Ripple’s Chief Legal Officer (CLO), Stuart Alderoty, and pro-XRP lawyer Bill Morgan have voiced their concerns about the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision to end its investigation into Ethereum 2.0. Despite the SEC’s conclusion, both experts believe that this does not resolve the regulatory uncertainty surrounding Ethereum (ETH).
Alderoty commended Consensys, the Ethereum developer, on their victory but raised doubts about the regulatory status of ETH. He questioned whether the SEC’s decision indicates that Consensys did not offer ETH as a security. He also suggested that the SEC may still consider ETH as a security. Additionally, Alderoty expressed curiosity about SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s stance on ETH’s regulatory status. He noted that the SEC’s recent response did not address the regulatory status of Metamask’s staking and swap services, leaving room for doubt.
Alderoty expressed his frustration with the lack of clear regulatory guidance in the US crypto industry, fearing that it could impede innovation in the country.
Similarly, Morgan, a lawyer supporting Ripple, shared the same sentiment as Alderoty. He argued that the SEC’s decision not to pursue enforcement action after the Ethereum 2.0 investigation fails to provide clarity on ETH’s regulatory status. Morgan contrasted the ambiguous regulatory situation surrounding ETH with the legal certainty that XRP received from a federal judge last year. He posed a rhetorical question about which situation is preferable.
Morgan also speculated that Gensler would continue to avoid addressing whether ETH is a security, unlike XRP, which U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres ruled is not a security.
While the SEC has concluded its investigation into Ethereum 2.0, Consensys remains entangled in a lawsuit against the SEC. In April, Consensys filed a lawsuit in a Texas court, seeking a declaration that the staking and swap services provided by Metamask are non-securities. As the SEC did not comment on the status of these services, Consensys has stated that their legal battle with the regulator will continue.
It is important to note that this article is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as financial advice. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect the views of The Crypto Basic. Readers are advised to conduct their own research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not liable for any financial losses incurred.