reward' directly implicates investor reliance on the issuer's managerial efforts.\n- Key Risk: Promotional language like 'earn', 'APY', or 'dividend' is a direct line to a securities charge.\n- Case Study: LBRY lost its case largely due to framing LBC tokens as an 'appreciation asset' for holders.
90%+
Of SEC Cases Cite This
02
The Fourth Prong: 'Efforts of Others'
Passive income implies the protocol's core team or a decentralized collective is doing the work. This collapses the 'sufficient decentralization' defense.\n- Key Risk: Even with a DAO, if a core dev team controls upgrades or treasury, the SEC argues profits stem from their efforts.\n- Operational Reality: Truly passive staking on a live network (e.g., Ethereum post-merge) is still scrutinized if initial sales promised it.
SEC v. Ripple
Key Battleground
03
The 'Investment Contract' Trap: From Token to Security
The token itself isn't the security; the contract involving the token sale is. Promising future utility + passive income welds the two together in the SEC's view.\n- Key Risk: Pre-sales and IEOs with staking/yield roadmaps are pre-packaged Howey violations.\n- Mitigation: Protocols like Filecoin and Livepeer structured initial sales carefully, emphasizing access over investment.
$2B+
In Penalties (2023)
04
The DeFi Yield Farming Exception (It's Fragile)
Providing liquidity for a fee (e.g., Uniswap LP) is arguably active. But marketing pooled LPs as a 'vault' with optimized yields reactivates Howey.\n- Key Risk: Automated yield aggregators (Yearn, Convex) could be seen as creating an investment pool managed by others.\n- Gray Area: Lido's stETH sits at the epicenter, offering 'rewards' from validator operations run by the DAO.
High Risk
SEC Priority
05
The Regulatory Arbitrage Play: Restructuring Rewards
Forward-thinking protocols are decoupling 'work' from 'reward'. Frame rewards as usage-based incentives or governance rights, not passive income.\n- Key Tactic: Helium migrated to 'Proof-of-Coverage' rewards for providing wireless service, not capital.\n- Emerging Model: Aave's GHO and other stablecoins explore 'savings rates' tied to protocol revenue, not investment returns.
Critical
For Protocol Survival
06
The Data Point: Enforcement Actions Tell the Story
Track the SEC's targets: BlockFi, Kraken's Staking, Coinbase's Lend. The common thread is advertised, managed yield. Pure utility or governance tokens (pre-launch hype aside) face less direct pressure.\n- Key Insight: The SEC's war is on capital formation dressed as tech, not technology itself.\n- Takeaway: If your whitepaper's 'Tokenomics' section has an APY chart, you are in the crosshairs.
100%
Of Yield Cases Lost
deep-dive
THE LEGAL PRIMER
Deconstructing Howey: Why 'Passive' Equals 'Efforts of Others'
The SEC's Howey Test defines an investment contract by a common enterprise where profits derive from the efforts of others, making 'passive income' a critical red flag.
Passive income is a proxy for reliance on a promoter's efforts. The SEC's Howey Test requires a common enterprise where profits derive from the efforts of others. A token offering that promises passive yield, like staking rewards from Lido or Rocket Pool, directly implicates the managerial efforts of those protocols' developers and operators.
Active participation is the defense. Projects like Uniswap (UNI) or Maker (MKR) argue their tokens are utility-driven for governance. Tokenholders must actively vote on proposals; passive holding yields no return. This contrasts with a staking-as-a-service model where the protocol's team manages all technical operations for the staker.
The promoter's role is everything. The SEC's case against Ripple (XRP) hinged on whether buyers expected profits from Ripple Labs' business activities. For a DeFi yield aggregator like Yearn Finance, the protocol's automated strategies are the 'efforts of others', making its native token's yield-bearing features a target.
Evidence: The Lido precedent. Lido's stETH represents a claim on staking rewards generated by the protocol's node operators. The SEC's 2023 actions against Kraken and Coinbase explicitly targeted staking services, framing them as unregistered securities offerings because returns were passive and managed by the exchange.
HOWEY TEST LITIGATION ANALYSIS
Case Study Matrix: Passive Income Claims vs. SEC Allegations
A comparative analysis of promotional language in SEC enforcement actions, demonstrating how specific claims trigger the 'expectation of profits' prong of the Howey Test.
| Promotional Feature / Claim | SEC-Compliant Framing (Utility/Governance) | High-Risk 'Passive Income' Framing (Howey Trigger) | SEC Enforcement Action Case Study |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Value Proposition | Access to network utility, governance rights, or service | Guaranteed yield, staking rewards, or 'set-and-forget' returns | SEC v. Ripple (XRP) - 'Investment contract' finding based on promotional ecosystem |
Marketing Language for Returns | Potential network fee sharing or protocol incentives | APY/APR percentages, 'earn while you sleep', 'passive income' | SEC v. Coinbase (Staking) - Cited 'earning rewards from the efforts of others' |
Investor Effort Requirement | Active participation in validation, governance, or protocol use | No meaningful effort required; returns are 'automated' or 'algorithmic' | SEC v. LBRY (LBC) - Emphasized passive nature of holding tokens |
Promised Return Source | Fees from actual network usage or protocol activity | Promotions emphasizing token price appreciation or inflation rewards | SEC v. Kik Interactive (Kin) - 'Profit from the entrepreneurial efforts of Kik' |
Contractual Obligation for Returns | None implied; rewards are discretionary protocol function | Implied or explicit promise of a return on investment | SEC v. Telegram (GRAM) - 'Expectation of profit' from Telegram's future work |
Control & Managerial Efforts | Decentralized network; no central entity's essential managerial efforts | Central entity's managerial efforts are crucial to generating returns | SEC v. Terraform Labs (LUNA/UST) - Do Kwon's essential role in ecosystem |
Typical SEC Allegation Outcome | No action or settled as non-security regulatory matter | Charged as unregistered sale of securities (Sections 5(a), 5(c)) |
|
counter-argument
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The Counter-Argument: Is Staking Inherently Passive?
The SEC's Howey Test hinges on the expectation of profits from others' efforts, making 'passive income' a critical vulnerability for staking services.
Passive income is a red flag under the Howey Test. The SEC's core argument against services like Kraken's Earn is that delegating all technical work creates a common enterprise reliant on the platform's managerial efforts.
Protocol-native staking is not passive. Validators on Ethereum or Solana actively run nodes, face slashing risks, and participate in governance. This operational role distinguishes it from a pure investment contract.
The legal distinction is operational control. Services like Lido and Rocket Pool automate infrastructure but delegate slashing risk and governance rights to the user, creating a stronger argument against passivity than centralized custodians.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 settlement with Kraken explicitly cited the offering of 'extremely high returns' for 'no work' as indicative of an investment contract, establishing a clear precedent.
takeaways
SEC HOWEY COMPLIANCE
Actionable Takeaways for Builders and Protocols
The SEC's Howey Test is a legal framework, not a technical one. Marketing 'passive income' is a direct trigger for securities classification. Here's how to build defensibly.
01
The Problem: Marketing 'Yield' or 'APY'
Promoting a return on investment is the primary hook for the SEC's 'expectation of profits'. This applies to staking rewards, liquidity mining incentives, and treasury distributions framed as dividends.\n- Key Risk: Transforms a utility token into an investment contract.\n- Key Insight: The SEC's case against Coinbase Staking centered on the advertised passive yield.
100%
Of SEC Cases
Key Trigger
Marketing Language
02
The Solution: Frame Rewards as 'Network Utility'
Compensation must be tied to active, essential work that secures or operates the protocol. This is the work vs. investment distinction.\n- Key Action: Reward verified compute (e.g., proof-of-stake validation, data availability sampling).\n- Key Model: Follow Ethereum's staking narrative: rewards for running a node and providing security, not passive income.
Active
Participation
Essential Work
Requirement
03
The Architecture: Decouple Governance from Profit Rights
The 'common enterprise' prong of Howey is strengthened when token value is tied to managerial efforts of a core team.\n- Key Design: Use a non-transferable governance token (e.g., veTokens) separate from any fee-sharing mechanism.\n- Key Precedent: Uniswap's UNI token grants governance but no claim to protocol fees, a deliberate compliance choice.
veToken Model
Separation
UNI
Case Study
04
The Precedent: LBRY vs. Howey
The LBRY case established that even without direct promises of profit, an ecosystem designed for price appreciation can fail Howey.\n- Key Lesson: Avoid tokenomics models that rely solely on speculative demand and reduced supply (e.g., aggressive burns).\n- Key Tactic: Ensure primary token utility is consumptive (paying for gas, accessing services) before it is a store of value.
LBRY
Precedent Case
Consumptive Use
Primary Utility
05
The Documentation: Kill the 'Roadmap to Profit'
Whitepapers, blog posts, and founder statements are entered as evidence. Projected ROI charts are a prosecutor's dream.\n- Key Action: Scrub all documentation of financial projections, ROI calculators, and comparative yield tables.\n- Key Focus: Document technical milestones, network security guarantees, and user utility enhancements instead.
Whitepapers
Key Evidence
0%
ROO Mentions
06
The Alternative: The Functional Network Model
The path of least resistance is to build a token that is functionally necessary at inception, like Filecoin's FIL for storage or Helium's HNT for coverage.\n- Key Principle: Token must be required to use the core service; it cannot be an optional investment vehicle.\n- Key Metric: Aim for >70% of token transactions to be non-speculative, protocol-native actions.
FIL, HNT
Reference Models
>70%
Utility Tx Target
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