Representatives from various prestigious universities recently convened with the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Crypto Task Force on June 23 to delve into the intricacies of a staking rulebook. The meeting brought together delegates from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Chicago Law School, and venture firm Placeholder.
According to reports from the meeting, the discussions primarily revolved around defining staking in a precise manner, establishing economic guardrails, and enforcing open-source requirements for staking digital assets.
Under the banner of Blockchain and Law at Berkeley (BLAB), the delegation put forth a proposal urging the SEC to officially certify the term “staking” for products that engage in protocol-level validation, with a prerequisite of obtaining pre-approval for any retail marketing that uses the label. Drawing parallels to the mutual-fund “80% names rule,” the group emphasized the importance of using accurate terminology to prevent custodial yield programs from being misrepresented as core network staking.
Furthermore, the BLAB recommended setting a cap on published yields at a protocol’s base reward rate and restricting intermediary fees to 5% of those rewards to deter aggressive advertising practices. Providers could potentially justify higher fees with auditable cost data but would need to adhere to standardized on-interface disclosures of gross network yield, net customer payout, and slashing liability to ensure transparency for users.
The meeting came in the wake of a May 29 staff bulletin where the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance stated that self-staking, delegated staking, and most non-custodial services do not trigger securities registration requirements. While industry participants see this as a positive development, there is still a need for clarity from the Internal Revenue Service on how grantor-trust structures can distribute staking rewards.
In light of these regulatory changes, the universities emphasized the need for transparency beyond mere disclosure. They proposed the implementation of public dashboards showcasing validator influence, uptime, censorship behavior, jurisdictional exposure, and an open-source mandate for any client software interacting with consensus. Additionally, they suggested imposing licensing thresholds for entities controlling a significant share of network stake to ensure accountability.
The SEC acknowledged these recommendations and stated that further guidance would be provided on whether the regulatory safe harbor for staking would evolve into a formalized framework. As stakeholders eagerly await more clarity, the collaboration between academic proponents and industry experts highlights the ongoing efforts to enhance regulatory standards in the burgeoning crypto space.