Ethereum [ETH] has undoubtedly been the talk of the crypto town with major updates like the Merge taking the front stage. Apart from this, the network’s transition into proof-of-stake [PoS] has been fueling rumors about ETH being categorized as a security. Now, further strengthening this argument, the SEC in a lawsuit against crypto influencer Ian Balina claimed that ETH transactions that occurred in the United States automatically fall under the government’s radar.
Balina was sued for allegedly offering unregistered tokens. He was caught in trouble after he failed to register his project as a security before rolling out an initial coin offering [ICO] in 2018. The crypto influencer outrightly denied these claims. However, the crypto community is currently speculating on SEC’s massive statement in the lawsuit. According to the 69th paragraph, the lawsuit stated that it had the right to sue Balina because the SEC had jurisdiction over the Ethereum network.
It was reported that a variety of U.S.-based investors participated in the Balina-curated investment pool. A network of Ethereum blockchain nodes further verified a number of ETH contributions. Due to this, the SEC stated,
“ETH contributors were validated by a network of nodes on the Ethereum blockchain, which are clustered more densely in the United States than in any other country. As a result, those transactions took place in the United States.”
Additionally, it should be noted that at present 42.56 percent or 3340 of the 7819 Ethereum nodes reside in the US.
Will this statement take a toll on the Ethereum network?
The Ethereum network has been dealing with immense backlash following the Merge. As mentioned earlier, some were suggesting that the network would fall under the SEC’s purview as it would now be considered a security. A few others on the other hand were taking digs at ETH’s level of decentralization.
Amidst all of this, the latest statement made by the SEC would be detrimental to the network. Even though several legal professionals noted that the complaint’s phrasing would have no legal significance, it would nevertheless be noticed.