SEC vs Consensys

[zasad@]

I decided to make a separate topic to talk about how crypto companies defend their interests

The SEC accuses the MetaMask wallet of acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, violating securities laws. A broker-dealer is a financial entity that conducts securities transactions on behalf of clients but can also trade for itself. It acts as a broker or agent when executing orders for clients; it acts as a dealer or principal when trading for its account.

Read in full https://www.coinlive.com/news/sudden-development-u-s-sec-accuses-metamask-of-operating-without-a

CFTC declares Ether as a commodity again in court filing
https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-declares-ether-as-a-commodity-again-in-court-filing

U.S. Court Calls ETH a Commodity While Tossing Investor Suit Against Uniswap
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/31/us-court-calls-eth-a-commodity-while-tossing-investor-suit-against-uniswap/

https://blockworks.co/news/cftc-alleges-eth-as-commodity-kucoin-lawsuit
CFTC calls ETH a commodity in KuCoin complaint

These links are very important.
The SEC recently requested documentation about Ethereum from Consensys and other companies. The SEC wants to recognize Ethereum as a security.

Further
"The SEC accuses the MetaMask wallet of acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, violating securities laws. A broker-dealer is a financial entity that conducts securities transactions on behalf of clients but can also trade for itself. It acts as a broker or agent when executing orders for clients; it acts as a dealer or principal when trading for its account."
https://www.coinlive.com/news/sudden-development-u-s-sec-accuses-metamask-of-operating-without-a

And here is the result: Consensys files a lawsuit against SEC
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154.1.0.pdf

The essence of the claim
"1.Ethereum is still not recognized as a security, which means that any actions of the SEC have no legal basis, and the commission exceeds its powers.

2. Ethereum is NOT a security, Consensys does not engage in securities trafficking, the SEC is acting in violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution"
Oshurko Ksenia (C) lawyer

[goldkingcoiner]

I decided to make a separate topic to talk about how crypto companies defend their interests

The SEC accuses the MetaMask wallet of acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, violating securities laws. A broker-dealer is a financial entity that conducts securities transactions on behalf of clients but can also trade for itself. It acts as a broker or agent when executing orders for clients; it acts as a dealer or principal when trading for its account.

Read in full https://www.coinlive.com/news/sudden-development-u-s-sec-accuses-metamask-of-operating-without-a

CFTC declares Ether as a commodity again in court filing
https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-declares-ether-as-a-commodity-again-in-court-filing

U.S. Court Calls ETH a Commodity While Tossing Investor Suit Against Uniswap
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08/31/us-court-calls-eth-a-commodity-while-tossing-investor-suit-against-uniswap/

https://blockworks.co/news/cftc-alleges-eth-as-commodity-kucoin-lawsuit
CFTC calls ETH a commodity in KuCoin complaint

These links are very important.
The SEC recently requested documentation about Ethereum from Consensys and other companies. The SEC wants to recognize Ethereum as a security.

Further
"The SEC accuses the MetaMask wallet of acting as an unlicensed broker-dealer, violating securities laws. A broker-dealer is a financial entity that conducts securities transactions on behalf of clients but can also trade for itself. It acts as a broker or agent when executing orders for clients; it acts as a dealer or principal when trading for its account."
https://www.coinlive.com/news/sudden-development-u-s-sec-accuses-metamask-of-operating-without-a

And here is the result: Consensys files a lawsuit against SEC
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154/gov.uscourts.txnd.389154.1.0.pdf

The essence of the claim
"1.Ethereum is still not recognized as a security, which means that any actions of the SEC have no legal basis, and the commission exceeds its powers.

2. Ethereum is NOT a security, Consensys does not engage in securities trafficking, the SEC is acting in violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution"
Oshurko Ksenia (C) lawyer

I would love to see the SEC get shamed by losing in court.

[Saint-loup]

To be honest I don't understand their point with Ethereum and what they are expected precisely with such strategy. As far as I know, Metamask doesn't only deal with Ethereum, it deals with hundreds, even thousands other coins. So no matter if Ethereum is a security or not at the end. Besides that they've added several features to the app not relying to the initial goal of Metamask. Now you can swap your coins on Metamask and even buy or sell cryptos against fiat currencies. I think it's what SEC blames for actually.

[zasad@]

The SEC takes advantage of the complete lack of legislation in the cryptosphere. I cited several cases in which the court and the CFTC consider Ethereum a commodity, but apparently conflicts in American legislation allow the SEC to think differently.

Unfortunately, I do not see any attempt at regulation in this market in the USA. In such a situation, the SEC will have enough work to do for many years.

[Upgrade00]

The SEC takes advantage of the complete lack of legislation in the cryptosphere.

It looks more like abusing the freedom there is in the crypto space and also contradicting their own regulation attempts.

This will be a very interesting case to follow and should get as much public attention other crypto related suits have gotten. The SEC has been pushing on crypto related platforms, it will be good if is is met with good resistance this time.

[zasad@]

The SEC takes advantage of the complete lack of legislation in the cryptosphere.

It looks more like abusing the freedom there is in the crypto space and also contradicting their own regulation attempts.

This will be a very interesting case to follow and should get as much public attention other crypto related suits have gotten. The SEC has been pushing on crypto related platforms, it will be good if is is met with good resistance this time.

I don't think that such a concept as "freedom" is appropriate in the American market. This market has always worked according to its own rules, and only the largest and strongest companies will remain in the American market. Weaker and smaller companies have already closed under threat of indictment or left the United States.

[Upgrade00]

<snip>and only the largest and strongest companies will remain in the American market. Weaker and smaller companies have already closed under threat of indictment or left the United States.

This could also be only the companies that are willing to lobby their way through legal issues survive, and the res either get hounded out by litigations or bought by the first group of companies.

What's most noticable is that start ups in non data related or financial institutions do not get the same negative attentions attention as those which handle lots of data or users finances.

[zasad@]

https://www.theblock.co/post/317428/judge-dismisses-consensys-lawsuit-against-sec-over-metamask-and-ethereum-claims?modal=newsletter
Judge dismisses Consensys lawsuit against SEC over MetaMask and Ethereum claims
Judge Reed O’Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in the Fort Worth Division dismissed Consensys’ claims and sided with the SEC on Thursday.
The dismissal follows a long back and forth between the SEC and Consensys over the past year.

A U.S. district judge has dismissed a case brought against the Securities and Exchange Commission by blockchain and web3 development company Consensys Software Inc.

Judge Reed O'Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in the Fort Worth Division dismissed Consensys' claims and sided with the SEC on Thursday.

"For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s ETH claims is GRANTED, and Counts I, II, and III are DISMISSED AS MOOT," Judge O'Connor wrote. "Plaintiff concedes it is not pursuing an APA claim under Count IV. Finally, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s MetaMask for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice."