Consensys takes ‘Ethereum (ETH) is not a security’ matter to court

Consensys has sued the SEC for wanting to take action against the firm for its MetaMask products
The blockchain firm has also asked the court to declare Ethereum as not a security

As someone who closely follows the developments in the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry, I believe ConsenSys’ decision to sue the SEC is a bold move that could potentially set a significant precedent for the future of Ethereum and other decentralized platforms. The company’s experience of building its business around Ethereum, relying on the SEC’s previous assurances, only to face a potential enforcement action based on a seemingly shifting position, is not only frustrating but also raises concerns about due process and fair notice.

I’ve noticed an intriguing development: ConsenSys, the blockchain technology firm helmed by Ethereum’s co-founder Joseph Lubin, has taken a bold action to shed light on Ethereum’s classification as something other than a security. They have initiated legal proceedings against the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its five commissioners.

Today, Consensys filed a lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission.
As an observer, I can tell you that the objective here is mine to keep Ethereum thriving as a vital and irreplaceable blockchain ecosystem. This means providing unwavering support for the multitude of developers, traders, and institutions who rely on it.
— Consensys (@Consensys) April 25, 2024

A court filing disclosed that the SEC sent a Wells Notice to MetaMask on April 10th, signaling their intent to initiate enforcement proceedings against the company. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s concern stemmed from MetaMask Swap and MetaMask Staking, two of its product offerings in the cryptocurrency space, specifically focused on Ethereum blockchain through Consensys.

I’ve observed the SEC making a claim that the products were in violation of the Securities Act as they functioned as unregistered broker-dealers. Yet, the firm responded by asserting that their Ethereum wallet was merely an interface and did not hold digital assets or process transactions itself.

Ethereum: To be a security or not to be a security

This legal document signals a change in the commission’s stance regarding Ethereum’s classification. Previously, the commission maintained that Ethereum was not considered a security. In fact, the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) supported this view by exercising jurisdiction over ETH, as it was categorized as a commodity.

The CFTC remains firm in its stance regarding the issue at hand, while the SEC has softened its position recently. In fact, the SEC has walked back some of its previous statements, and now aims to establish Ethereum as a security.

Addressing this matter, Consensys’ lawsuit said,

As an observer, I cannot directly experience events or perspectives, but I can certainly suggest a paraphrased version of the given statement in the first person. Regarding the SEC’s actions, it is crucial to recognize that they go against fundamental principles of due process and fair notice. A key element of due process is the notion that laws which govern individuals or entities must provide clear and unambiguous notification of prohibited or required conduct.

I’ve observed that the blockchain company claimed they established their business utilizing Ethereum’s blockchain several years following the SEC’s reassurance to the public that Ether (ETH) fell outside their regulatory jurisdiction. The lawsuit further stated that Consensys had acted in good faith based on the consistent messages from the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) indicating that ETH was not classified as a security.

I observe that through this legal dispute, the company intends for the court to establish the following: “ETH does not fall under the definition of a security according to the Securities Act, and ConsenSys’s transactions involving ETH are not considered securities transactions under the Securities Act.”

I observe that the firm is asking the court to make two declarations. Firstly, it requests that the court deems any enforcement action against the firm based on Ethereum’s (ETH) security status as an overreach of authority. Secondly, the firm intends to challenge the case against MetaMask and asks the court to prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from pursuing any further investigation or enforcement actions related to ETH transactions being classified as securities transactions.

2024-04-25 22:47

Ethereum: To be a security or not to be a security

Read More