Connect with us

Regulation

Why Staking Was Removed from Ethereum ETFs to Get SEC Approval

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Published

on

Why staking was removed from Ethereum ETFs to get SEC approval

The removal of Ethereum ETF staking was driven by regulatory pressure from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Issuers have amended their ETF filings to exclude staking provisions prior to the approvals on May 23. This strategic change aims to align with SEC regulatory expectations to enable approval of their Ethereum ETFs.

Is the ETH staked a security?

Staking, which involves locking crypto to validate transactions in exchange for rewards, is an important feature of Ethereum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) mechanism. However, the SEC considers staking services to potentially constitute unregistered securities offerings. This prospect has led to actions against major crypto platforms like Coinbase and Kraken for offer staking services and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Therefore, ETF issuers staking removed of their proposals to avoid similar legal challenges.

The SEC’s classification of staked ETH as a security is based on the application of the Howey Test, which determines whether an asset qualifies as an investment contract. According to the SEC, staking involves investing money when users lock up their ETH in exchange for potential returns, thereby satisfying the first prong of the Howey Test. The second prong, joint enterprise, is achieved when stakeholders contribute to a shared ecosystem and rely on the collective efforts of network validators and developers to secure and maintain the network. The third prong, the expectation of profits, is satisfied because bettors anticipate rewards in the form of additional tokens. Finally, the SEC argues that these profits come primarily from the efforts of others, such as validators and developers who ensure the functionality and security of the network. This interpretation aligns staking with the characteristics of an investment contract, thereby subjecting it to securities regulation.

Why staked ETH is not security

Opponents argue that staking should not be classified as a security because it fundamentally differs from traditional investment contracts. Staking involves locking tokens to support network operations and earn rewards, which is more like a technical service than an investment program. Staking rewards arise from network protocol and market conditions, not from the management efforts of a third party, which calls into question the application of the “efforts of others” prong of the Howey test.

The SEC’s enforcement actions against staking services, such as those involving Kraken and Coinbase, have been criticized for lacking clear guidance and creating a climate of regulatory uncertainty. Critics argue that the SEC’s use of enforcement rather than providing explicit regulatory frameworks leaves crypto businesses and investors in a precarious position, unsure of how to comply with the law. This approach is seen as inefficient and unfair, particularly in an emerging sector that requires clear and consistent regulations to foster growth and innovation.

Additionally, the decentralized nature of many staking activities complicates the SEC’s assertion that staking primarily relies on the efforts of others. In decentralized networks, validators and stakers operate independently, and network security and functionality are maintained through collective effort rather than centralized management. This decentralization challenges the idea that staking constitutes a joint enterprise under the Howey test.

Additionally, critics say the SEC’s actions could conduct offshore staking activities, reducing US influence in the global crypto market and potentially undermining investor protections. By pushing staking services to jurisdictions with more favorable regulations, the SEC could inadvertently encourage less oversight and greater risks for U.S. investors.

Finally, the SEC’s position could hinder the broader adoption and development of blockchain technology. Staking is a crucial part of proof-of-stake networks, designed to be more energy efficient than their proof-of-work counterparts. By imposing strict regulations on staking, the SEC could limit the potential benefits of DeFi and other blockchain-based innovations.

ETFs staked with ETH and Ethereum

The SEC approval process for Ethereum ETFs involves submitting Forms 19b-4 for exchange listing and Forms S-1 detailing fund management. Although the SEC has approved Forms 19b-4, Forms S-1 are still in the study. Excluding staking from these deposits is necessary to meet SEC regulatory requirements and facilitate the approval process.

The removal of Ethereum ETF staking has sparked debate within the crypto community. Many investors highly value staking for the yield it generates, and its absence in Ethereum ETFs could decrease considerably its attractiveness compared to direct purchases of Ethereum, where invhttp://stakingestors can engage in staking activities. Brian Rudick, senior strategist at GSR, highlighted the “immediate opportunity cost” of holding Ether in an ETF that does not offer staking.

Despite these concerns, the potential benefits of the Ethereum blockchain remain a topic of interest. Eliminating ETF staking could have broader supply, network security, and decentralization implications due to less staked ETH.

Unlike the United States, Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) is consider allowing staking for Ethereum ETFs. This approach aims to boost the attractiveness of these ETFs by providing passive income opportunities through staking, which could potentially boost investor interest and support Hong Kong’s ambitions to become a global crypto hub.

Ultimately, the removal of staking from Ethereum ETFs directly addresses SEC regulatory concerns and lawsuits against staking services. This strategic adjustment of ETF issuers aims to align with regulatory expectations and gain approval despite a potential reduction in the attractiveness of these ETFs compared to direct investments in Ethereum.

Will staking be enabled later? Time will tell, and all eyes will be on the SEC and its decision to classify Ethereum and staked ETH in the weeks and months to come.

Fuente

We are the editorial team of Blockchainbulletin, where seriousness meets clarity in cryptocurrency analysis. With a robust team of finance and blockchain technology experts, we are dedicated to meticulously exploring complex crypto markets with detailed assessments and an unbiased approach. Our mission is to democratize access to knowledge of emerging financial technologies, ensuring they are understandable and accessible to all. In every article on Blockchainbulletin, we strive to provide content that not only educates, but also empowers our readers, facilitating their integration into the financial digital age.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Información básica sobre protección de datos Ver más

  • Responsable: Miguel Mamador.
  • Finalidad:  Moderar los comentarios.
  • Legitimación:  Por consentimiento del interesado.
  • Destinatarios y encargados de tratamiento:  No se ceden o comunican datos a terceros para prestar este servicio. El Titular ha contratado los servicios de alojamiento web a Banahosting que actúa como encargado de tratamiento.
  • Derechos: Acceder, rectificar y suprimir los datos.
  • Información Adicional: Puede consultar la información detallada en la Política de Privacidad.

Regulation

Crypto community gets involved in anti-government protests in Nigeria

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Published

on

Crypto Community Engages in Nigeria's Governance Protests

Amid the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests in Nigeria, a notable shift is occurring within the country’s cryptocurrency sector. As the general public demands sweeping governance reforms, crypto community leaders are seizing the opportunity to advocate for specific regulatory changes.

Rume Ophi, former secretary of the Blockchain Stakeholders Association of Nigeria (SiBAN), stressed the critical need to integrate crypto-focused demands into the broader agenda of the protests.

Ophi explained the dual benefit of such requirements, noting that proper regulation can spur substantial economic growth by attracting investors and creating job opportunities. Ophi noted, “Including calls for favorable crypto regulations is not just about the crypto community; it’s about leveraging these technologies to foster broader economic prosperity.”

Existing government efforts

In opposition to Ophi’s call for action, Chimezie Chuta, chair of the National Blockchain Policy Steering Committee, presents a different view. He pointed out The Nigerian government continued efforts to nurture the blockchain and cryptocurrency industries.

According to Chuta, the creation of a steering committee was essential to effectively address the needs of the crypto community.

Chuta also highlighted the creation of a subcommittee to harmonize regulations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs). With the aim of streamlining operations and providing clear regulatory direction, the initiative involves cooperation with major organizations including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). “Our efforts should mitigate the need for protest as substantial progress is being made to address the needs of the crypto industry,” Chuta said.

A united call for support

The ongoing dialogue between the crypto community and government agencies reflects a complex landscape of negotiations and demands for progress.

While actors like Ophi are calling for more direct action and the inclusion of crypto demands in protest agendas, government figures like Chuta are advocating for recognition of the steps already taken.

As protests continue, the crypto community’s push for regulatory reform highlights a crucial aspect of Nigeria’s broader fight to improve governance and economic policies. Both sides agree that favorable regulations are critical to the successful adoption and implementation of blockchain technologies, signaling a potentially transformative era for Nigeria’s economic framework.

Read also : OKX Exchange Exits Nigerian Market Amid Regulatory Crackdown

Fuente

Continue Reading

Regulation

Cryptocurrency Regulations in Slovenia 2024

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Published

on

Cryptocurrency Regulations in Slovenia 2024

Slovenia, a small but highly developed European country with a population of 2.1 million, boasts a rich industrial history that has contributed greatly to its strong economy. As the most economically developed Slavic nation, Slovenia has grown steadily since adopting the euro in 2007. Its openness to innovation has been a key factor in its success in the industrial sector, making it a prime destination for cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Many believe that Slovenia is poised to become a powerful fintech hub in Europe. But does its current regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies support such aspirations?

Let’s explore Slovenia’s cryptocurrency regulations and see if they can propel the country to the forefront of the cryptocurrency landscape. My expectations are positive. What are yours? Before we answer, let’s dig a little deeper.

1. Cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia: an overview

Slovenia is renowned for its innovation-friendly stance, providing a supportive environment for emerging technologies such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Under the Payment Services and Systems Act, cryptocurrencies are classified as virtual assets rather than financial or monetary instruments.

The regulation of the cryptocurrency sector in Slovenia is decentralized. Different authorities manage different aspects of the ecosystem. For example, the Bank of Slovenia and the Securities Market Agency oversee cryptocurrency transactions to ensure compliance with financial laws, including anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing regulations. The Slovenian Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (ZPPDFT-2) incorporates the EU’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5MLD) and aligns with the latest FATF recommendations. All virtual currency service providers must register with the Office of the Republic of Slovenia.

2. Cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia: what’s new?

Several notable developments have taken place this year in the cryptocurrency sector in Slovenia:

July 25, 2024:Slovenia has issued a €30 million on-chain digital sovereign bond, the first of its kind in the EU, with a yield of 3.65%, maturing on 25 November 2024.

May 14, 2024:NiceHash has announced the first Slovenian Bitcoin-focused conference, NiceHashX, scheduled for November 8-9 in Maribor.

3. Explanation of the tax framework for cryptocurrencies in Slovenia

The Slovenian cryptocurrency tax framework provides clear guidelines for individuals and businesses. According to the Slovenian Financial Administration, the tax treatment depends on the status of the trader and the nature of the transaction.

  • People:Income earned from cryptocurrencies through employment or ongoing business activities is subject to personal income tax. However, capital gains from transactions or market fluctuations are exempt from tax.
  • Companies:Capital gains from cryptocurrency-related activities are subject to a 19% corporate tax. Value-added tax (VAT) generally applies at a rate of 22%, although cryptocurrency transactions that are considered as means of payment are exempt from VAT. Companies are not allowed to limit payment methods to cryptocurrencies alone. Tokens issued during ICOs must follow standard accounting rules and corporate tax law.

4. Cryptocurrency Mining in Slovenia: What You Need to Know

Cryptocurrency mining is not restricted in Slovenia, but income from mining is considered business income and is therefore taxable. This includes rewards from validating transactions and any additional income from mining operations. Both individuals and legal entities must comply with Slovenian tax regulations.

5. Timeline of the development of cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia

Here is a timeline highlighting the evolution of cryptocurrency regulations in Slovenia:

  • 2013:The Slovenian Financial Administration has issued guidelines stating that income from cryptocurrency transactions should be taxed.
  • 2017:The Slovenian Financial Administration has provided more detailed guidelines on cryptocurrency taxation, depending on factors such as the status of the trader and the type of transaction.
  • 2023:The EU adopted the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, establishing a uniform regulatory framework for crypto-assets, their issuers and service providers across the EU.

Endnote

Slovenia’s approach to the cryptocurrency sector is commendable, reflecting its optimistic view of the future of cryptocurrencies. The country’s balanced regulatory framework supports cryptocurrency innovation while protecting users’ rights and preventing illegal activities. Recent developments demonstrate Slovenia’s commitment to continually improving its regulatory environment. Slovenia’s cryptocurrency regulatory framework sets a positive example for other nations navigating the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.

Read also : Hong Kong Cryptocurrency Regulations 2024

Fuente

Continue Reading

Regulation

A Blank Sheet for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris’ Regulatory Opportunity

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Published

on

A Blank Sheet for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris' Regulatory Opportunity

photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash

As the cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, the need for clear regulation has never been more pressing.

With Vice President Kamala Harris now leading the charge on digital asset regulation in the United States, this represents a unique opportunity to start fresh. This fresh start can foster innovation and protect consumers. It can also pave the way for widespread adoption across industries, including real estate agencies, healthcare providers, and online gaming platforms like these. online casinos ukAccording to experts at SafestCasinoSites, these platforms come with benefits such as bonus offers, a wide selection of games, and various payment methods. Ultimately, all this increase in adoption could propel the cryptocurrency market forward.

With this in mind, let’s look at the current state of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States, a complex and confusing landscape. Multiple agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), have overlapping jurisdictions, creating a fragmented regulatory environment. This lack of clarity has stifled innovation as companies are reluctant to invest in the United States, fearing regulatory repercussions. A coherent and clear regulatory framework is urgently needed to realize the full potential of cryptocurrencies in the United States.

While the US struggles to find its footing, other countries, such as Singapore and the UK, are actively looking into the cryptocurrency sector by adopting clear and supportive regulatory frameworks. This has led to a brain drain, with companies choosing to locate in more conducive environments.

Vice President Kamala Harris has a unique opportunity to change that narrative and start over. Regulation of cryptocurrencies. By taking a comprehensive and inclusive approach, it can help create a framework that balances consumer protection with innovation and growth. The time has come for clear and effective regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States.

Effective regulation of digital assets is essential to foster a safe and innovative environment. The key principles guiding this regulation are clarity, innovation, global cooperation, consumer protection, and flexibility. Clear definitions and guidelines eliminate ambiguity while encouraging experimentation and development to ensure progress. Collaboration with international partners establishes consistent standards, preventing regulatory arbitrage. Strong safeguards protect consumers from fraud and market abuse, and adaptability allows for evolution in response to emerging trends and technologies, striking a balance between innovation and protection.

The benefits of effective cryptocurrency regulation are multiple and far-reaching. By establishing clear guidelines, governments can attract investors and mainstream users, driving growth and adoption. This can, in turn, position countries like the United States as global leaders in fintech and innovation. Strong safeguards will also increase consumer confidence in digital assets and related products, increasing economic activity.

A thriving crypto industry can contribute significantly to GDP and job creation, which has a positive impact on the overall economy. Furthermore, effective regulation has paved the way for the growth of many businesses such as tech startups, online casinos, and pharmaceutical companies, demonstrating that clear guidelines can open up new opportunities without stifling innovation. This is a great example of how regulation can allay fears of regressive policies, even if Kamala Harris does not repeal the current progressive approach. By adopting effective regulation, governments can create fertile ground for the crypto industry to thrive, thereby promoting progress and prosperity.

Fuente

Continue Reading

Regulation

South Korea Imposes New ‘Monitoring’ Fees on Cryptocurrency Exchanges

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Published

on

South Korea Imposes New 'Monitoring' Fees on Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Big news! The latest regulatory changes in South Korea are expected to impact major cryptocurrency exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb. Under the updated regulations, these platforms will now have to pay monitoring fees, which could cause problems for some exchanges.

Overview of new fees

In the latest move to regulate cryptocurrencies, the Financial Services Commission announced on July 1 the revised “Enforcement Order of the Act on the Establishment of the Financial Services Commission, etc.” update “Regulations on the collection of contributions from financial institutions, etc.” According to local legislation newsThe regulations require virtual asset operators to pay supervisory fees for inspections conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service starting next year. The total fees for the four major exchanges are estimated at around 300 million won, or about $220,000.

Apportionment of costs

Upbit, which holds a dominant market share, is expected to bear more than 90% of the total fee, or about 272 million won ($199,592) based on its operating revenue. Bithumb will pay about 21.14 million won ($155,157), while Coinone and GOPAX will contribute about 6.03 million won ($4,422) and 830,000 won ($608), respectively. Korbit is excluded from this fee due to its lower operating revenue.

Impact on the industry

The supervision fee will function similarly to a quasi-tax for financial institutions subject to inspections by the Financial Supervisory Service. The new law requires any company with a turnover of 3 billion won or more to pay the fee.

In the past, fees for electronic financial companies and P2P investment firms were phased in over three years. However, the taxation of virtual asset operators has been accelerated, reflecting the rapid growth of the cryptocurrency market and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Industry reactions

The rapid introduction of the fee was unexpected by some industry players, who had expected a delay. Financial Supervisory Service officials justified the decision by citing the creation of the body concerned and the costs already incurred.

While larger exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb can afford the cost, smaller exchanges like Coinone and GOPAX, which are currently operating at a loss, could face an additional financial burden. This is part of a broader trend of declining trading volumes for South Korean exchanges, which have seen a 30% drop since the new law went into effect.

Fuente

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 BLOCKCHAINBULLETIN.ORG. All rights reserved. This website provides educational content and highlights that investing involves risks. It is essential to conduct thorough research before investing and to be prepared to assume potential losses. Be sure to fully understand the risks involved before making investment decisions. Important: We do not provide financial or investment advice. All content is presented for educational purposes only.