SEC's crypto confusion deepens as next-gen ETFs test limits
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel
A new line of yield-chasing crypto funds is forcing the Securities and Exchange Commission to confront unresolved gaps in its regulatory framework, just as the Trump administration eases oversight of digital assets.The immediate dispute centres on two proposed funds from ETF firms REX Financial and Osprey Funds that would allow investors to earn rewards by deploying Ether and Solana tokens to help validate blockchain transactions, a process known as staking. The firms said they had cleared an initial SEC registration hurdle last week, but agency staff took the unusual step of objecting that very same evening. Staff warned the products may not meet standards to qualify as investment companies under federal law, raising broader questions about the regulation of a hot corner of the crypto-investment world.SEC staff noted that to meet the definition of an investment company, a firm must primarily invest in securities. That's a problem when it comes to digital assets: there are no clear lines around what crypto activities trip securities laws and what don't.'When ETFs generate income from staking, they may start to resemble traditional investment companies under the Investment Company Act — especially if investors are relying on the managerial efforts of others to earn those returns,' said Adam Gana, an attorney at law firm Gana Weinstein LLP. 'However, these types of ETFs are testing the boundaries of what counts as an investment company, and the SEC is sending mixed signals.'Gana added that 'just because you throw some stocks into the mix doesn't mean the SEC will look the other way.'The SEC, REX and Osprey declined to comment. The general counsel at REX said earlier that the firm expected to satisfy the SEC's questions.The crypto industry has long argued that many tokens aren't securities and shouldn't fall under the SEC rules. Under Trump, the agency has appeared open to these arguments, and its new chair, Paul Atkins, is a proponent of digital currencies. SEC staff guidance has signalled that memecoins and stablecoins may fall outside securities definitions.As recently as May 29, the staff said federal securities laws generally don't apply to staking activities — further complicating the regulatory picture as firms try to launch novel products.These piecemeal statements create inconsistent policy, according to Corey Frayer, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America.'The SEC and the industry don't get to treat crypto assets as securities when it's convenient, and not as securities when they want weaker regulation,' said Frayer, who served as a senior adviser to former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, a frequent target of crypto industry scorn.At the crux of the matter is the so-called Howey test , which comes from a 1946 Supreme Court decision that still governs securities classification. Under the test, an asset can be considered a security — and thus will fall under SEC purview — if investors contribute capital with the expectation derived from the managerial efforts of others. Bitcoin is generally considered a commodity but the status of other tokens like Ether and Solana are less clear.SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, head of the agency's crypto task force, took the unusual step of highlighting the SEC staff's queries about whether the proposed funds met the definition.'I have those same questions,' Peirce wrote in a post on X.Donald Trump embraced the digital-asset industry during his reelection campaign, pledging to make the US the 'crypto capital of the planet.' Since re-entering the White House, he has established a national stockpile of Bitcoin, anointed a 'crypto czar' and welcomed memecoin enthusiasts to a private dinner in Washington.Firms have recently been successful in resolving SEC staff concerns about novel offerings. Earlier this year, agency staffers rebuked an ETF by State Street Corp. and Apollo Global Management — the world's first to invest in private credit — hours after the fund listed over concerns about the fund's liquidity and its ability to comply with valuation rules. The firms took action to rectify the issues.Crypto executives are optimistic that US regulators will eventually greenlight the staking ETFs.'They've followed a crawl-walk-run approach — first futures ETFs, then spot ETFs, and hopefully staking ETFs,' said Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at Bitwise Asset Management Inc., which acquired an Ethereum staking platform last year. 'I'm hopeful we'll get to the finish line soon.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes - tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Kardioloog: Buikvet na je 50e? Stop dit in je schoenen Gezondheidstip By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 - including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit - would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. Live Events That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. "It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue," said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments - and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. "It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. "I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. "It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. "It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. "Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program - the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called "Liberation Day'' April 2 - saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened "countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. "You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy," York said. "You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said - more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. "If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are "a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Musk To Mattis: How Trump's List Of 'Derangement Syndrome' Critics Keeps Growing
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. Trump accused Musk of "Trump derangement syndrome" after previously praising him. This follows critiques from former aides who labelled Trump as divisive and authoritarian. Many Republicans now oppose him, highlighting a significant rift within his own party. US President Donald Trump said that billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk was suffering from 'Trump derangement syndrome', just days after praising and celebrating him in the Oval Office as a farewell. He even gifted him a golden key as a gift which he reserves for 'very special people'. Trump cited Musk's opposition to the Republican agenda and said that he is 'not the first', which might suggest that he is aware that people who had been once close aides have become 'hostile', as he says. He added, 'I don't know what it is.' The president also said at the Oval Office on Thursday, "He (Elon Musk) hasn't said bad things about me personally, but I'm sure that will be next.' In Urban Dictionary, it has been defined as a "mental condition" wherein a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of the US President "to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason.' According to a July 2018 report by CNN, Trump Derangement Syndrome goes back to the early 2000s when the idea of having Trump as US President was a "punch line for late-night comics". Members of a presidential team work closely together, and even more closely with the president. Many officials who have witnessed his leadership style up close, have all been part of this club. John Kelly Kelly was the retired Marine general who was Trump's former chief of staff. He said that the latter fits 'into the general definition of fascist', he also said that the president spoke about the loyalty of Hitler's Nazi generals. He also told the New York Times that Trump 'certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.' Kelly told the Times that Trump 'never accepted the fact that he wasn't the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted.' In response to criticisms from Kelly, Trump wrote on his social media platform, 'Thank you for your support against a total degenerate named John Kelly, who made up a story out of pure Trump Derangement Syndrome Hatred! This guy had two qualities, which don't work well together. He was tough and dumb.' Mark Esper Esper served as the Secretary of Defence for Trump for only 18 months. He said that the president wanted to use the military in ways he thought was inappropriate and they often clashed. Finally, Trump fired Esper in November 2020. He also made a shocking revelation that Trump inquired about shooting people who took part in the protest after George Floyd's murder in 2020. "We need leaders of integrity and character, and we need leaders who will bring people together and reach across the aisle and do what's best for the country. And Donald Trump doesn't meet the mark for me on any of those issues', he said, per NPR. Donald Trump has said that he did not want recommendations for staff associated with some of his political enemies. 'In order to save time, money, and effort, it would be helpful if you would not send, or recommend to us, people who worked with, or are endorsed by, Americans for No Prosperity (headed by Charles Koch), 'Dumb as a Rock' John Bolton, 'Birdbrain' Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, disloyal Warmongers Dick Cheney, and his Psycho daughter, Liz, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, General(?) Mark Milley, James Mattis, Mark Yesper, or any of the other people suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, more commonly known as TDS,' Trump posted on Truth Social. Mark Milley Pete Hegseth, US Defence Secretary, had revoked the personal security detail and security clearance for Mark Milley in one of his first acts in the job, according to Reuters. Milley was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Trump. He, too, said that Trump was 'fascist to the core' in 'War', a book by journalist Bob Woodward. In his 2023 farewell speech, he said that the military does not swear allegiance to a "wannabe dictator", referring to Trump. James Mattis Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis served as President Trump's first defence secretary. 'Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,' Mattis said in a statement obtained by CNN. 'We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership', he added. Mattis criticised the president after long refusing to do it. His remarks are one of the strongest to date by a former Pentagon leader. Mike Pence Pence, Trump's former Vice President, has now become a prominent Republican critic. 'I've never been a fan of American presidents criticizing America on foreign soil,' he said on NBC. 'And particularly giving that speech in Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed from, not including Osama bin Laden, I thought was unfortunate,' he continued. Stephanie Grisham Trump's former White House press secretary condemned Trump after working with him and also urged the public to vote against him at the Democratic National Convention. "I saw him when the cameras were off, behind closed doors. Trump mocks his supporters. He calls them basement dwellers," she said, adding that he had "no morals and no fidelity to the truth". She was one of the few Republicans to address a Democratic gathering. 'I never thought I'd be speaking at a Democratic convention,' Grisham stated. 'But, after seeing firsthand who Donald Trump really is, and the threat he poses to our country, I feel very strongly about speaking out.' Replying to Grisham's statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in an email, 'Stephanie Grisham is a stone-cold loser who clearly suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome and many other mental issues'. Moreover, there are other Republicans too who have left Trump's side or criticise him, whom the latter has labelled 'disloyal', such as Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Trump had called them "extremely difficult" and wrote "Why are they allowing Fentanyl to pour into our Country unchecked, and without penalty. What is wrong with them, other than suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly known as TDS?" in aTruth Social post. Now Musk has unexpectedly joined them. The opposition that Trump has faced from members from his own team is unprecedented in the history of America.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
2 hours ago
- First Post
The Deng doctrine: How China weaponises rare earths to gain leverage in trade war with the US
China has signalled for more than 15 years that it was looking to weaponise areas of the global supply chain, a strategy modelled on longstanding American export controls Beijing views as aimed at stalling its rise. read more China has long indicated its intention to weaponise parts of the global supply chain—a strategy now visibly playing out through tighter control of rare earth exports. Modelled on longstanding US export restrictions that Beijing believes are designed to limit its technological rise, China is now turning similar tools to its own advantage. The recent rush by companies to secure export licences for rare earth materials, culminating in a phone call between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, highlights how Beijing has refined a powerful lever in the ongoing trade war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Industry experts say China may approve more shipments in the near term but it has no plans to dismantle the new system underpinning those approvals. Instead, China's new export licensing regime, closely mirroring the US model grants the government deeper visibility into global supply chokepoints including critical sectors such as electric vehicle motors and precision systems used in missiles. This level of control offers Beijing a potent means to retaliate in the trade dispute while asserting dominance in strategically vital markets. China sharpens rare earth export controls in trade war playbook As relations between the two countries sour and supply chains fracture, both Washington and Beijing appear determined to shift from broad tariffs to more focused, technical barriers—ones that could have lasting implications for industries worldwide. 'China originally took inspiration for these export control methods from the comprehensive U.S. sanctions regime,' Zhu Junwei, a scholar at the Grandview Institution, a Beijing-based think tank focused on international relations told Reuters. 'China has been trying to build its own export control systems since then, to be used as a last resort.' After a phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Trump said the two leaders were 'straightening out some of the points,' particularly regarding rare earth magnets—key components in electric vehicle (EV) motors and high-tech weaponry. But Trump did not confirm whether Beijing had agreed to speed up export licensing, a sticking point since Washington imposed restrictions on chip design software and jet engines over what it calls China's deliberate slow-walking of approvals. China, which holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, added some of the most advanced types to its export control list in April. The move forces all exporters to seek government licences before shipping these materials, turning a once-obscure division of the commerce ministry—staffed by around 60 people—into a powerful gatekeeper of global manufacturing. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The export curbs, part of a broader retaliation package against US tariffs, have had ripple effects well beyond the US. Several European auto parts manufacturers were forced to shut down production lines this week after exhausting their supply of rare earth magnets, underscoring the global reach of Beijing's measures. Though China's commerce ministry has not publicly commented on the issue, analysts say the blanket controls offer Beijing both leverage in its trade war with Washington and a strategic tool to reshape global supply chains in its favour. 'Beijing has a degree of plausible deniability – no one can prove China is doing this on purpose,' Noah Barkin, senior adviser at Rhodium Group, a China-focused U.S. thinktank told Reuters. 'But the rate of approvals is a pretty clear signal that China is sending a message, exerting pressure to prevent trade negotiations with the U.S. leading to additional technology control.' China mines about 70% of the world's rare earths but maintains a near-monopoly on refining and processing, giving it a powerful position in global manufacturing. Even if export approvals accelerate, as U.S. President Donald Trump indicated after a call with President Xi Jinping, Beijing's new licensing system offers it unprecedented visibility into how companies use these critical materials. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD European and U.S. executives warn that by forcing exporters to apply for licences, China's government can now closely monitor supplier chokepoints in sectors ranging from electric vehicles to advanced weaponry, oversight that other governments lack due to the complexity of global supply chains. Hundreds of Japanese companies are expected to need Chinese export approvals for rare earth magnets in the coming weeks, a person lobbying on their behalf told Reuters. Without timely licences, they risk production disruptions, underscoring how Beijing's new trade tools could reshape access to materials essential to modern industry. 'It's sharpening China's scalpel,' said a US-based executive at a company seeking to piece together an alternative supply chain who sought anonymity. 'It's not a way to oversee the export of magnets, but a way to gain influence and advantage over America.' China's export controls deepen as fears grow over weaponisation of supply chain power Fears that China could weaponise its dominance in critical supply chains first emerged in 2010, when it briefly halted rare earth exports to Japan during a territorial dispute. But those concerns have intensified in recent years as Beijing sharpens its trade tools and broadens export restrictions across strategic sectors. As far back as 1992, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping noted, 'The Middle East has oil, China has rare earths.' That sentiment has shaped policy: in 2020, China passed a sweeping Export Control Law allowing it to restrict exports of any items deemed vital to national security, including materials, technology and data. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since then, China has built up its own sanctions arsenal in response to U.S. restrictions, investing heavily in alternative supply chains while tightening its grip on key exports. In 2022, the United States imposed broad curbs on chip and semiconductor tool exports to China, aiming to slow the country's military and AI advancements. But analysts say Beijing has continued to make headway despite those barriers. In retaliation, China has steadily expanded its export controls. Last year it imposed licensing requirements for gallium, germanium, and certain graphite products—vital inputs for defence, electronics, and green technologies. Shipments of these minerals to the U.S. were banned outright in December. Then in February, China added five more metals to its control list. Now, following a phone call between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, attention has turned to whether China will ease its latest rare earth export curbs. But analysts warn of a lack of transparency. 'It's virtually impossible to know what percentage of requests for non-military end users get approved because the data is not public and companies don't want to publicly confirm either way,' said Cory Combs, an analyst at China-focused consultancy Trivium. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The opaqueness of Beijing's process and its expanding powers over chokepoint materials are reinforcing Western concerns that supply chains are becoming geopolitical battlegrounds. With inputs from agencies
