The damages to the crypto world if the SEC were to classify ETH as a security



The looming threat of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classifying Ethereum (ETH) as a security is sending shockwaves through the crypto sector. 

If these rumors were to materialize, it could be a disaster not only for Ethereum, but for the entire blockchain ecosystem. 

That’s why the SEC should take a step back from this wrong classification.

Why does the SEC want to label ETH as a security?

Recent news suggest the SEC’s intention to label ETH as a security, based on its investigation into the activities of the Ethereum Foundation after the 2022 Merge event.

The agency’s President, Gary Gensler, has already hinted at this possibility, suggesting that proof-of-stake chains could resemble investment contracts and therefore be considered securities. 

However, such a move would be fundamentally wrong and harmful for innovation in the cryptocurrency space.

First of all, comparing Ethereum to other projects like Cardano to support the classification of ETH as a security is incorrect.

Ignacio Ferrer-Bonsoms, an important lawyer specialized in cryptocurrencies, highlights the similarities between the two projects in terms of fundraising mechanisms and governance structures.

If the SEC believes that a project violates securities laws, it must logically extend the same classification to others with similar characteristics. This inconsistency highlights the arbitrary nature of such classifications.

Furthermore, the unique characteristics of Ethereum and its decentralization distinguish it from traditional securities. Unlike centralized entities that issue securities, Ethereum operates as a decentralized network governed by a community of developers and users.

The continued involvement of Vitalik Buterin and Joseph Lubin in the ecosystem does not equate to centralized control, as they contribute to the development of Ethereum as individual actors rather than authoritative figures.

On the contrary, the lack of centralized control is a feature that has led the SEC to classify Bitcoin as a commodity rather than as a security.

The repercussions for businesses engaged in the platform

The classification of Ethereum as a security would have serious repercussions for businesses and investors already involved in the platform. 

The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the counterpart of the SEC, has long recognized ETH as a commodity, allowing the trading of futures and providing regulatory clarity. 

Any attempt by the SEC to unilaterally redefine the status of Ethereum would create regulatory uncertainty, hindering innovation and investment in the ecosystem.

Furthermore, the SEC’s inconsistent approach to regulating cryptocurrencies undermines its credibility and creates confusion in the industry. 

The approval of ETH futures trading on regulated exchanges, months after the merger event, demonstrates the recognition of Ethereum’s status as a non-security by the SEC. 

Any deviation from this position would raise questions about the agency’s motivations and erode trust in its regulatory framework.

Critics argue that changing Ethereum’s classification after a decade of activity would be unfair and could lead to significant financial losses for investors and businesses. 

The recent judicial sanctions imposed on the SEC for overstepping in cases against cryptocurrency companies further highlight concerns about the abuse of power and lack of accountability of the agency.


In conclusion, the perspective that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classifies Ethereum (ETH) as a security represents a wrong and potentially harmful approach to regulating the cryptocurrency landscape. 

The similarities between Ethereum and other projects to support its classification overlook the unique decentralized nature of the Ethereum network and its governance structure.

Furthermore, the classification of Ethereum as a commodity by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) provides regulatory clarity and a precedent that should not be ignored. 

Any attempt to reclassify Ethereum as a security would create uncertainty, hinder innovation, and undermine investor confidence in the regulatory framework.

The SEC must reconsider its position and adopt a more nuanced approach to regulating cryptocurrencies, recognizing the evolving nature of blockchain technology and promoting innovation while protecting investors from fraudulent schemes.

Arbitrary classifications based on outdated interpretations of securities laws risk stifling innovation and driving investments away from the United States. 

In the future, regulatory agencies must work in collaboration with industry stakeholders to develop clear and consistent guidelines that support responsible innovation in the cryptocurrency space.