jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

@jasper-eth

197 Following

676 Followers

Waq pfp

Today's update from the Rocket Pool community is here. This is episode 428 of Rocket Fuel for July 2nd. It includes: - onchain voting info - @0xflatmoney with more rETH on @base info - Home staking is possible - @2077Collective launches and more! https://youtu.be/u1V1FF1ls3Y

0 reply

2 recasts

6 reactions

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Sources: @TeamPOSA essay on LSTs re Howey and Reves: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/62f147feb8108a08e666aea5/t/63f41766f6095b07bec7d1e8/1676941158721/U.S.+Federal+Securities+and+Commodity+Law+Analysis+of+Liquid+Staking+Receipt+Tokens+%28Willkie+Draft+02.14.23%29.pdf https://proofofstakealliance.org/22123-posa-liquid-staking-legal-white-paper Consensys vs SEC: https://docdroid.com/YS1DSF5/sec-v-consensys-pdf#page=50 Coinbase vs SEC: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv04738/599908/105/ MM staking router contract: https://etherscan.io/address/0xc7bE520a13dC023A1b34C03F4Abdab8A43653F7B 16/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

History will not look kindly on this SEC. However, history will experience $rETH. If you made it this far, I encourage you to consider running a node at home. It's easier than you think. Also, check out all the incredible resources that I used to put this all together in the next tweet. 15/16

0 reply

1 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Finally, I want to end this thread/essay with a note on injunctive relief. Even if Consensys somehow loses and even if the SEC goes after @Rocket_Pool directly, there is little that any court can do to stop the system from autonomously running. Consider Tornado Cash. While yes volume through the dApp has slowed since it was put on the sanctions list, it has not died! It still runs! Truly decentralized applications will live on forever. Rocket Pool was designed with decentralization as both a goal and a starting point. Once upon a time there was a consideration to launch Rocket Pool in a centralized state and decentralize with time. It is possible that $rETH would have a much larger market cap if that was true, however, the growth would've been fake. Rocket Pool is immortal. The infinite garden will outlive most civilizations. No one can stop these protocols. The die is cast.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

...the factual allegations concerning Wallet are insufficient to support the plausible inference that Coinbase “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others” through its Wallet application." All these same arguments hold true for @Consensys and @MetaMask as they did with @coinbase . With this precedence and the failed attempt at asserting Consensys holds custody, it is hard to see any other outcome but summary judgment for dismissal. 14/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

With these errors in mind, I now posit why I believe @Consensys will win the suit in summary judgment. They do not need to argue that $rETH and $stETH are not securities when @coinbase recently won a very similar motion to dismiss. Judge Falia ruled that the SEC could not sue Coinbase for being a broker through the CB wallet largely because the wallet is merely a tool to interact with the blockchain. The Judge writes, "the SEC does not allege that Coinbase performs any key trading functions on behalf of its users in connection with those activities. As the Complaint acknowledges, Coinbase has no control over a user’s crypto-assets or transactions via Wallet, which product simply provides the technical infrastructure for users to arrange transactions on other DEXs in the market...providing pricing comparisons does not rise to the level of routing or making investment recommendations...the fact that Coinbase has, at times, received a commission does not, on its own, turn Coinbase into a broker...

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

What you'll notice is that in the same block that the ETH is deposited, the $stETH is minted and it is deposited into the user's wallet. There is never an opportunity for Consensys contracts to take custody of user ETH except for taking a fee (also atomically)! 13/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

The fee goes back to $rETH holders as its role is to prevent wash trading and edge case arbitrages. It is not capricious nor is it rent-seeking. It is *highly concerning* that the SEC doesn't know the difference between a trading fee and a commission in a published lawsuit! Third error, largest, arguably a straight up lie: Anyone who takes a look at the staking router contract will tell you that it is absolutely not true that the router contract temporarily holds (implying a state of custody) a user's ETH prior to the conversion to $rETH. The transaction is atomic. At one point in time, there is ETH in the user's wallet. At the very next point in time, there will instead be $rETH in their wallet and ETH deposited with @Rocket_Pool . Consensys can take a fee and they would still never have provided essential support to the user or held custody of user funds. Let's take a look at an example! You can see a version of the @MetaMask Lido contract in action here:

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

The SEC's Folly In the filings by the SEC against @Consensys regarding @MetaMask , @Rocket_Pool , and @LidoFinance , the @SECGov made several large and small errors. The first error is below: The flow described here is incorrect. The process of ETH being deposited to the beacon chain and users minting $rETH is related but distinct. This is important as it relates to the silo'd nature of the capital and lack of custodial cross-polination. Second error: The SEC, as I will go into more depth later, seems to have a poor grasp on reading smart contracts. The fee they are describing here is not applied to staking rewards! They are conflating two completely different things here. There is a commission charged by node operators from $rETH holders. There is also a fee for minting $rETH which is 0.05%. This fee is not collected by Rocket Pool LTD or node operators - this 0.05% goes straight back to $rETH holders!

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

In summary, $rETH does not meet any prong of the Howey test, Reves, or FIT21 bill. Its decentralization and lack of managerial or custodial control have established Rocket Pool as a critical protocol for Ethereum. 12/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

With the Houston upgrade the countdown begins to the fulfilment of this prong Prong 4 of FIT21: No Marketing as an Investment Doesn't get any simpler - don't market the asset as an investment within the past 3 months. ✅ Prong 5 of Fit 21: Inflation Token issuance in the last 12 months must be an end user distribution - government talk for an airdrop that: 1 is broadly distributed, 2 relates to the nature of the chain, or 3 is based on the holdings of another asset. $rETH is a non-rebasing token. This means that there are no airdrops of $rETH 11/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

The last of the three tests is FIT21. Of the three, FIT21 is the only one that is still hypothetical. I am including it as I believe it to be a highly robust test of decentralization. Prong 1 of FIT21: Power Rule This prong asserts that no single person can alter the code or censor any individual from using the protocol. With the recent Houston upgrade and passing of power to the pDAO with onchain voting, there is no person with this power. Prong 2 of FIT21: Ownership and Voting (i) - in the last year, no 'affiliated person' can own 20% of the asset ✅ (ii) - no 'person' had the power to direct 20% of voting power✅ (iii) - must give up power✅ $rETH is very distributed and governance is very egalitarian incorporating quadratic scaling. Prong 3 of FIT21: Code Changes (i) in the last three months no changes were made unless "adopted through the consensus or agreement of a decentralized governance system."

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Prong 4 of Reves: Alternative Regulator The 4th prong holds that a note may not be a security if it is better regulated under an alternative regime. In my opinion, $rETH is best served under the CFTC just like ETH. @TeamPOSA writes: "the CFTC and federal courts have deemed certain “digital assets,” including bitcoin, ether, litecoin and tether, to be statutory commodities regardless of whether futures contracts may not presently or in the future be dealt in any particular type of cryptoasset (e.g., tether)." It is worth also noting that the Supreme Court in Reves said that the uncollateralized nature of the note "an unfavorable fact when searching for risk-reducing factors to suggest the instruments were not securities." $rETH is best served under the CFTC as the only overcollateralized staking option. As an aside, such a classification would enable the ETFs to hold $rETH. This is a win for ETF consumers as $rETH provides optionality and exposure to staking in a risk-minimized fashion. 10/16

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Prong 3 of Reves: Expectations of the Public If the general population views the asset as a security, the court is more likely to view it as one as well. On this topic, it is important to note that the SEC itself admits that Rocket Pool has separated itself from the pack and earned a perfect rating on Ethereum(.)org. This high rating is one of the reasons the general investing public does *not* view $rETH to be a security. In fact, in light of the recent SEC withdrawal of investigations into Consensys over ETH2.0, the prevailing sentiment has been that $rETH is a commodity receipt - especially due to its unparalleled decentralization. 9/16

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Prong 2 of Reves: Plan of Distribution The second prong of Reves says that a security is widely distributed for trading to the general public. Fair enough - ultimately $rETH aims to be traded by any/all parties. That said, it is currently only available to those who hold ETH which is a relatively small subset of the general population. Over time, though, this will change. 8/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Further, the ETH in Rocket Pool contacts is not being raised for general business use. It is automatically distributed in staking while $rETH holders retain custody. 7/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Now that the Howey test is out of the way, the other option the SEC has is the Reves test. While I hold that $rETH is not a note but rather a commodity, I want to analyze the arguments the SEC *could* make if it went this route. After the Reves test, I will explore FIT21 and lastly the errors in the Consensys case. Prong 1 of Reves: Motivations of the Seller and Buyer The SEC holds that "If the seller’s purpose is to raise money for the general use of a business enterprise or to finance substantial investments and the buyer is interested primarily in the profit the note is expected to generate, the instrument is likely to be a ‘security.’" First off - $rETH is neither sold nor bought by the protocol. The concept of 'minting' is completely orthogonal to ideas of buying and selling. The non-custodial nature of $rETH is what enables minting rather than buying/selling.

3 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Efforts are clearly not essential as users will experience largely the same profits if they choose to hold their ETH, stake with $rETH, or use one of many competitors. The ease of switching within metamask provides a strong argument that the efforts are not "undeniably significant ones, those essential managerial efforts which affect the failure or success of the enterprise." 6/16

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

Prong 4 of Howey: Efforts of others For this prong, consider the case of gold storage. In this case, gold is stored in a facility and a receipt is created. The individual who sold the future right to the gold did not have a security relationship with the gold storage facility. The storage facility provided non-essential services and were largely unrelated to the profit or loss realized. I say largely as it seems prima facie true that gold stored in a facility will retain value better than gold held in a closet and so some degree of value fluctuation is acceptable. The same is true for $rETH. ETH is stored within the Rocket Pool contracts (more accurately within validators on the beacon chain) and users retain custody over it. As I explained in the previous section, the primary factor for profitability of $rETH in USD terms is the value of the underlying ETH. The services provided by the Rocket Pool contracts provide a minuscule fraction of the average yearly volatility.

2 replies

0 recast

0 reaction

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth pfp

jasperthefriendlyghost.Eth

I hold that staking is an ancillary feature of ETH that it provides 'insubstantial' profits. Just like growing a few plants on land for consumption and use is an inherent yet minor part of owning land, staking is an inherent yet minor part of owning ETH. In terms of USD, the average fluctuation of ETH massively outweighs the small return that one gets. One might take another approach and argue that inflation paid to $rETH holders is compensation for work provided in defense of Ethereum rather than profit. The primary feature of staking is *not* profit seeking - it is providing security and functionality to the Ethereum blockchain. This role inherently requires cryptoeconomic incentives. Thus, the argument is that there is not an expectation of profit, but a desire to make use of one's ETH and receive compensation from it. An analogy could be made to storing plants in a greenhouse - the plants will grow but the relationship is only that of warehouse bailment. 5/16

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction