The profit expectation is fatal. A stablecoin's primary function is price stability as a unit of account. Introducing an expectation of profit transforms it into a speculative asset, directly undermining its core utility and attracting regulatory scrutiny as a security.
the-sec-vs-crypto-legal-battles-analysis
Blog
Why the 'Expectation of Profit' Dooms Most Stablecoins
The SEC's core legal argument reframes the fundamental promise of a stablecoin—price stability—as an 'expectation of profit.' This creates a legal trap that most fiat-backed and algorithmic models cannot escape. This analysis breaks down the Howey Test's application and its existential threat to the current stablecoin landscape.
introduction
THE FLAWED PREMISE
Introduction
Stablecoins fail when they promise profit, creating a fundamental conflict between stability and speculation.
Algorithmic models are inherently unstable. Protocols like Terra's UST and Frax Finance demonstrate that reflexive yield mechanisms create death spirals. Demand for the stablecoin becomes tied to the volatile governance token, not to exogenous collateral or utility.
Regulatory arbitrage is unsustainable. Projects attempt to bypass the Howey Test by obfuscating profit promises. The SEC's actions against Ripple (XRP) and Terraform Labs establish that economic reality supersedes technical labeling. A token promising yield is a security.
Evidence: The $60B Terra collapse. UST's 20% Anchor Protocol yield was the primary demand driver, not its use in payments. When the yield became unsustainable, the reflexive peg mechanism triggered a total systemic failure, erasing the entire market cap.
key-trends
THE SECURITY-UTILITY SPECTRUM
The Enforcement Landscape: A Pattern Emerges
The SEC's 'expectation of profit' test creates a binary: be a security or be useless. Most stablecoins fail this by design.
01
The Problem: The Howey Test's Blunt Instrument
The SEC applies a 1946 securities test to 21st-century money. The 'common enterprise' and 'expectation of profit' prongs are fatal for yield-bearing or algorithmic models.
- Yield = Security: Any native yield (e.g., staking rewards) creates a clear profit expectation.
- Peg Maintenance = Enterprise: Active management to maintain a $1 peg is framed as a collective effort for profit.
- Result: Forces protocols into a utility vs. return false dichotomy.
1946
Legal Precedent
4-Prongs
Test Criteria
02
The Solution: Pure Utility Tokens (Like ETH?)
The only defensible model is a token with zero native yield, used solely as a transactional medium or gas. This mirrors the argument for Ethereum as a commodity.
- No Yield Mechanism: Token holders earn nothing from holding; value accrual is purely from utility demand.
- Decentralized Peg: The $1 value is maintained by decentralized arbitrage (e.g., MakerDAO's DAI via CDPs), not a central entity's effort.
- Precedent: Follows the 'sufficiently decentralized' path of BTC and ETH to avoid security classification.
0%
Native Yield
DeFi Native
Use Case
03
The Casualty: Algorithmic & Rewarding Models
Projects like Terra's UST (algorithmic) or Maker's sDAI (yield-bearing) are structurally incompatible with this enforcement landscape.
- Death Spiral Design: Algorithmic models promise profit via arbitrage and seigniorage, a clear Howey violation.
- Yield Wrappers: Tokens like sDAI or cTokens are explicitly profit-sharing instruments, making them securities.
- Outcome: These models are forced offshore or into regulatory purgatory, capping mainstream adoption.
$40B+
UST Collapse
High Risk
Regulatory Vector
04
The Precedent: SEC vs. Ripple's XRP
The Ripple ruling established that programmatic sales on exchanges are not securities offerings, but institutional sales are. This creates a roadmap.
- Exchange Sales Are Safe: Blind asset sales to retail via Coinbase, Binance lack an 'investment contract'.
- Institutional Sales Are Not: Direct sales to VCs or funds with promises constitute a security.
- Implication: Stablecoin distribution must be permissionless and secondary-market first to avoid initial security status.
Partial Win
Court Ruling
2-Tier
Distribution Model
05
The Endgame: Non-Security Stablecoin Architecture
The viable model is an overcollateralized, decentralized, non-yielding asset. Think MakerDAO's DAI without the DSR (Dai Savings Rate).
- Collateral-Backed: Value derived from exogenous assets (e.g., stETH, wBTC), not project success.
- Governance Minimalism: Protocol upgrades must not be tied to profit expectations for token holders.
- Utility-Only: Function as gas, collateral, or medium of exchange within a decentralized ecosystem like Ethereum L2s.
>100%
Collateral Ratio
L2 Native
Deployment Target
06
The Regulatory Arbitrage: Offshore & Synthetic Dollars
Enforcement divergence (e.g., SEC vs. CFTC) and offshore havens will push innovation to jurisdictions like Dubai or Singapore. Synthetic dollars via Lybra Finance or Ethena's USDe (backed by stETH and derivatives) become the high-risk, high-reward frontier.
- Derivatives Backing: Uses staking derivatives and perpetual swaps to create yield-bearing synthetics outside US reach.
- Offshore Issuance: Entities like Tether operate with non-US banking partners and minimal transparency.
- Result: A bifurcated market with compliant utility coins domestically and high-yield synthetics globally.
$100B+
Offshore TVL
High-Yield
Synthetic Frontier
deep-dive
THE LEGAL FLAW
Deconstructing the Howey Trap: Stability as a Yield
Most algorithmic stablecoin designs are legally doomed because their core mechanism creates an explicit expectation of profit from a common enterprise.
Stability is a promised yield. The SEC's Howey Test hinges on an 'expectation of profit from the efforts of others'. When a protocol like Terra/Luna or Frax Finance promises to peg an asset to $1, it creates a profit expectation for arbitrageurs and governance token holders.
The protocol is the common enterprise. The profit expectation derives from the collective work of developers, governance voters, and arbitrage bots maintaining the peg. This is the precise 'common enterprise' Howey requires, unlike simple asset-backed tokens like USDC.
Evidence in failure. The SEC's case against Terraform Labs centered on marketing UST as a source of yield via Anchor Protocol. The promised stability mechanism was the primary source of the advertised 20% APY, directly linking profit to the protocol's efforts.
EXPECTATION OF PROFIT ANALYSIS
Stablecoin Legal Risk Matrix: Howey Test Applied
Applying the Howey Test's 'Expectation of Profit' prong to major stablecoin models. A 'true' indicates a high risk of being classified as an investment contract.
| Howey Test Factor / Model | Algorithmic (e.g., TerraUSD) | Crypto-Collateralized (e.g., DAI, LUSD) | Fiat-Collateralized (e.g., USDC, USDT) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Profit Mechanism | Seigniorage & Governance Token Staking (e.g., LUNA, FRAX) | Yield from Collateral & Protocol Surplus (e.g., DSR, Liquity Stability Pool) | Interest on Reserve Assets (e.g., T-Bills, held by issuer) |
Profit Accrues Directly to Holder? | |||
Profit Accrues via Secondary Token/Activity? | |||
Explicit Marketing of Yield/Returns? | |||
Holder's Role is Purely as a User? | |||
Legal Precedent (SEC v. Ripple) Risk Level | Critical | High | Low |
Key Regulatory Target | SEC (Investment Contract) | SEC/CFTC (Security/Commodity) | State Money Transmitter / BSA |
counter-argument
THE SECURITY MISMATCH
The Steelman: Aren't They Just Digital Dollars?
Stablecoins fail as money because their design creates a legal expectation of profit, making them securities.
Expectation of profit is the legal poison pill for stablecoins. The Howey Test defines a security as an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits from the efforts of others. When a protocol like MakerDAO pays yield to DAI holders via the DAI Savings Rate (DSR), it creates a clear profit expectation, inviting SEC scrutiny.
Yield-bearing is a feature, not a bug, for adoption but a fatal flaw for classification. Protocols like Aave and Compound bootstrap liquidity by offering yield on stablecoin deposits. This transforms a medium of exchange into an interest-bearing asset, legally indistinguishable from a money market fund.
Algorithmic stablecoins are the worst offenders. Projects like Terra's UST explicitly promised 20% yields via Anchor Protocol, directly marketing profit. This created the common enterprise and profit expectation that defines a security, leading to its catastrophic regulatory and economic collapse.
The evidence is in the enforcement. The SEC's cases against Ripple (XRP) and ongoing actions establish that marketing and utility do not override profit expectation. A stablecoin with a native yield mechanism, like Frax Finance's sFRAX, is a security waiting for a lawsuit.
takeaways
STABLECOIN DESIGN FLAWS
Key Takeaways for Builders and Architects
The legal 'expectation of profit' creates a fatal regulatory and structural weakness in most stablecoin models. Here's how to architect around it.
01
The Regulatory Kill Switch: Howey Test
Promising yield or appreciation transforms a stablecoin from a payment instrument into a security. This invites direct SEC enforcement, as seen with Terra/Luna. The legal liability is existential.
- Key Flaw: Yield-bearing models (e.g., Maker's DSR, Aave's GHO) inherently create profit expectation.
- Architectural Imperative: Decouple the stable asset's value from any direct yield mechanism. Yield must be a separate, optional token.
100%
SEC Target
Terra
Case Study
02
Overcollateralization is a Feature, Not a Bug
Algorithmic models (UST, FRAX's early phases) fail because they rely on reflexive demand. True stability requires a non-reflexive, exogenous asset buffer.
- Key Metric: >100% collateralization ratio with low-volatility assets (e.g., US Treasuries, other stablecoins).
- Architectural Imperative: Design for verifiable, on-chain/off-chain reserves. Transparency (like Maker's PSM) is the only defense against bank-run narratives.
>100%
Collateral Ratio
$40B+
Maker TVL
03
Solution: The Utility-First, Non-Yielding Stable Asset
The viable model is a pure medium of exchange, where value is derived from transactional utility and redeemability, not investment return.
- Key Design: Fee generation and governance rights are siloed to separate tokens (e.g., MKR for Maker, SNX for sUSD).
- Architectural Imperative: Build deep liquidity and composability as the primary value prop. Success is measured by payment volume, not APY.
0%
Native APY
Volume
Success Metric
04
The Centralized Custodian Paradox (USDC, USDT)
While compliant, these models reintroduce central points of failure—censorship and seizure risk. Their stability is a legal promise, not a cryptographic guarantee.
- Key Risk: OFAC-sanctioned addresses can be frozen. This violates crypto-native principles.
- Architectural Imperative: For decentralized systems, the reserve custodian must be a transparent, automated protocol (e.g., DAI's RWA vaults), not a single corporate entity.
$110B+
Combined Supply
Censored
Key Weakness
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