Cryptocurrency Regulation: Striking a Balance for Innovation

Misha Solodovnikov 

The world of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology has been nothing short of revolutionary. In just over a decade, we've witnessed the rise of over eleven thousand cryptocurrencies, each with its own unique proposition and potential [1]. This dizzying pace of innovation, however, has outpaced the development of appropriate regulatory measures, leaving the industry in a state of uncertainty and ambiguity.
           
This article explores the complex issue of cryptocurrency regulation, focusing on the ongoing debate surrounding Ethereum (ETH) [2].  Questions include whether Ethereum should be classified as a security, a commodity, or a utility token under U.S. law. To provide context and clarity, key legal documents and regulatory statements are analyzed while keeping an eye on the broader implications for innovation in the cryptocurrency space.

Issue: To Classify or Not to Classify: Examining the Legal Status of Ethereum (ETH)

            Ethereum, introduced by visionary Vitalik Buterin in 2014, has become a foundational platform for smart contracts and decentralized applications (dApps) [1]. At its essence, Ethereum represents a decentralized global software platform underpinned by the revolutionary blockchain technology. It is most renowned for its inherent cryptocurrency, known as ether (ETH).
Ethereum extends an invitation to anyone desiring to develop and secure digital innovations. A unique token is in place to compensate individuals contributing to the blockchain's upkeep. However, participants also have the flexibility to employ it for transactions involving physical goods and services, subject to acceptance.
The Ethereum platform is meticulously engineered with scalability, programmability, security, and decentralization as its cornerstones. It stands as the preferred choice among developers and businesses looking to revolutionize various industries and reshape our daily routines through technological advancements.
Intrinsically, Ethereum boasts native support for smart contracts. However, its initial funding through a pre-sale of Ether tokens has sparked a regulatory dilemma. Is Ethereum a security, a commodity, or a utility token?

Is Ethereum a Security?

            The crux of the matter lies in whether Ethereum's initial pre-sale constituted a security offering under U.S. securities laws. The "Terms and Conditions of the Ethereum Genesis Sale" contain statements that suggest it could be viewed as an investment contract, meeting the criteria set forth in the famous "Howey Test" . This very pre-sale has been the subject of debate regarding its regulatory status under US securities laws.

"Terms and Conditions of the Ethereum Genesis Sale" [2] contains several statements that could be interpreted as indicating that the sale of Ether during the pre-sale period could be considered a security offering under US securities laws:

"Terms and Conditions of the Ethereum Genesis Sale," contains statement that could point that the sale of Ether during the pre-sale period could be considered a security offering under US securities laws. Here is relevant quote:

"EthSuisse will produce and market a quantity of ETH in a pre-sale event called the Genesis Sale, to be conducted on its web site at https://www.ethereum.org (“the Genesis Sale”).
            The "Howey Test," established in 1946, defines an investment contract as an arrangement where individuals invest money in a common enterprise with the expectation of profit based on the efforts of others. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initially applied this test to digital tokens in the "DAO Report" of 2017, concluding that DAO Tokens were indeed securities [3].
           

            Later SEC has taken enforcement actions against several issuers of digital assets for violating securities laws. However, there is a potential contradiction between “DAO Report” and a subsequent statement made by William Hinman, the Director of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance, on June 14, 2018 [7]: "Based on my understanding of the present state of Ether, the Ethereum network, and its decentralized structure, current offers and sales of Ether are not securities transactions. And, as with Bitcoin, applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to current transactions in Ether would seem to add little value."

.
            The SEC later released its "Framework for 'Investment Contract' Analysis of Digital Assets" in 2019, reaffirming the Howey Test's application [8]. This inconsistency highlights the evolving nature of cryptocurrency regulation and the need for clarity.
            It's important to note that the SEC's guidance is an interpretation, not a legal rule, and subject to revision. The industry deserves a comprehensive and consistent framework.

Is Ethereum a Commodity?
            While Ethereum's classification as a security remains contentious, it also exhibits characteristics of a commodity. It has a limited supply, is interchangeable, and is subject to supply and demand forces. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has taken the stance that Ethereum falls under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) [9].
            This contradiction between the SEC and CFTC adds to the regulatory quagmire surrounding Ethereum's status. Clarity is crucial for businesses operating in this space.

Is Ethereum a Utility Token?          

While the intrinsic utility of Ethereum within its own ecosystem, such as the requirement to purchase Ethereum (ETH) to pay for gas fees associated with executing smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain, may support the argument that Ethereum is a utility token, it presents a shallow perspective. The Ethereum white paper reveals that the platform is a sophisticated and multifaceted ecosystem that provides comprehensive solutions to various issues associated with token creation, indicating that Ethereum is more than just a simple utility token:

"On-blockchain token systems have many applications ranging from sub-currencies representing assets such as USD or gold to company stocks, individual tokens representing smart property, secure unforgeable coupons, and even token systems with no ties to conventional value at all, used as point systems for incentivization. Token systems are surprisingly easy to implement in Ethereum.”[1]

It is regrettable that Ethereum technology is often misinterpreted. However, to accurately convey the magnitude of the technology's impact, it is essential to acknowledge that thousands of distinct tokens have been generated on the Ethereum ecosystem since its inception in 2015. Ethereum offers a standardized protocol for generating and administering digital assets.

This is how it described in the White paper:

"Theoretically, Ethereum-based token systems acting as sub-currencies can potentially include another important feature that on-chain Bitcoin-based meta-currencies lack: the ability to pay transaction fees directly in that currency. The way this would be implemented is that the contract would maintain an ether balance with which it would refund ether used to pay fees to the sender, and it would refill this balance by collecting the internal currency units that it takes in fees and reselling them in a constant running auction. Users would thus need to "activate" their accounts with ether, but once the ether is there it would be reusable because the contract would refund it each time.” [1]

It is important to highlight that Ethereum White paper [1] is not a legal but rather technical document that still remains relevant for legal proceedings. 

Conclusion: Striking a Balance for Innovation

            In conclusion, Ethereum's legal classification under U.S. law is a challenging and evolving issue. The rapid growth of the cryptocurrency industry has outpaced regulatory development, resulting in ambiguity and inconsistency.

As we navigate this regulatory landscape, it's crucial to strike a balance between fostering innovation and protecting investors and consumers. An overly strict regulatory environment can stifle innovation, while a lax one risks fraud.

In the words of William B. Sprague, "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking." The cryptocurrency industry must be viewed as a realm of innovation, even in the face of regulatory uncertainty. The path forward will shape the future of finance and technology [10].

APPENDIX.

1. Buterin, V., Wood, G., & Wilcke, J. (2014). Ethereum Whitepaper. https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/
2. Ethereum Foundation. (2014). Terms and Conditions of the Ethereum Genesis Sale. https://www.cryptocompare.com/media/1383735/pdfs-termsandconditionsoftheethereumgenesissale.pdf
3. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Howey Co. (SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)
4. Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77a-77aa (1933).
5. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78a-78kk (1934).
6. Report of Investigation Pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: The DAO (Release No. 81207) (July 25, 2017), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf.
7. William Hinman, Director of Division of Corporation Finance, "Digital Asset Transactions: When Howey Met Gary (Plastic)," Speech at the Yahoo Finance All Markets Summit: Crypto (June 14, 2018),

   https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speech-hinman-061418

8. United States Securities and Exchange Commission. "Framework for 'Investment Contract' Analysis of Digital Assets." (April 3, 2019). https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/framework-investment-contract-analysis-digital-assets
9. CFTC v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10077-RWZ, Complaint, ¶ 11 (D. Mass. Jan. 16, 2018)
10. William B. Sprague, Memoir of Rev. William Staughton, D.D.: To Which Are Added Select Sermons, p. 40 (Boston: James Loring, 1821