Despite the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent approval of spot Ethereum (ETH) exchange-traded funds (ETFs), industry experts caution that this development might not be as beneficial as it seems. While the approval could provide some clarity on Ether’s status as a non-security, it also carries potential drawbacks for the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem.
After months of deliberation and delays, the SEC has greenlit spot Ether ETFs. However, this approval currently pertains only to the 19b-4 filings. Actual trading authorization could take several months as issuers’ S-1 applications are still under review. Bloomberg’s James Seyffart highlighted that the timeline for trading authorization could extend significantly.
Although the industry has welcomed this move, especially following the approval of spot Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs, three experts shared with crypto.news that spot Ether funds might have unforeseen implications.
Centralization and Ether Dormancy
One key difference between ETFs backed by BTC and those backed by ETH lies in their respective consensus mechanisms. Bitcoin uses a proof-of-work model, incentivizing participants to mine and hold BTC. Its simple design and lack of smart contract functionality encourage dormancy.
Ethereum, in contrast, powers a multi-billion dollar decentralized finance (DeFi) landscape and was built for on-chain deployment. Even before transitioning to a proof-of-stake model, ETH was actively used within its ecosystem.
Carlos Mercado, a data scientist at Flipside Crypto, argued that the inability to utilize ETH held in ETFs is counterproductive. “Holding ETH idly is like hoarding barrels of gasoline—it’s not the best use of the asset,” Mercado explained.
While staking might address this issue, staking language was withdrawn from updated spot Ethereum ETF proposals. The SEC’s crackdown on staking service providers like Coinbase further complicates U.S. crypto staking adoption.
Tom McClean, a quantitative developer at Vega Protocol, noted that removing staking features from ETFs eased centralization concerns but didn’t fully resolve the issue. Without staking, ETFs will likely just buy, hold, and sell ETH, leaving large amounts of Ether unstaked and unproductive. This could reduce ETH’s utility in the system, including its use for transaction fees (gas).
Regulatory Clarity
On the other hand, McClean believes that this situation could drive investors and issuers to seek more regulatory clarity on staking. Justin d’Anethan, head of business development (APAC) at Keyrock, echoed this sentiment. He suggested that the approved filings could be interpreted as an implicit endorsement of Ether as a non-security.
D’Anethan pointed out that the ETF applications weren’t filed like those for securities-linked ETFs. “A gambling man might see this as a clear sign that regulators will not deem Ether a security. This would lift a weight off the shoulders of many investors and Ethereum stakeholders,” he said.
However, despite these arguments and the approved filings, it remains unclear how the SEC views Ether as a financial instrument. The current situation suggests a possible shift in the SEC’s stance on ETH, but definitive regulatory clarity is still needed.
As the crypto community navigates these developments, the approval of spot Ether ETFs underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating cryptocurrencies into mainstream financial markets.
Powered by Crypto Expert BD
Follow us on Twitter: https://x.com/CryptoExpert_BD
Join our Telegram channel: https://t.me/CryptoExpert_BD
