Here is an analysis of key positions and arguments, as well as commentary on them:
Key opinions at the SEC roundtable
1. SEC regulators:
They emphasized that code is not just an expression of ideas, but in the case of DeFi — it is a functional tool managing financial operations.
Therefore, developers who create and publish code that directly performs financial transactions (staking, lending, trading), may act as financial intermediaries, especially if they maintain control (e.g., through admin keys, DAO multisigs, etc.).
2. Developers and supporters of DeFi:
They argued that the publication of code is a form of freedom of speech. They compared their activities to the development of open-source software that does not claim financial intermediation.
3. Intermediate position:
Some participants suggested distinguishing:
developers of purely infrastructural code (e.g., libraries or protocols without governance),
and those who continue to participate in the governance of the protocol, profit from it, or have leverage over it.
How to relate to this? Opinions in the crypto community
For the protection of software developers:
Key argument: code ≠ behavior. The publication of open-source code should not, in itself, be a crime.
Precedent: the case of Bernstein v. U.S. (1999), in which the court recognized cryptographic code as a form of freedom of expression.
For accountability as intermediaries:
If a developer retains power over the protocol, earns income from transactions, or promotes a DeFi product as a financial instrument, they are not merely "writing code" but are effectively managing a financial service.
Example: the SEC case against Uniswap — one of the cases discussing the team's responsibility for passive control and income.
How should regulation develop?
1. Contextual approach
Regulation should take into account:
The level of developer control (admin keys, governance tokens).
The presence of monetization and profit from the use of the protocol.
Activity in promoting the project as a financial product.
2. Safe harbor for developers
A legal model can be introduced where:
developers publishing non-commercial code without control over its implementation are exempt from liability,
and those who participate in the governance or creation of DAOs with income must comply with regulatory standards.
3. Self-regulatory standards and transparency
Communities and DeFi protocols can voluntarily implement:
measures to minimize control (immutable contracts),
public reports on income and governance,
KYC rules for front-end interfaces (if necessary).
Personal conclusion
Developing DeFi platforms is a hybrid between code and economic action.
Regulation should:
not suppressing innovation and freedom of code publication,
but also prevent irresponsibility when financial activities with risks for investors are masked through code.
In practice, this means — a fine line that legislators and developers must consider.
