Recently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has significantly increased its attention on the cryptocurrency staking business. According to Fox Business reporter Eleanor Terrett, the SEC has asked the industry to submit a memorandum detailing the types of pledges and their advantages, and is expected to issue relevant regulatory guidance in the short term. This development has triggered a dual discussion in the market about the regulatory direction: Will the new regulations provide a clear framework for pledge business, or will they increase industry uncertainty due to vague rules?
### **SEC’s Regulatory Logic and Actions**
1. **High attention and information collection**
Since February 2025, the SEC has taken intensive actions, including holding online seminars with industry participants and reviewing the staking function application for the '21Shares Core Ethereum ETF' submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange (Cboe). The core demand is to comprehensively understand the business model, risk characteristics, and potential impact on investors of staking. This proactive research indicates that the SEC is attempting to formulate more targeted rules based on industry feedback rather than implement a 'one-size-fits-all' regulation.
2. **Continuation of Historical Regulatory Stance**
SEC Chairman Gensler has previously emphasized that cryptocurrency staking transactions face issues such as insufficient information disclosure and non-standard asset custody, which may pose risks to investors. Following the FTX incident in 2022, the SEC has required listed companies to disclose their exposure to crypto assets and bankruptcy risks. This recent move regarding staking can be seen as a supplement to the existing regulatory framework, especially in strengthening compliance for staking activities with 'securities characteristics'.
### **Potential Impact: Balance and Challenges**
1. **Short-Term Uncertainty May Intensify**
If the SEC's guidance focuses on restrictive terms (such as the accounting treatment of staking assets, custodian obligations, etc.), it may force companies to adjust their business models. For example, the SEC previously required custodians to classify crypto assets as liabilities and disclose technical, legal, and regulatory risks. If similar rules extend to the staking domain, compliance costs may increase. Furthermore, if staking is explicitly included in the securities regulatory framework, some projects may face challenges of reclassification.
2. **Long-Term Normalization Opportunity**
Clear rules can provide operational boundaries for the industry. For example, in 2023, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council explicitly clarified the legality of staking through policy and required lending institutions to implement dynamic risk monitoring. If such a framework is adopted by the SEC, it may enhance market transparency and reduce litigation risks caused by ambiguous rules. Additionally, if the ETF staking function is approved, it may drive institutional capital entry and further legitimize the staking business.
### **Conclusion: The Double-Edged Sword Effect of Regulation**
The SEC's movements reflect its desire for 'controllable risks' in the crypto market, but the specific impact depends on the details of the rules. If the guidance can balance innovation and investor protection, such as by clarifying staking classifications and optimizing disclosure standards, it is expected to become a catalyst for industry development; conversely, overly stringent or vague terms may stifle innovation and even force some companies to exit the U.S. market. Short-term pain is inevitable, but in the long run, a clear regulatory path remains a necessary route for the integration of the crypto ecosystem and traditional finance.$SOL
