SEC Liquidity Stake Regulation Storm

💥 The SEC's "employee statement" classifies liquid staking under the federal securities laws, directly triggering a regulatory storm.
The traditional financial sector is calling it "Lehman 2.0⚠️", while the crypto industry angrily denounces it as "misleading + ignorant", and even SEC commissioners have come out to refute it.
This is not just a policy dispute, but a direct confrontation between regulation and innovation.
For the full text, please refer to:

📍Former SEC staffer Amanda Fischer strikes first:
"Liquid Staking = Rehypothecation = High-risk structure before Lehman collapse"💣
She listed four major risks:
▪ Multiple staking with leverage
▪ The failure of intermediaries may trigger a panic.
▪ Unstaking delay (ETH can take up to 11 days)
▪ No regulatory backing, systemic fragility
Conclusion: The SEC is tacitly allowing risks!

😡 The industry has exploded:
VanEck, Helius, Magic Eden and others speak out —
🧾"On-chain transparency does not equal black box finance"
⚠️"Misapplying traditional models to DeFi logic is a misunderstanding and a misguidance"
Their consensus is: the regulatory perspective is off course.

💥 Surprisingly, even within the SEC, there is no support.
Commissioner Crenshaw rarely speaks out in rebuttal:
🔹The statement is merely the opinion of the employees and has no legal effect.
🔹A large number of assumptions have not been verified (see notes n.11, n.18, n.24)
🔹No clear standards were provided, which instead created more confusion.
She also reminds users: "Don't blindly follow, stay alert."🚨

🔍The focus is not on "stake risk", but rather: ❗Are regulators still using "2008 thinking" to address "new on-chain species"?
💡Fischer is concerned about the risk out of control
💡The industry believes that the protocol comes with a built-in slow-release mechanism.
💡The SEC internally doubts that this logic is fundamentally unsound.

📌This is reality:
Regulators are afraid of missteps and systemic risks; the industry is afraid of collateral damage and misunderstanding innovation; what we see is a regulatory system stuck in an old paradigm.

🔮Conclusion:
Liquid staking is no longer a technical issue, but a litmus test for regulation. Will we still copy the old logic, or will we try to understand the on-chain structure?
How the US policy goes may determine the tone of the next regulatory cycle. Welcome to discuss 👇
Which side are you on?