Top academic institutions in the U.S. have recently proposed a systematic regulatory framework for cryptocurrency staking services to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), marking a shift from broad exemptions to refined governance in industry regulation.
During a closed-door meeting on June 23 with the U.S. SEC cryptocurrency working group, an expert team from prestigious law schools such as the University of California, Berkeley, and Georgetown University, in collaboration with venture capital firm Placeholder, jointly submitted a tripartite regulatory proposal that includes terminology standards, yield control, and technical transparency.
Notably, these recommendations did not come out of nowhere; they are based on the staking service exemption policy released by the SEC on May 29 of this year, showing continuity and a trend of deepening regulatory thinking.
Core content of regulatory recommendations
The academic team particularly emphasized the issue of terminology abuse present in the current market. They suggest adopting the "80% name rule" from traditional finance, strictly limiting the use of the term "staking" to services performing protocol-level validation, and require that all marketing materials aimed at retail investors must undergo prior approval.
Regarding yield disclosure, experts proposed a dual restriction mechanism. On one hand, they set the upper limit for advertised yields at the protocol's base reward rate, and on the other hand, they stipulated that intermediary service fees cannot exceed 5% of the rewards, unless audited cost proof can be provided. These measures directly address the prevalent issues of yield exaggeration and fee opacity in the current market.
Considering the uniqueness of blockchain technology, the academic community has proposed a series of innovative transparency requirements. They advocate for mandatory service providers to display key data in real-time on user interfaces, including total network yield, user net yield, and potential risk of forfeiture, allowing investors to clearly grasp the status of their staked assets as if checking their bank account balance.
Of particular concern is the increasingly severe issue of validator power concentration. Experts recommend implementing a licensing management system similar to that of banks for entities controlling a certain amount of network stake, and require all client software interacting with the consensus mechanism to be open-source. These suggestions indicate a shift in regulatory thinking from mere information disclosure to deeper technical governance.
Policy background and industry impact
The introduction of this series of recommendations comes at a critical time during the rapid expansion of the cryptocurrency staking market. Data shows that more than 35 million ETH, accounting for over 28.3% of its total supply, have been staked, while the emergence of innovative products such as liquid staking derivatives has made the risk transmission mechanism more complex.
The involvement of academia reflects the deep challenges faced by current regulation: protecting investors from risks brought by information asymmetry while avoiding excessive regulation that stifles financial innovation. SEC officials expressed strong interest in these technical suggestions during the meeting but also hinted that the final policy may need to balance multiple interests.
It is foreseeable that as the mainstream adoption of staking services increases, a new regulatory framework based on real-time data monitoring and tiered licensing may gradually take shape, which will have a profound impact on the long-term development of the cryptocurrency market.
Conclusion:
Cryptocurrency staking regulation is at a crossroads, and this recommendation from academia provides the SEC with a technical roadmap that balances innovation and regulation. As the regulatory framework keeps pace with technological development, we may witness the birth of a more transparent and robust digital asset staking market. This is not only about regulatory compliance but also a key leap for blockchain finance into the mainstream.
Do you think these recommendations from academia will enhance the safety of the staking market, or could they potentially stifle innovation? As an investor, what key data do you most want staking service providers to disclose? How should the issue of validator power concentration be resolved? Leave your views in the comments!