As an experienced cryptocurrency and securities law analyst, I share James Murphy’s concern regarding the SEC’s recent approval of Ethereum ETFs and its ongoing legal battles against various crypto entities. The SEC’s inconsistent stance on the classification of crypto assets as commodities or securities has created confusion and uncertainty in the industry.


As a crypto investor, I’ve been closely following the developments in the world of digital assets, and one issue that’s caught my attention is the SEC’s recent approval of spot ETFs for the Ethereum network. While some see this as a positive step forward for the industry, cryptocurrency lawyer James Murphy, who goes by the moniker MetaLawMan, has raised concerns. From his perspective, the SEC may have gotten itself into hot water with this decision.

As an analyst, I would rephrase Murphy’s statement in the first person as follows: In an X post, I noted that the SEC’s legal actions against certain crypto firms have put the agency in a predicament. The approval of Ethereum ETFs by the SEC has essentially settled the debate over whether ether (ETH) should be classified as a commodity.

The SEC in Deep Trouble

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) gave its approval on May 23 for eight Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) from various asset managers to be launched. These managers include Fidelity, BlackRock, Ark Invest/21Shares, Franklin Templeton, VanEck, and Invesco/Galaxy Digital.

Approximately a week ago, the crypto community and market analysts estimated the probability of approval for certain cryptocurrency-related matters at just 25% due to the SEC’s known skepticism towards crypto. However, this week saw an unexpected shift in events, causing experts to raise their estimates to as high as 75%.

As a researcher studying the regulatory landscape of cryptocurrencies, I’ve observed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) consistent skepticism towards digital assets over the past few years. The agency has taken legal action against numerous American digital asset entities, claiming they have been selling unregistered securities, such as Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), Cardano (ADA), Ripple (XRP), Polygon (MATIC), and many more crypto tokens.

Murphy pointed out in his tweet that during the hearing in the securities agency’s lawsuit against the leading American cryptocurrency exchange, Coinbase, it maintained the stance that certain crypto tokens functioning within an ecosystem should be considered securities. Tokens such as Ethereum, Solana, Cardano, and Ripple fall under this classification.

SEC to Faces Difficulty in Crypto Cases

In addition, the crypto legal advisor shared that Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court, presiding over the SEC versus Coinbase lawsuit, employed the SEC’s “ecosystem argument” in her decision. The judgment indicated that when customers purchase tokens on Coinbase, they are not merely acquiring worthless assets but instead investing in the associated digital ecosystems, whose expansion is linked to the tokens’ value.

As an analyst, I can propose that according to Murphy’s perspective, it might be challenging for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to justify in U.S. courts why Ethereum (ETH) is classified as a commodity, while other ecosystem tokens such as Solana (SOL) and Cardano (ADA) are not considered the same.

As Coinbase prepares to submit its reply brief in the ongoing appeal process of its petition against the SEC’s case, Murphy expressed that it would be expected for the exchange to also request a rehearing or file a motion to dismiss based on the SEC’s recent acknowledgment of Ethereum as a commodity. This trend could potentially extend to other crypto firms facing similar legal battles with the securities agency.

Read More

2024-05-24 14:32