Delegated Staking is a Security: The act is not a simple service. Users deposit funds with a third-party operator (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) expecting profits solely from that entity's managerial efforts, satisfying the Howey Test's 'common enterprise' and 'efforts of others' prongs.
the-sec-vs-crypto-legal-battles-analysis
Blog
Why Delegated Staking May Inevitably Be Classified a Security
A first-principles legal analysis of why pooled, third-party-managed staking services like Lido and Rocket Pool structurally align with the SEC's definition of an investment contract under the Howey Test.
introduction
THE INEVITABLE CLASSIFICATION
Introduction
Delegated staking's core mechanics structurally align with the Howey Test, making a security designation a technical inevitability, not a regulatory choice.
The Protocol Illusion is Fragile: Projects like EigenLayer and liquid staking tokens (LSTs) create a veneer of decentralization. The underlying economic dependency on centralized operators remains the legally relevant fact, as seen in the SEC's actions against Kraken's staking program.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 settlement with Kraken explicitly classified its staking-as-a-service offering as a security, establishing a direct precedent. This legal reality invalidates the argument that protocol-level automation absolves the core financial relationship.
key-trends
THE HOWEY TEST TRAP
The Regulatory Pressure Points
The SEC's application of the Howey Test is creating an existential threat to the dominant delegated staking model, with profound implications for the entire Proof-of-Stake ecosystem.
01
The Investment of Money
Users transfer ETH or other tokens to a third-party staking pool. This is a clear capital contribution, satisfying the first prong of the Howey Test. The SEC argues this is indistinguishable from buying into an investment contract.
- Key Risk: Direct user funds under validator control.
- Key Metric: $100B+ in delegated assets across major networks.
$100B+
TVL at Risk
Prong 1
Howey Test
02
Common Enterprise & Expectation of Profit
Stakers' rewards are derived from the pooled efforts of the validator operator. Profits are not from individual effort but from the protocol's inflation and transaction fees, managed by the pool.
- Key Risk: Centralizes the 'efforts of others' argument.
- Key Entity: Lido, Coinbase, Kraken as primary targets.
>30%
Lido's ETH Share
Prongs 2 & 3
Howey Test
03
The Kraken Precedent
The SEC's 2023 settlement with Kraken established the enforcement blueprint. Kraken paid $30M and shut down its U.S. staking service, which the SEC explicitly called an unregistered securities offering.
- Key Risk: Creates a direct legal precedent for future actions.
- Key Fallout: Forces centralized exchanges to retreat, increasing regulatory scrutiny on decentralized alternatives.
$30M
SEC Settlement
Blueprint
Enforcement Action
04
The Technological 'Out'
Solo staking or non-custodial solutions like Rocket Pool's minipools or SSV Network may avoid classification. Here, the user retains control of keys and execution, potentially negating the 'common enterprise' prong.
- Key Solution: Shift to permissionless, credibly neutral infrastructure.
- Key Limitation: High capital requirements (32 ETH) or technical complexity remain barriers to mass adoption.
32 ETH
Solo Stake Req.
Non-Custodial
Compliance Path
05
The Global Regulatory Arbitrage
While the U.S. takes a hardline stance, jurisdictions like the EU (under MiCA) and the UK are crafting tailored frameworks that may exempt certain staking activities from securities laws.
- Key Trend: Fragmentation of global crypto regulation.
- Key Consequence: Forces protocol development and service provision to migrate offshore, creating compliance complexity.
MiCA
EU Framework
Arbitrage
Strategy
06
The Inevitable Reckoning for LSTs
Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) like stETH are the ultimate regulatory trap. They are tradable derivatives whose value is explicitly tied to the profit-generating activity of the underlying staked assets.
- Key Risk: Classifying LSTs as securities would cripple DeFi's $50B+ collateral ecosystem.
- Key Domino: Impacts Aave, MakerDAO, Uniswap and all integrated protocols.
$50B+
DeFi TVL Impact
stETH, rETH
Primary Tokens
thesis-statement
THE LEGAL REALITY
The Core Argument: Howey Fits Like a Glove
Delegated staking services structurally satisfy all four prongs of the Howey Test, making a security classification legally inevitable.
Investment of Money is Obvious. Users transfer ETH or SOL to a protocol like Lido or Rocket Pool. This capital transfer is the first prong of the Howey Test, establishing the foundational financial stake.
Common Enterprise is Inherent. Stakers' funds are pooled into a single validator node or set of nodes. Their returns are inextricably linked to the protocol's performance, not individual effort, satisfying the second prong.
Expectation of Profit is Explicit. The entire value proposition is earning yield from staking rewards and MEV extraction. Marketing from platforms like Coinbase Earn reinforces this profit motive, directly hitting the third prong.
Efforts of Others is the Core Service. The user delegates all technical work—node operation, slashing risk management, software upgrades—to the protocol's DAO or corporate entity. This is the definitive fourth prong.
SECURITY ANALYSIS
Delegated Staking vs. The Howey Test: A Prong-by-Prong Breakdown
Evaluates how delegated staking protocols (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool, Stader) map to the four prongs of the Howey Test, the legal framework for determining an investment contract.
| Howey Test Prong | Traditional Delegated Staking (e.g., Lido) | Non-Custodial / DVT Pools (e.g., Rocket Pool, Obol) | Solo Staking |
|---|---|---|---|
| âś… User deposits ETH for staking derivative (e.g., stETH). | âś… User deposits ETH or provides node operator bond. | âś… User stakes 32 ETH directly. |
| ✅ High. Pooled capital, shared rewards/risks via protocol treasury and token. | ✅ Medium. Capital is pooled, but node operator decentralization (DVT) reduces single-point failure. | ❌ Low. Capital and infrastructure are entirely individual. |
| âś… Explicit. Promotional APY, token incentives (LDO), and fee-sharing models. | âś… Explicit. APY targets and operator commission fees are advertised. | âś… Explicit. User expects network rewards, but from their own effort, not a promoter. |
| ✅ High. Protocol DAO (e.g., Lido DAO) manages node operators, oracle updates, and strategy. | ✅ Medium. Node operators perform validation, but user-run DVT clusters can reduce reliance. | ❌ None. Profit stems solely from the staker's own validation efforts. |
Resulting Security Classification Risk | High Risk | Moderate to High Risk | Low Risk |
Key Regulatory Precedent | SEC vs. LBRY (emphasis on promoter efforts), SEC's Kraken settlement. | Untested. Arguments for decentralization (DVT) may challenge the 'common enterprise' prong. | Hinman Speech 'Framework', argued as a consumptive/utility activity. |
Mitigating Architecture | Protocol-controlled treasury, governance token (LDO) for fee distribution. | Decentralized Validator Technology (DVT), permissionless node operator sets, minimized governance. | Direct validator client operation, no intermediary token or fee pool. |
counter-argument
THE LEGAL REALITY
The Counter-Argument (And Why It Fails)
The 'sufficient decentralization' defense for delegated staking collapses under the Howey Test's common enterprise and profit expectation prongs.
The decentralization defense fails because staking pools like Lido and Rocket Pool are centralized profit-seeking entities. The SEC's position is that token holders rely on the managerial efforts of these pools, creating a common enterprise. This is the core of the Howey Test.
Technical delegation is legal delegation. Protocols like EigenLayer and liquid staking tokens (LSTs) create a direct financial dependency. The staker's profit is contractually tied to the operator's performance, which is the definition of an investment contract.
The precedent is set. The SEC's actions against Kraken and Coinbase explicitly targeted their staking-as-a-service programs. The legal reasoning applies identically to on-chain pools where a central party controls key validation functions and fee distribution.
Evidence: The 2023 Kraken settlement established that offering staking services constitutes the sale of unregistered securities. The SEC's subsequent Wells Notice to Coinbase reaffirmed this stance, making the regulatory trajectory unambiguous.
case-study
THE HOWEY TEST IN PRACTICE
Precedent in Action: The Kraken Blueprint
The SEC's settlement with Kraken provides a concrete legal framework for why most delegated staking services are likely securities.
01
The Investment of Money: The $30B+ Staking Pool
Users transfer ETH or other tokens to Kraken's platform, constituting a clear capital investment. The platform aggregates this into a single, massive validator pool (~$30B+ TVL at peak), creating a common enterprise where individual returns are intrinsically linked to the platform's operational success and slashing risk.
- Capital at Risk: User funds are commingled and under Kraken's operational control.
- Common Enterprise: Profit is derived from the collective staking efforts of all users, not individual validator keys.
$30B+
Peak TVL
100%
Custodial
02
Expectation of Profit: The Advertised Yield
Kraken explicitly marketed a fixed, advertised APY to users. This creates a clear expectation of profit derived solely from the efforts of Kraken's staking infrastructure team, not the user's own technical work. The SEC argued this is a quintessential "passive income" promise.
- Efforts of Others: Users rely entirely on Kraken's validator selection, maintenance, and slashing avoidance.
- Marketing as a Product: Staking was sold as a yield-bearing financial product, not a technical utility.
4-7%
Advertised APY
Passive
User Role
03
The Fatal Flaw: Full Custody & Centralized Control
Kraken retained sole control over validator keys and execution. Users could not choose validators, had no slashing protection, and could not perform exits. This complete removal of user agency cemented the "efforts of others" prong of the Howey Test. Contrast this with non-custodial staking protocols like Lido (stETH) or Rocket Pool (rETH), where liquid staking tokens represent a claim on a decentralized validator set.
- No User Sovereignty: Keys, slashing risk, and exit timing controlled by Kraken.
- Regulatory Distinction: Highlights the critical line between custodial services and decentralized protocols.
0
User Control
Centralized
Key Custody
future-outlook
THE REGULATORY REALITY
The Inevitable Fallout and Paths Forward
The Howey Test's application to delegated staking creates an inescapable legal classification with profound technical consequences.
Delegated staking is a security. The Howey Test's 'common enterprise' and 'expectation of profit from others' efforts' prongs are satisfied by the pooled capital and active validator management of services like Lido and Rocket Pool. The SEC's actions against Kraken and Coinbase establish this precedent.
The technical architecture is the liability. The centralized point of failure in staking-as-a-service models creates the 'common enterprise' regulators target. This contrasts with non-custodial, solo staking, which lacks the pooling element critical to the security definition.
Protocols must structurally decouple. Future designs will separate the asset (staking derivative) from the service (validation). Frameworks like EigenLayer's restaking and Babylon's Bitcoin staking explore this by making the underlying trust primitive permissionless and commoditized.
Evidence: The SEC's 2023 settlement with Kraken explicitly cited its staking program's 'pooling' of user funds and promise of returns as hallmarks of an investment contract, creating a direct legal blueprint for future enforcement.
takeaways
THE SECURITY REALITY
TL;DR for Builders and Investors
The legal classification of delegated staking is not a theoretical debate; it's a fundamental risk vector dictated by the Howey Test's application to pooled capital with an expectation of profit from others' efforts.
01
The Howey Test's Three-Pronged Trap
Delegated staking services are structurally vulnerable to being deemed an investment contract. The analysis is straightforward:\n- Investment of Money: Users provide capital (ETH, SOL, etc.).\n- Common Enterprise: Funds are pooled in a validator operated by the service.\n- Expectation of Profit from Others' Efforts: Rewards are generated primarily by the service's technical and operational labor, not the user's.
3/3
Howey Prongs Met
SEC v. Ripple
Precedent Risk
02
The Centralizing Counterparty: Lido & Coinbase
Dominant liquid staking providers like Lido and centralized exchanges like Coinbase are the primary regulatory targets. Their scale creates a catch-22:\n- $30B+ TVL in Lido creates systemic importance but also paints a target.\n- Active promotional marketing of yields directly fuels the 'expectation of profit' prong.\n- Their centralized operational control is the definitive 'efforts of others'.
$30B+
Lido TVL
>33%
Ethereum Stake Share
03
The Builder's Dilemma: Protocol vs. Product
The legal distinction hinges on whether you're building a neutral protocol or a branded financial product. This dictates architecture and messaging.\n- Protocol Path: Build credibly neutral infra (e.g., SSV Network, Obol) where users retain validator keys.\n- Product Path: Accept security status, pursue proper licensing (like Kraken's settlement), and bake compliance costs into the model.
SSV, Obol
Neutral Protocols
$30M
Kraken Fine
04
The Investor's Calculus: Regulatory Alpha
For VCs, the regulatory overhang creates mispriced assets and clear investment theses. The playbook is now about legal structure, not just tech.\n- Short-Term Risk: Avoid equity-like dilution in tokens of centralized staking-as-a-service products.\n- Long-Term Bet: Back DVT (Distributed Validator Technology) protocols that enable non-custodial staking pools, structurally evading the Howey Test.
DVT
Key Mitigation Tech
High
Legal Moat
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