Consensys filed a lawsuit towards the US Securities and Change Fee (SEC) on April 25 over allegations that the watchdog has overstepped in its authority in making an attempt to control Ethereum (ETH).
The lawsuit alleges that the SEC goals to unlawfully regulate Ethereum by enforcement actions towards varied corporations, together with Consensys, constituting “aggressive and illegal” overreach.
Consensys intends to show that the SEC doesn’t have authorized authority to control ETH, user-controlled software program interfaces, or the Ethereum blockchain extra broadly.
Consensys needs the court docket to declare that Ethereum shouldn’t be a safety and that the agency neither acts as a dealer nor sells securities by working MetaMask. It additionally needs the court docket to declare that authorized motion or investigations primarily based on these grounds would exceed the SEC’s authority.
Moreover, Consensys is in search of an injunction that stops a continued SEC investigation of, or future enforcement motion towards, its MetaMask pockets and associated ETH gross sales. The SEC warned Consensys of potential authorized motion by a Wells discover and telephone convention on April 10. Metamask’s staking and swap options are areas of concern.
Three-prong argument
The lawsuit has three prongs. Consensys first asserted that the SEC solely has jurisdiction over securities and has beforehand agreed ETH shouldn’t be a safety.
Consensys secondly asserted that the SEC’s method wrongly classifies non-financial platforms as monetary purposes. It argued that ETH helps purposes on Ethereum and, due to this fact, has non-financial utility separate from its position as a commodity. The agency additionally stated the SEC has no authority to control the web’s technological improvement in such a method.
Lastly, Consensys asserted that MetaMask and different purposes are usually not securities brokers however quite permit customers to purchase, promote, and switch ETH by broader entry.
The case, filed within the US District Court docket for the Northern District of Texas, names the SEC and its chair, Gary Gensler, as defendants.
Broader implications
Whether or not the SEC considers Ethereum a safety is a long-standing problem, and the matter is related to the compliance efforts of any firm or venture that handles ETH.
Fortune reported on March 20 that the SEC had subpoenaed quite a few crypto corporations which have engaged with the Ethereum Basis. The Ethereum Basis itself seemingly acquired a subpoena from an unknown state authority on the time of the report.
One firm within the Ethereum ecosystem, Uniswap, acquired a Wells discover on April 10, warning of potential fees. Nonetheless, it’s unclear if the SEC’s potential fees towards Uniswap are instantly associated to ETH.
Whether or not the SEC treats ETH as a safety may additionally impression the approval of spot Ethereum ETFs. SEC chair Gary Gensler recognized Bitcoin as a non-security commodity upon the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January and emphasised that the present resolution solely utilized to the asset.
