SEC regulatory camp faces disagreements: Can the liquidity staking policy truly clarify?

The internal regulatory stance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on liquid staking has shown clear divergence. New Chair Paul Atkins expressed support for the department’s statement on liquid staking on August 5, calling it “an important step in clarifying staff views on crypto asset activities.” However, Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw subsequently issued a statement questioning it, criticizing the declaration for having serious flaws.

Crenshaw’s “Precarious” Criticism

In her personal statement, the federal regulator unabashedly expressed her dissatisfaction. She believes that the SEC’s financial department’s statement on liquid staking contains fatal flaws—an array of unsupported factual assumptions layered upon each other, ultimately constructing a logical framework that is severely disconnected from industry realities.

Crenshaw specifically emphasized that the statement lacks sufficient legal analysis and a solid factual basis. She stated that, given these flaws, the guidance that businesses engaged in liquid staking can derive from this statement is very limited. She also added a key point: this statement only represents the staff’s position, not the official view of the entire commission.

The Subtle Power Play in Regulatory Attitudes

Contrasting Crenshaw’s stern stance, the new SEC Chair Atkins gave clear support to the statement. He stated that the SEC is committed to providing clear guidance on the application of federal securities laws in the emerging fintech space, and that the department’s statement helps clarify which crypto asset activities are outside SEC regulation.

The original statement issued by the SEC’s financial department on August 5 aimed to clarify whether certain liquid staking activities constitute securities. This move was seen as a potential positive signal within the crypto community, but now it appears that there are still significant disagreements within the SEC on this issue.

Crenshaw’s critical voice serves as a reminder to market participants that judging the regulatory environment’s improvement based solely on a staff statement may be overly optimistic. This regulatory debate will ultimately influence industry understanding of liquid staking compliance.