Hacker News Reader

Comment by paul_funyun | Hacker News Reader

Ethereum post-merge looks a hell of a lot like a security. We'll see what regulators do, but it's concerning that the Ethereum Foundation has been so quiet about regulatory hazard.

Also alarming is the question marks as to when you'll be able to withdraw staked Ethereum, given the security risks from attacks intended to cause slashing and the dependence on total stake for what the staking rewards are.

View on HN

Do you have more specifics in what you are referring to?

Ethereum PoW could be seen (if you squint hard enough) as some sort of activity that produces a good (through mining) and its respective marketplace.

Ehereum PoS is just a financial asset with a weird governing structure (like a currency future? idk). It's basically standard stock.

Something is called a 'good' if it has some inherent with to some people. PoW does not. Exhaust gas isn't a good either.

PoW and PoS are both financially assets with a weird governing structure, I'd say.

Staking ETH pays interest, so buying ETH is buying an interest-bearing asset (i.e. a security). Some of the biggest players in staking will be exchanges who will likely give some (most) of the interest they earn to their depositors.

Those exchanges are then a ripe target for existing securities regulation, and they'll also be the biggest validators on the network, so risk for them is risk for the whole network.

> Those exchanges are then a ripe target for existing securities regulation, and they'll also be the biggest validators on the network, so risk for them is risk for the whole network.

This. Of all comments this is the centralization risk on top of proof-of-stake which will have a more involved focus on staking with it being highly likely that it now passes the Howey test that ETH looking more like a security, with the Ethereum Foundation at the center of all of this.

> Staking ETH pays interest, so buying ETH is buying an interest-bearing asset

Buying Eth will be the same as before. What you could say, is staking Eth is what makes it an interest-bearing asset, not just buying Eth.

As far as I understand, without any work (energy consumption) that is directly tied to the value of the asset, there's no argument left for it to be a currency, i.e. it can only be categorised as a security asset.

Buying Eth: No investment in a common enterprise, no expectation of profit nor is that non-profit derived from others. Not a security.

Staking Eth: Investment in common enterprise, expectation of profit and profit derived from others. Looks and quacks like a security.

Buying and holding Eth without staking it shouldn't be considered a security, while staking said Eth should be considered a security. At least if we're still following the "Howey Test".

If there were two tokens, one of which was stakeable and the other not, traded separately but convertible, then sure. But that's not reality. ETH's value is in part defined by its ability to bear interest. Whether you personally stake or not has no bearing on whether your ETH is a security.

Staked ETH derives profit from your own effort. You have to buy equipment (consumer-grade computer), pay for internet and energy costs to have it plugged and put your own effort in maintaining it online, operational and secure. This is basically a side-job for techies but a side-job in the end. Staked ETH rewards are thus not passive income and staked ETH is not a security. In a similar manner that rental income is taxed as income and a landowner that rents an appartment is not issuing an illegal security.

A different thing is what happens with a liquid staking token like stETH, a much better argument can be made that it quacks and walks like a security.

The profit is to be derived from the efforts of others. People staking at this point are entirely dependent on the Foundation to add the ability to withdraw your staked ETH. Do stakers expect to make a profit if the Foundation doesn't add this feature?

The foundation doesn't add anything because they don't write the clients. The foundation does research and gives grants using its resources to fund specific areas and fund related infrastructure. The next upgrade and what it includes is agreed by the various open source clients and is enforced by the validators when they decide to upgrade and implement the changes.

Besides that important clarification, validators are already receiving income for their efforts. The tips and MEV are already flowing to their wallets as we speak, it's only the issuance that is locked. The particular change required to unlock funds is rather trivial and can be implemented on your own even if you wanted to. But doing so without a large consensus of validators would fork you out of the main chain and those unlocked coins could be rather useless, this should show the delicate balance that decentralized consensus involves.

It's not passive though. You get paid for running a node and validating transactions. You stake ETH as a surety bond that you'll do it correctly.

Those things are not as coupled as you make them sound: the vast majority of people getting paid interest on their ETH won't be running a node. They'll be receiving interest passed on by exchanges or other centralised entities that are staking their ETH.

And if those entities give them some kind of token they can trade around, giving them rights to their deposit plus some profits, that token might well be a security.

But if I loan you dollars and you promise to do something profitable and give me more dollars back, that doesn't make the dollar a security.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com