The US academic community calls on the SEC to establish a strict Crypto Assets stake regulatory framework

Top academic institutions in the United States recently submitted a detailed regulatory proposal on Cryptocurrency stake services to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), marking a shift from extensive exemptions to refined governance in industry regulation. At the closed-door meeting of the SECCryptocurrency Working Group with the SEC on June 23, expert teams from renowned law schools such as the University of California, Berkeley, Georgetown University, and venture capital firm Placeholder jointly submitted a regulatory solution encompassing terminology standardization, revenue control, and technical transparency.

It is worth noting that these suggestions are not groundless, but are based on the SEC's stake service exemption policy released on May 29 this year, demonstrating the continuity and deepening trend of regulatory thinking. Core content of regulatory recommendations The academic team particularly emphasizes the problem of terminology misuse in the current market. They suggest referring to the '80% naming rule' in the traditional financial field, strictly limiting the use of the professional term 'staking' to the scope of protocol-level verification services, and requiring all marketing materials targeting retail investors to be pre-approved. In terms of income disclosure, experts have proposed a dual restriction mechanism. On the one hand, the upper limit of the advertised yield is set to the protocol's base reward rate, while on the other hand, it is stipulated that the intermediary service fee shall not exceed 5% of the reward, unless audited cost proof can be provided. These measures directly target the widespread issues of income exaggeration and opaque fees in the current market. Given the unique nature 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 the user interface, including total network revenue, user net income, and potential penalty risks, allowing investors to have a clear understanding of the stake asset situation, similar to checking a bank account balance. Of particular interest is the suggestion by experts on the increasing problem of long wick candles centralization of validator power, proposing a banking license-like management for entities controlling a certain amount of network stake, and requiring all client software interacting with the consensus mechanism to be open source. These suggestions indicate that regulatory thinking is shifting from simple information disclosure to deepening technical governance. Policy Background and Industry Impact The proposal comes at a critical time of rapid expansion in the Crypto Assets stake market. Data shows that over 35 million ETH, more than 28.3% of its total supply,‌‌ have been staked, while the emergence of innovative products such as liquid stake derivatives has made the risk transmission mechanism more complex.

The involvement of the academic community reflects the deep challenges faced by current regulation: protecting investors from the risks of information asymmetry while avoiding overregulation that stifles financial innovation. SEC officials showed strong interest in these technical suggestions at the meeting, but also hinted that the final policy may need to balance multiple interests. It can be foreseen that, as the mainstreaming of stake services increases, a new regulatory framework based on real-time data monitoring and graded licensing may gradually take shape, which will have a profound impact on the long-term development of the Crypto Assets market.

Conclusion: Crypto Assets regulatory is standing at a crossroads, this proposal from the academic community provides the SEC with a technical roadmap that balances innovation and standardization. When the regulatory framework catches up with technological development, we may witness a more transparent and stable digital asset staking market emerge. This is not only about regulatory compliance but also a crucial leap for blockchain finance to move towards the mainstream.

Do you think these suggestions from the academic community will enhance the security of the stake market or possibly stifle innovation? As an investor, what key data do you most want stake service providers to disclose? How should the issue of centralized validator power be addressed? Leave your comments in the comment section! #质押监管 #Crypto Assets #SEC