Exclusive interview with SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce: Ethereum ETF may have staking potential in the future

Original source: Coinage

Original translation: Wu said blockchain

In an interview with Zack Guzman of Coinage, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce shared her views on cryptocurrency regulation, the Bitcoin ETF approval process, market futures, and future regulatory directions. She also discussed the impact of SAB-121 and Congress’ efforts to define securities and commodities. Peirce emphasized the importance of industry self-regulation and the role of government, and expressed optimism about future changes in regulatory culture.

Ethereum ETF approved without a committee vote, what is the actual situation behind it?

Peirce: Its not that unusual that there was no committee vote. A lot of these ETP approvals are done at the delegation level, meaning we delegate authority to staff and staff can approve them without a formal committee vote. But I think thats not that unusual because we have a bitcoin exchange-traded product. The court told us we had to basically move forward, and thats what happened. And then applying that same logic, we really dont have a lot of options for approval of these ETPs.

What is the difference between a Bitcoin ETF and an Ethereum ETF?

Peirce: I think the Bitcoin ETF is really unusual because after years of buildup and so many different people trying to get approval, theyre all going to go live, and everybody knows theyre going to go live at the same time, and theres so much anticipation around it. And while there was anticipation around the ETH ETF, what were seeing is an iterative process where they get approved in terms of trading and markets, and then they still have to go through the corporate finance process, which is whats happening now. So I think the atmosphere around the ETH ETF is much calmer. I think thats the main difference. Really, we shouldnt be looking to create drama when these products are launched, it should be that they go live and then we see if people are willing to buy them, and thats how it should work.

Staking was removed from the application early on, why, and is there any possibility of change?

Peirce: Regarding the removal of staking from the application, I dont comment on what happened between the staff and the issuer. But I think that products with certain functions, such as staking or other functions, can always be reconsidered.

Does the Solana ETF application require a futures market for approval?

Peirce: Im a little hesitant to comment on these applications because theyre before us. I cant comment on them. What I can say is that we have to look at the facts and the circumstances. What people need to do is they need to look at the precedents of previous ETPs, not just crypto ETPs, but other kinds of ETPs, and make a case that they can be approved under existing laws and rules. So we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I think people need to look at whether there are other types of markets or products that dont have futures markets as an underpinning and then they can make a case based on that.

Should SAB-121 be repealed, and what would be the impact on cryptocurrency custody?

Peirce: I think the process by which SAB 121 was issued was terrible. To me, it actually looks like a rulemaking that could have been done with public comment, maybe by FASB considering this rather than us. But regardless, we should have had a public comment period, and we didnt. The attempt to overturn it was unsuccessful. But before the attempt to overturn it, SAB 121 had been expanded in scope. Initially it was primarily for public companies, and then it started to apply to broker-dealers. It had a lot of verbal guidance about what broker-dealers could and couldnt do. Now were hearing that there are other kinds of adjustments or changes, and its all being done in a very opaque way. I dont understand how thats doing people any good. We should have followed the process. Im very disappointed with SAB 121, and I think we can do better and should have done better.

One of the reasons Ive always been against SAB 121 is that it takes the position that we dont want experienced participants custodial cryptocurrencies, which to me is a very strange and investor protection-detrimental position. So I welcome more people coming in and participating in the custody space as it develops. But it should be done in an orderly manner. I think its a positive development to have participants with experience in other areas involved in crypto. Unfortunately, whether its at the SEC or elsewhere in the government, the government often tries to expel participants who are interested in participating but are not welcome. So this is really a potentially positive development. I hope to see more participants entering the custody and crypto space.

FIT-21 determined that Congress can draw the boundaries of cryptocurrency. Are you proud or concerned about the regulatory direction you are seeing so far?

Peirce: I think its great that Congress is taking the time to think about these very difficult questions (drawing the line between what cryptocurrencies are and arent allowed in the U.S.) that we could have taken a more aggressive stance on in the regulatory space, and that Congress is trying to provide some guidance. I think its a positive step for the U.S. to have a real conversation around these issues and try to find the right solutions.

But I think were still in a bad place on the regulatory side because were still driving policy through enforcement, and thats not the way policy should be driven. It should be about thinking about a regulatory framework and then starting from there, and then using enforcement to deal with fraud.

Another area that Ive been pushing hard is the global stablecoin space around cross-border payments and tokenization on the blockchain. I think the U.S. probably wont be at the forefront of that path, and seeing how other countries are trying to build an environment for people to experiment with these things is a great example for us to learn from. I still think we can do that with some rules or a sandbox experimentation framework. Because the rest of the world will do it. I dont want us to fall behind. I think we have a strong ability in the U.S. to try these experiments, so I hope we can do that at some point.

Has the culture within the SEC changed? Are you optimistic about the future direction of regulation?

Peirce: Cultural change requires some positive steps, working with people and providing guidance. I am optimistic about future regulatory cultural change because I see people finding positive ways to interact with the industry. Ensuring the vitality of the industry is very important to us and it is one of my priorities.

If you became SEC Chairman, what would be your highest priority?

Peirce: Ensuring the vitality of the industry, allowing investors to make their own decisions, and ensuring that we dont create unnecessary obstacles in rulemaking.

Original link