/>iThe most important development of the last two weeks is likely the release of a revised bipartisan digital asset market structure bill in Congress, which now gives real momentum to the possibility of comprehensive legislation. At the same time, the SEC is continuing to reposition its posture, pulling back from aggressive litigation, acknowledging areas outside its jurisdiction such as staking, and signaling a more measured approach as we await the first report from its new Crypto Task Force. Meanwhile, the courts continue to shape the legal boundaries of decentralized finance, as seen in the closely watched ruling overturning fraud charges in the Mango Markets case.
These developments and a few other brief notes are discussed below.
Bipartisan Market Structure (“CLARITY Act”) Bill Text Released: May 29, 2025
Background: After releasing draft language of an unnamed market structure bill a few weeks ago, a revised and now titled version, the CLARITY Act, dropped last week. Sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill, the bill has five Republican and three Democratic co-sponsors, all members of either the House Financial Services or House Agriculture Committees. It is expected to be fast-tracked for markup in the Financial Services Committee, as early as June 10th, so this could move quickly through committees. Broader House timing remains unclear, however, as Congressional attention is divided among numerous competing priorities beyond digital asset regulation.
Analysis: The sponsors appear to have seriously considered industry feedback, and several technology-specific issues flagged in the prior version were meaningfully addressed. For example, many pointed to the definition of “Decentralized Finance Trading Protocol,” previously criticized as overly broad, has been revised and now more closely tracks the drafters’ likely intent. There was a hearing earlier this week in the House Financial Services Committee (which we will cover in the next Bi-Weekly update), which was designed to discuss digital asset regulation more broadly but focused heavily on this bill as well.
SEC Releases Guidance That Certain Proof of Stake Staking Activities Do Not Implicate Securities Laws: May 29, 2025
Background: The SEC Division of Corporate Finance put out a “Statement on Certain Protocol Staking Activities” clarifying its view that certain proof-of-stake blockchain protocol “staking” activities are not securities transactions within the scope of the federal securities laws. This follows related guidance on Proof-of-Work mining which was put out in March. “Accordingly, it is the Division’s view that participants in Protocol Staking Activities do not need to register with the Commission transactions under the Securities Act or fall within one of the Securities Act’s exemptions from registration in connection with these Protocol Staking Activities.”
Analysis: This likely clears the way for staking in ETH ETFs or other ETFs linked to proof-of-stake blockchain assets, which may be approved in the near future (although there are still tax and other securities law issues that could make this complicated). It is unclear how this might affect the prior Kraken consent order, as many of the staking services offered by Kraken now appear to be “Ancillary Services” under this guidance. It is great to see all this guidance coming out, but until the guidance is formalized into rulemaking or until there is action from Congress in this area, then the industry is left with few, if any, assurances those viewpoints will continue under different leadership.
SEC Moves to Dismiss Binance Case with Prejudice: May 29, 2025
Background: The SEC has asked the Court to dismiss the agency’s case against the various Binance entities and its founder, Changpeng Zhao (“CZ”), with prejudice, which would bring an end to the cases brought under the prior administration against the biggest U.S. digital asset exchanges, which we have been covering on the BiBlog. This follows previously dismissing cases against Coinbase and Kraken and closing investigations into OpenSea, Circle, and others shortly after the change in administration and resignation of prior SEC Chair Gary Gensler.
Analysis: As we noted in our 2024 year-end digital asset rundown, the cases against various exchanges were bet-the-company litigation for all the exchanges sued. If it was ruled that sales on the platforms of exceedingly common tokens like SOL were securities transactions, that would have made it difficult for most individuals to transact in digital assets in the United States, particularly those lacking experience interacting with decentralized finance. With these lawsuits behind the exchanges, all eyes turn to formal guidance and rulemaking from the SEC/CFTC and whether there will be comprehensive digital asset legislation out of Congress, which is currently being considered by both chambers.
Conviction Overturned in Mango Markets Exploit: May 23, 2025
Background: District Court Judge Arun Subramanian has overturned the fraud convictions against Mango Markets exploiter Avraham (“Avi”) Eisenberg, ruling that venue was improper since there was no evidence that the routing engine for Avi’s trades were in New York. The more interesting ruling, though, was finding there was insufficient evidence of falsity to support a wire-fraud charge (see ruling starting at pg. 26). The Court ruled that because the user terms and conditions didn’t make intent to repay a condition upon borrowing, and because Avi didn’t make any false representations about the value of his assets (he just exploited an oracle into making those false representations for him), the government could not support a fraud conviction, ruling “[o]n a platform with no rules, instructions, or prohibitions about borrowing, the government needed more to show that Eisenberg made an implicit misrepresentation by allowing the algorithm to measure the actual value of his collateral.”
Analysis: This case raises broader questions about what level of human interaction is needed for “wire fraud,” where the alleged fraud is primarily being perpetrated against an algorithm and not a person. There remains the issue that Avi sued Numeris, Ltd. before the Mango Markets trading activities, claiming it was fraud for others to artificially increase the price of tokens to borrow against knowingly inflated values, similar to what Avi did in his exploit. It seems disingenuous to claim “code is law” for his actions while he previously asked the government to save his funds when a protocol that he was using had a similar exploit. Avi is still going to jail on other charges to which he pled guilty. It will be interesting to see how the case law regarding the extent “code-is-law” holds up in the use of permissionless protocols.
Briefly Noted:
401K and Bitcoin Reserve Updates: The Department of Labor has retracted guidance discouraging retirement managers from considering cryptocurrency as an investment option in 401(k) plans. This came as Whitehouse Crypto Czar David Sacks was at a major Bitcoin conference in Vegas where he talked about how the announced Bitcoin strategic reserve is progressing.
Reputational Risk Ban Passes House Committee: The House Financial Services Committee advanced on a 33-19 bipartisan vote a bill that would prohibit federal banking agencies from considering “reputational risk” when supervising, examining, or regulating depository institutions.
SEC Crypto Task Force Updates: The SEC is set to release its first Crypto Task Force Report in the upcoming months; meanwhile Commissioner Peirce delivered a great speech about the importance of the SEC setting clear rules of the road for the space (including noting where the SEC doesn’t have jurisdiction).
Emmer and Torres Reintroduce Right to Code Law: Tom Emmer (R-MN) and Ritchie Torres (D-NY) have reintroduced legislation that would protect the developers of non-custodial blockchain software developers and providers from being classified as money transmitters. This would be huge in convincing developers to stay in the United States when developing blockchain-enabled technologies.
CFTC U.S. Persons Guidance: The CFTC put out some helpful guidance on what they consider to be U.S. persons subject to CFTC jurisdiction in an internet age. This guidance provides that where the company’s high-level officers primarily direct, control, and coordinate the company’s activities is most important for determining whether the company is considered a domestic entity for CFTC jurisdictional purposes.
SafeMoon CEO Found Guilty of Fraud: Braden Karony, the former CEO of SafeMoon, was convicted on three counts of fraud after he was ruled to have diverted millions of tokens, which he said were “locked,” and sold those tokens for personal gain.
Investment Company Act Status of ETFs Questioned: The SEC Division of Investment Management, in a letter to a crypto ETF operator, stated that, in light of recent developments, it is unsure that the ETFs are investment companies that can register under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Generally, a company wouldn’t be an investment company if, among other things, less than 40% of its assets constituted investment securities. Registration statements, application requirements, and ongoing reporting requirements are different for investment companies and other issuers, and certain crypto ETFs (including Bitcoin ETFs) already register as non-investment companies. This calls into question whether the SEC might be exploring rule changes more tailored towards this type of entity.
Conclusion:
These developments mark a potential turning point in the digital asset regulatory landscape. With Congress moving forward on bipartisan legislation like the CLARITY Act and federal agencies such as the SEC and CFTC issuing meaningful (if still preliminary) guidance, the pieces of a more coherent framework are starting to take shape. However, the regulatory environment remains fragmented and uncertain, especially absent formal rulemaking or statutory clarity. As agencies shift direction and courts weigh in on key enforcement matters, market participants should remain vigilant, engage with regulators, and prepare for a fast-evolving legal landscape where the line between code and law continues to be tested.
