Why Ethereum is Not a Commodity – Opinion

Why Ethereum is Not a Commodity – Opinion

Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, has been at the heart of regulatory debates for several years. The key question remains: Is Ethereum a commodity, a security, or something else entirely? In this opinion piece, I will argue why Ethereum does not meet the criteria to be considered a commodity. Instead, I believe Ethereum is best understood as a utility token.

To classify Ethereum as a commodity, it would need to meet specific criteria, which it does not. Firstly, Ethereum was launched with pre-mined tokens. During its initial coin offering (ICO) in 2014, 60 million Ether (ETH) were sold to the public, while 12 million were allocated to the development fund. This pre-mining activity is more characteristic of securities, as it involves an initial distribution controlled by the developers.

Additionally, Ethereum’s development roadmap is highly structured and transparent. The Ethereum Foundation and core development teams, such as those within ConsenSys, outline detailed plans for future upgrades, including the significant transition from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with Ethereum 2.0. Commodities typically do not have such centralized and planned development trajectories.

Core developers in the Ethereum ecosystem play a crucial role in leading protocol changes. Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum’s co-founder, and other prominent developers consistently propose and implement updates. This centralization of decision-making contrasts with the decentralized nature of commodities, which do not rely on a core team for their evolution.

Furthermore, the Ethereum ecosystem has substantial backing from venture capitalists (VCs) and institutional investors. These stakeholders often influence the direction and development of the network, similar to how shareholders might influence a corporation. Such dynamics are more aligned with securities, where investor interests are paramount, rather than commodities, which are typically free of such concentrated influence.

Ethereum’s tokens were also sold both publicly and privately, with the ICO being a primary example. This method of distribution is characteristic of securities offerings, where tokens are sold to raise capital for development and operations. Commodities do not usually undergo such sale processes before their availability on the market.

The transition to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with Ethereum 2.0 raises questions about whether this mechanism affects its classification. PoS operates on a system where validators are chosen to create new blocks based on the number of tokens they hold and are willing to “stake” as collateral. While PoS changes the consensus mechanism, it does not fundamentally alter the nature of Ethereum’s distribution or governance.

To determine whether Ethereum is a security, we can apply the Howey Test, a legal standard that assesses whether a transaction qualifies as an “investment contract.” The Howey Test consists of four criteria:

  1. An investment of money,
  2. In a common enterprise,
  3. With an expectation of profits,
  4. Derived from the efforts of others.

Ether was purchased with the expectation that it would increase in value. The funds raised from the ICO were pooled to develop the Ethereum network, indicating a common enterprise. Many investors bought Ether with the expectation of profiting from its appreciation. The success and value of Ethereum are heavily dependent on the efforts of the core developers and the broader Ethereum community. Based on these criteria, one could argue that Ethereum resembles a security more than a commodity. However, the decentralized nature and utility of the Ethereum network differentiate it from traditional securities.

The classification of Ethereum as a security or commodity has significant implications, particularly in the United States, where the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been scrutinizing cryptocurrencies. In 2018, former SEC Director of Corporate Finance William Hinman suggested that Ethereum might not be a security due to its decentralized structure. However, more recent statements from SEC officials imply that this view could change as the regulatory landscape evolves. Outside the United States, regulatory approaches vary. For instance, in Switzerland, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) categorizes tokens based on their function and transferability, often distinguishing between payment tokens, utility tokens, and asset tokens. Ethereum’s broad utility within decentralized applications (dApps) and smart contracts aligns it more closely with a utility token under FINMA’s framework.

A utility token is designed to provide access to a product or service within a blockchain ecosystem. Ethereum’s primary function is to facilitate operations within its decentralized platform. It powers dApps, executes smart contracts, and serves as “gas” to pay for transactions on the network. These functionalities underscore its utility rather than its investment potential. Utility tokens are not typically classified as securities because they are not primarily bought for investment purposes but rather for their inherent utility within a blockchain ecosystem. This distinction is crucial in understanding Ethereum’s role and value.

The classification of Ethereum as a security, commodity, or utility token has profound implications for its regulatory treatment and adoption. In the United States, securities are subject to stringent regulations, including registration requirements and investor protections. If Ethereum were classified as a security, it could face significant legal and operational hurdles, potentially stifling innovation and growth. Conversely, if Ethereum is recognized as a utility token, it may benefit from a more favorable regulatory environment, fostering broader adoption and development. This distinction also matters globally, as different jurisdictions have varying regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies.

In conclusion, Ethereum does not meet the criteria to be classified as a commodity. Its pre-mined tokens, structured development roadmap, centralized leadership, venture capital backing, and method of token distribution align it more closely with characteristics of securities. However, its extensive utility within the blockchain ecosystem and the decentralized nature of its operations suggest it should be classified as a utility token. The debate over Ethereum’s classification is not merely academic; it has real-world implications for developers, investors, and regulators. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial to recognize Ethereum’s unique position in the cryptocurrency space and advocate for a regulatory framework that acknowledges its utility and fosters innovation. Ultimately, the classification of Ethereum as a utility token offers the best understanding of its role and value, balancing regulatory oversight with the need to support the growth and development of decentralized technologies. I am still looking forward to Ethereum Spot ETFs in the US soon.

 

Source: https://www.securities.io/why-ethereum-is-not-a-commodity-opinion/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j

Why smart money is pushing the big idea of ‘purpose-bound money’: Opinion

Why smart money is pushing the big idea of ‘purpose-bound money’: Opinion

Recently proposed by Singapore in collaboration with fintech heavy hitters, PBM can be a powerful tool for promoting accountability and efficiency, writes Anndy Lian. But it’s not without risks.

The rise of digital assets has transformed how we handle financial transactions and engage with the global economy. From central bank digital currencies to stablecoins and tokenized bank liabilities, these digital representations of value offer the promise of faster, more inclusive, and more valuable transactions. However, to fully realize their benefits, we need to go beyond the capabilities of existing electronic payment systems.

One of the key advantages of digital money is its programmability, which allows for automated transactions, predefined conditions and streamlined financial processes. But there is an ongoing debate about how programmability affects money as a medium of exchange — a topic that is now resurfacing with the recent white paper on “purpose-bound money” published by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in collaboration with the International Monetary Fund, Amazon, DBS Bank, JPMorgan’s Onyx, Bank of Korea and others. Striking a balance is crucial to ensure programmability doesn’t compromise the fungibility and liquidity of digital money.

What is ‘purpose-bound money’?

Purpose-bound money, or PBM for short, introduces a unique concept that enables money to be directed toward specific purposes without directly programming the money itself. It achieves this through a standardized protocol that works with different ledger technologies and forms of money. Utilizing a wrapper implemented as smart contract code, it defines conditions for usage while preserving the underlying digital money’s integrity. This design allows for the deployment of digital money for various purposes without compromising its inherent properties.

It combines programmable payment and programmable money, providing a versatile framework for different use cases. Programmable payment executes payments based on predefined conditions, while programmable money embeds rules within the store of value itself. PBM strikes a delicate balance between the two, enabling directed usage without fragmenting liquidity or compromising money’s fungibility. It fosters interoperability within the financial infrastructure through a standardized protocol for interacting with different forms of digital money.

There are two main components: the wrapper implemented as smart contract code and the underlying digital money serving as collateral. The creator defines the logic, mints tokens and distributes them. The holders can redeem non-expired tokens, while redeemers receive the underlying digital money when tokens are transferred. The lifecycle includes stages such as issuance, distribution, transfer, redemption and expiration. Tokens are created and distributed based on programmed rules, and when conditions are fulfilled, they can be redeemed, transferring the underlying digital money to the recipient. Expired tokens can be destroyed or paused indefinitely.

Introducing new payment instruments brings changes in user experiences, requiring adjustment and familiarization. Different users may perceive these changes differently, with some embracing them positively and others finding them disruptive. To address this challenge, it’s crucial to consider the digital readiness of stakeholders when designing the PBM scheme. The user experience should be intuitive and accessible, especially for vulnerable populations. A simplified user experience can initially abstract away the complexities of managing keys to access digital money or PBMs. On top of that, it can be designed to be compatible with existing payment systems, reducing barriers in fiat settlement and merchant acceptance.

Given the reliance on smart contract code, establishing a robust governance framework becomes crucial to ensuring code safety during the software deployment process. Trusted entities can be engaged to verify the logic, assess vulnerabilities, and provide standardized oracle data. Independent audits are highly recommended to proactively mitigate potential security risks, such as malicious code. In distributed ledger-based networks, trusted third-party organizations can function as “oracles,” offering reliable external data inputs.

Potential use cases

PBM has a number of uses in different fields, delivering innovative solutions to problems and enhancing the efficiency of digital transactions.

In the realm of pre-paid packages, PBM can enable businesses to collect upfront fees before providing goods or services. By incorporating payment conditions, companies can ensure that a vendor has fulfilled its obligations before accessing the pre-committed funds. For online commerce, it offers a reliable alternative for secure online shopping. It reassures both merchants and consumers that funds will only be transferred once service obligations are met. This mitigates the risks associated with non-delivery or non-payment, fostering trust and facilitating smooth transactions.

In contractual agreements, it can be further utilized to establish payment structures based on terms outlined in property sale agreements. Funds can be released at different stages of property development or sales processes upon achieving specific milestones. This ensures controlled payments linked to the completion of significant stages.

PBM holds significant promise in areas like trade finance and commercial leases. Instead of traditional security deposits, PBM can be used to ensure full deposit recovery at the end of a lease. In case of disputes, it can be put on hold until resolution, offering a fair and transparent mechanism for conflict resolution. In trade finance, PBM can serve as a powerful tool for automating payments upon the fulfillment of service obligations, functioning as transferable negotiable instruments, streamlining trade processes, reducing paperwork, and enhancing overall efficiency.

Purpose-bound money can also contribute to donations by bringing greater transparency and accountability to the process. By ensuring that funds reach the intended beneficiaries and are used as intended, PBMs inspire confidence in donors and promote philanthropic activities. Moreover, by embedding policy requirements, automated compliance checks for cross-border payments become possible. This reduces costs, increases efficiency, and promotes regulatory and policy interoperability, ultimately facilitating smoother and more streamlined cross-border transactions.

PBM introduces a programmable approach to digital transactions, providing versatile solutions across various sectors. Its applications encompass all kinds of pre-paid packages, online commerce, contractual agreements, donations, and cross-border payments. Through these applications, PBM enhances efficiency, transparency and trust within the digital asset ecosystem.

As the digital money space continues to grow and evolve, the area is ripe for future research and development. Account abstraction and utilizing smart contract wallets or similar mechanisms can significantly improve user experience and security. Implementing features like account recovery, transaction limits and account freezing can also simplify user interactions without requiring an understanding of the underlying technology.

Additionally, research can explore the use of PBMs with offline payment options, without the need for a smartphone, ensuring financial inclusion and participation without the need for network connectivity. Implementing a name-addressing service can also enhance the user experience by providing a meaningful identifier mapping to a wallet address, ensuring transfers reach the intended recipients without relying solely on bank account numbers.

Risks and disadvantages

The nature of such money offers a system that promotes accountability and safeguards against fund misuse. However, it’s important to recognize that this approach also has implications for the flexibility of funds. While it ensures that funds are allocated for their intended purposes, it can limit the ability of individuals and businesses to reallocate or redirect funds when circumstances change or unexpected needs arise. The strict structure may pose challenges for managing the flow of funds and potentially affecting financial flexibility.

Implementing such systems is a complex endeavor that requires substantial technological infrastructure and integration. Organizations must establish robust systems to effectively track and manage funds according to their designated purposes. This implementation process demands expertise in financial management, technology integration, and compliance, making it resource-intensive. Smaller businesses or non-profit organizations with limited resources may face difficulties in adopting and managing it due to these technical complexities.

Proper management and oversight are essential for maintaining trust and transparency. Failure to execute with care could result in mismanagement, which undermines the integrity of the system and erodes stakeholder trust. To prevent such issues, organizations implementing should establish strong governance mechanisms, implement rigorous monitoring and reporting systems, and ensure responsible fund allocation.

PMB relies heavily on technology infrastructure, including digital platforms and payment systems, to facilitate transactions and track funds. While technological advancements have made digital transactions more accessible, they also introduce a level of dependency and risks. Organizations relying on it must ensure the availability, reliability and security of the underlying technology. Disruptions, technical glitches or cyber-attacks can impede access to PBM funds, leading to delays or difficulties in utilizing the allocated funds effectively.

Operating within existing legal and regulatory frameworks governing financial transactions, PBM must comply with regulations such as anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements. Navigating these regulatory landscapes, particularly in cross-border transactions, can be complex. Organizations implementing that must ensure adherence to guidelines and fulfill reporting obligations. Staying updated with evolving regulations and maintaining compliance may require significant resources and effort.

To assess the suitability of adoption, organizations and individuals should carefully evaluate their specific needs, circumstances, and risk tolerance. Adequate planning, implementation, and ongoing monitoring are essential to address these challenges and maximize the benefits that purpose-bound money can offer.

Closing thoughts

This “new money” introduces a new paradigm for programmability within the digital asset ecosystem. By leveraging a wrapper that defines usage conditions and existing digital money, it enables directed usage without compromising the fungibility or medium of exchange function. This framework provides a standardized protocol for interacting with different forms of digital money, fostering interoperability within the financial infrastructure.

Policymakers should carefully consider the implementation of PBM-based solutions, addressing factors such as the authority responsible for issuing and distributing digital currencies and the establishment of clear usage conditions. Prioritizing user readiness, especially among vulnerable populations, is crucial to providing a simplified and intuitive user experience. Ensuring compatibility with existing payment systems, addressing concerns, and managing disruptions are vital for a smooth transition to PBM.

Deploying requires robust governance mechanisms and security measures. Independent audits, engagement with trusted entities, and standardized oracle data play a crucial role in ensuring code safety and mitigating security risks. Ongoing research and development are necessary to refine the user experience, explore new use cases, and unlock the full potential of fostering economic value and financial inclusion.

 

 

 

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j

Opinion Article on Forkast : How Yuga Labs’ NFT sale failed to put its community first

Opinion Article on Forkast : How Yuga Labs’ NFT sale failed to put its community first

The ‘virtual land’ sale that broke Ethereum was also a fiasco for buyers. Should Yuga Labs have seen it coming and taken preventative action?

The largest and perhaps most highly anticipated NFT sale so far this year took place recently when Yuga Labs launched their sale of virtual land to ApeCoin holders for around US$5,800 (the clearing price was set at 305 ApeCoin). The huge level of demand for the hugely popular Otherdeed NFT mint, which raised about US$320 million, created a two-fold problem for the Ethereum-based sale. Firstly, the steep rise in the volume of transactions led to a spike in the price of Ethereum gas fees, requiring people to spend around two ETH (approximately US$6,000) in fees to mint. Secondly, many of the participants in the sale, due to the bottleneck in demand, both missed out on the minting and lost their Ethereum in the process.

Such was the chaos that soon after the sale, Yuga Labs tweeted: “We are aware that some users had failed transactions due to the incredible demand being forced through Ethereum’s bottleneck.” While YugaLabs promised “we’ve got your back” and that they would be “refunding your gas,” there was considerable pushback from the NFT (non-fungible tokens) community. Considering the stature of the sale, it is worth examining what happened in greater detail to understand what this means both for the NFT market going forward, not to mention its implications for the ideal of the core importance of the Web 3.0 community to the future of NFTs and the metaverse.

After Yuga Labs acquired CryptoPunks earlier this year, which put the VC-backed company valued at US$4 billion in the spotlight, this latest event certainly raises the stakes. Yuga Labs admitted the scale of the minting event not only crashed Etherscan but also seriously impacted Ethereum. “It seems abundantly clear that ApeCoin will need to migrate to its own chain in order to properly scale. We’d like to encourage the DAO to start thinking in this direction,” they added. But clearly with all the resources at their disposal, the chaotic result only created more skepticism on crypto Twitter.

But before diving into the organizational aspects, the upset among NFT newbies should not be ignored when crypto is so keen to gain mass adoption. That upset was voiced by NFT influencer ap3father.eth, who pointed out that he’d brought many friends into the space for the drop: “My friends said things like, ‘who would ever use Ethereum?’ ‘NFTs are only for rich people’ … and to be honest I agreed with them … although my initial reactions were filled with emotion … I agreed … How was this going to prove we are ‘innovating.’” It’s worth noting that Yuga Labs raised around US$320 million through the minting, with 55,000 tokens sold out in under three hours.

The key problem is that it’s not only an issue with scaling the number of transactions but also the number of smart contracts (“trustless computation”) — an issue also faced by so-called Ethereum killers like Polygon, Avalanche and Solana. While these chains may boast of a fast transaction per second (TPS) performance, only a small percentage is available for smart contract operations. It is interesting that in the example from U.K.-based Radix DLT that they’ve done away with the EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) and instead built their own engine, which meant “a transaction is a transaction, it doesn’t matter if that is minting NFTs, swapping on DEXs or taking out a crypto loan,” tweeted Radix Works CEO Piers Rudyard in response to the Yuga Labs mint bottleneck and proposed scaling solutions. “That means that TPS performance and DeFi performance on Radix are basically the same thing,” Now, while I appreciate Rudyard is using this opportunity to plug his solution, the Yuga Labs mint controversy is also highlighting the significant blockchain bottleneck challenges ahead for mass adoption.

Putting that high-level critique of Ethereum smart contract functionality aside, using optimized smart contracts, such as ERC-721A, could have made the mint more equitable by reducing gas fees to the bare minimum. As Will Papper, co-founder of SyndicateDAO, tweeted: “Modifying a few words would have saved $80M+.”

Furthermore, limiting the number of KYC (know-your-customer)-approved wallets to only those required for the mint would have helped avoid gas wars and provided a positive minting experience for all parties involved. But for some, such as @DrNickA of FactoryDAO, this was missing the point because the fact that the number of NFTs outstripped KYC’d wallets was intentional. After all, Yuga had the KYC information in advance for all the prospective buyers, they could have created a whitelist to manage demand.

While Yuga Labs has since confirmed it would refund the fees for transactions that failed due to the problems, it’s clear that lessons need to be learned from its minting debacle. While the likes of Yuga’s VC backers, a16z, point to the core importance of “community ownership” to Web3, including NFTs and the metaverse, surely how that ownership is delivered is important?

Particularly coming so closely after its purchase of CryptoPunks, it’s worrying — and not helpful to the cause of mass adoption — when the leading NFT company is so careless with its community. It’s certainly my hope that ApeCoinDAO, which styles itself as independent of BAYC and community-led, lives up to its responsibilities and shows that Web3 is more than a business model for the metaverse, but also a way for people to engage in this new (virtual) world.

 

Original Source: https://forkast.news/how-yuga-labs-otherdeed-nft-mint-failed-put-community-first/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j