Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pods, Fountain, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform.

In this episode, crypto lawyers Kayvan Sadeghi and Sam Enzer delve into the SEC’s lawsuit against Consensys, which focuses on MetaMask’s swaps and staking services, and explore the implications of the SEC’s stance on MetaMask acting as a broker-dealer, and the classification of its staking product as a security.

They discuss how recent rulings on Coinbase and Binance challenge the SEC’s claims, and whether differing judicial opinions could lead to the Supreme Court.

Also, they talk about the potential impact of the Supreme Court striking down Chevron deference for crypto regulation.

Show highlights:

  • The key claims in the SEC’s lawsuit against Consensys and how they relate to MetaMask’s swaps and staking services
  • How recent Coinbase and Binance rulings challenge the SEC’s claims against Consensys
  • Whether differing judicial opinions on whether wallets with private keys act as brokers could end up being decided by the Supreme Court
  • How the SEC will substantiate its claims that MetaMask acts as a broker-dealer and that its staking product is a security in Texas legal briefings
  • Why a token itself is not considered a security, according to Sam, and how this distinction affects secondary market transactions in the SEC’s case against MetaMask
  • What Lido and Rocket Pool can do in response to the SEC tangentially naming their liquid staking tokens as securities
  • How the SEC and Consensys lawsuits will proceed, and whether conflicting rulings could arise from their parallel tracks
  • The key distinctions in the Binance case compared to those of Coinbase and Kraken, and how the Binance ruling might impact future crypto cases
  • What Chevron deference means and how its removal impacts crypto
  • How the elimination of Chevron deference affects current crypto cases and legislative gridlock


Thank you to our sponsors!