The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Encryption Steaking ETFUncertainty about the launch of the first funds associated with Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL) steak. These concerns focus on whether these products are legally qualified as ETF (Exchange-Traded Fund) in accordance with the US Securities Law.
SEC closely examines Ether Leeum and Solana Starking Fund.
In the letter on the date of Friday, the SEC handled the ETF Opportunities Trust directly and expressed the reservation for two proposed products: Rex-Ostrey Etheerim ETF and Rex-Ostrey Solana ETF. This fund developed by Rex financial and OSPREY FUNDS aims to provide staying exposure. Investors aim to subdue investors to obtain rewards by holding and locking encryption assets and securing a blockchain network.
However, the SEC questioned whether they were their structure. Encryption Steaking ETF According to the Investment Company Act of 1940, we meet the necessary standards. If this is not suitable for this legal framework, these funds may not be deserved to be listed on the public exchange.
The regulators also proposed that they could “potentially mislead” when they explained the registration statements of ETFS and explained the classification and structure. This unresolved problem has been discontinued for market approval, and significant modifications may be required before launch.
Legal classification is still dark
The core of the SEC’s concern is the legitimate gray area surrounding encryption assets and staying mechanisms. The agency recently announced a guideline that participants do not necessarily need to register their activities. However, by raising an opposition to this ETF, the SEC seems to contradict its position.
GREG Collett, a legal advisor of Rex financial, expressed optimism with an opinion on Bloomberg. Meanwhile, the Rex Financial and Water Repair Funds refused to mention more.
If it is approved, the Rex-OSPrey product becomes the first product. Encryption Steaking ETF Tied to ETH and SOL, the first point solana etf. These milestones can indicate the turning point of mainstream encryption exposure through regulated investment means.
The CRENSHAW commissioner slams regulatory discretion.
Debate Encryption Steaking ETF Caroline CRENSHAW turned another direction when I publicly criticized the Caroline Caroline CRENSHAW’s inconsistency. In the statement published on Saturday, Censhaw challenged the concept that ETH and SOL could be considered securities, but in other cases, it could be considered securities.
She wrote: “We saw a statement of employee after the staff statement, and that all kinds of encryption assets were not securities, but now we are not opposed to the effects of new exchange transactions that claim certain encryption assets.
CRENSHAW’s opinion reflects a wide range of tensions on how to approach digital assets within the SEC, which evolves faster than regulators can respond. Her pointed out questioned whether the Commission developed a consistent legal framework for encryption ETF and staying.
This is what it means for investors and markets
For investors, delay reminds us of regulatory risks related to the encryption sector. Potential Encryption Steaking ETF Uncertain legal environments can prevent the funds and traditional financial institutions from diving.
In addition, the position of the SEC may affect the method of ETF applications in the next few months of other moorings associated with Bitcoin (Crypto: BTC), Ethereum (Crypto: ETH) or Solana (Crypto: SOL).
Despite these challenges, appetite for encryption connection ETFs continues to grow. Major players such as Blackrock (NYSE: BLK), Fidelity and InveSco are actively exploring new encryption products, including Spot Bitcoin ETF and futures -based products.
Regardless of whether the product staying product is ultimately approved, it is clear that the path requires legal clarity, consistent regulatory location and industry leader and policymaker. Until then Encryption Steaking ETF Promising in digital asset investment, but still uncertain.
Main Images: FreePik © Fabrikasimf
See the immunity clause