jakiro
Author: Deman
In the field of cryptocurrencies, regulatory issues have always attracted much attention.Recently, the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) once again provoked a storm, the goal of this time was Metamask, a subsidiary of Consensys.It is reported that SEC issued Wells Notice to Consensys, accusing Metamask suspected of operating as an unlicensed broker.The news immediately attracted widespread attention and heated discussion in the cryptocurrency circle.
From April 11, Uniswap received Wells Notice, to now, the supervision trend of the cryptocurrency industry seems to be becoming more stressful.As a Ethereum infrastructure development company, Consensys has recently been involved in this storm and became the object of SEC survey.Consensys not only refuted the allegations of SEC, but also took the initiative to filed a lawsuit against the federal court to try to defend his rights.This move is not only related to the struggle between the rights between Consensys and SEC, but also likely to affect the future development of the entire cryptocurrency industry.
In this context, it is necessary for us to understand the situation of Metamask’s accused and Consensys’ counterattack attitude.Next, we will analyze the specific allegations of the SEC and explore the potential impact of the incident on the cryptocurrency market and the regulatory environment.
With the Metamask wallet as the registered agent, SEC sends allegations to Consensys
In the current legal environment of the cryptocurrency industry, the legal disputes between the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Consensys are particularly prominent.The Wells Notice of SEC alleged to its Metamask wallet to operate as an unregistered agent.This has triggered a widespread discussion about the compliance of cryptocurrency service providers and the legal definition of these services.
Metamask is an Ethereum blockchain interface that provides a browser extension and mobile application. Users can store and manage cryptocurrencies and interact with decentralized applications (DAPPS).Metamask’s core features include key management, allowing users to control the transactions of its Ethereum and other ERC-20s token through the private key; and a built-in transaction execution function, which directly executes the user’s transaction instructions through the blockchain network.Instead of through any intermediary or agent.
SEC’s focus is concentrated in the pledge service of Metamask. This service allows users to lock the token in the smart contract for returns.SEC believes that this operation may constitute a brokerage activity, so it should be subject to corresponding supervision and license requirements.According to the SEC point of view, any behavior that promotes or assist securities transactions needs to comply with corresponding legal and rules, including registered agent requirements.
The core of the legal issue is whether the operation mode of Metamask conforms to the definition of the agent, and whether some aspects in its services violate the securities law.Although METAMASK does not directly hold the assets of customers and does not directly execute buying orders on its platform, the pledge service provided through smart contracts is suspected to cross the boundary of only technical services for users, entering the financial service field that may need to register to register.Essence
This case not only pose a direct threat to the business operations of Consensys and Metamask, but also may affect the overall supervision environment of cryptocurrency service providers, setting new standards for the entire industry’s compliance requirements.With the progress of the case, the legal community and the encrypted circle have paid attention to this case, and it is expected to provide clearer guidance for the legal status of cryptocurrencies.
The severity of the result of the lawsuit may have a profound impact on the industry, and many details need to be considered
Facing the allegations of SEC, Consensys quickly took counterattack measures.On April 10, 2024, after receiving SEC’s Wells Notice, Consensys decided not to sit and wait for it, but chose to take the initiative to file a lawsuit with the District Court of the North District of Texas on April 25.Consensys’s lawsuit emphasizes that SEC tries to qualitatively qualitatively qualitatively cross -border of power by Ethereum and its application Metamask as securities.
In the litigation documents, Consensys pointed out that its Metamask wallet exists only as a simple interface, and neither holds the customer’s digital assets nor any transaction function, so it should not be regarded as a broker.Furthermore, Consensys challenged SEC’s power foundation and believes that its supervision against Ethereum has surpassed its legal authority because Ethereum does not have any characteristics of securities.In addition, the company also quoted former SEC official Bill Hinman’s remarks in 2018. At that time, he made it clear that Ethereum was not a securities, but a commodity, emphasizing that the current SEC’s current approach contrary to the previous statement.
The lawsuit not only tried to prevent SEC from incorporating the pledge and exchange function of Metamask into the regulatory scope of the securities law, but also asked the court to confirm that Metamask’s operation did not violate the Federal Securities Law.Consensys believes that Metamask is regarded as a securities broker that will seriously hinder Web3 developers continue to develop innovative applications and affect the technological progress and development of the entire industry.
Another key point of this legal war is that Consensys requires that its fifth amendment rights and the “Administrative Procedure Law” has not been violated, that is, any view that Ethereum is a securities will violate these rights.Consensys not only reflects the urgent needs of the cryptocurrency industry for the clarification of regulations, but also shows that the industry has become more firm and positive in the face of regulatory challenges.
In the end, this lawsuit may have a profound impact on the legal environment of the entire cryptocurrency industry, especially the legal status of Ethereum and its applications.With the advancement of the case, the cryptocurrency community and its stakeholders continue to pay attention to the potential impact of this case on the future industry supervision and operation model.
The lawsuit will be an important node of the industry’s compliance process, and the follow -up direction is worthy of attention
Earlier this year, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved the first spot Bitcoin ETF in the United States, marking a big step in digital asset supervision.Due to the existence of previous examples, many people predict that the approval of Ethereum spot ETF is only a matter of time.However, the confrontation between Consensys and SEC is not the first time, and the relationship is increasingly tense.
In a comment letter submitted to the SEC, Consensys strongly advocates criticizing the spot Ethereum spot ETF and refuting SEC’s concerns about potential fraud and manipulation.The letter describes the advantages of the Ethereum POS mechanism in detail, including fast block confirmation, distributed verification process, high attack costs, and lower environmental impacts, and clearly emphasize that its security is far beyond Bitcoin POW mechanism.
Although the SEC approved the Ethereum Futures ETF in October 2023, showing the hint recognition of the Ethereum non -securities attributes, the attitude of SEC was still hesitant for the approval of the spot ETF.SEC Chairman Gary Jesler has remained vague about the legal status of Ethereum, plus pressure from the political field.The process has increased uncertainty.
In addition, changes in the cryptocurrency market have also affected the emotions of Ethereum.Although Bitcoin occupies a dominant position in the market, Ethereum and its so -called “Ethereum killer” such as Solana are also pursuing.The community has doubts about whether Ethereum ETF can boost ETH prices, reflects the instability of the current encryption market and the desire for regulatory clarity.
In general, the legal struggle between Consensys and the SEC highlights the urgent needs of the crypto industry to clarify the regulatory framework.With the development of these disputes and litigation, the future direction of the entire industry and the status of Ethereum will receive close attention.For those cryptocurrency enthusiasts who seek the latest developments and in -depth analysis, it is particularly important to continue to pay attention to industry development and regulatory changes.
