For years, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been cracking down on the crypto sector writ large, but in the last few months, the agency appears to have trained its sights on Ethereum, in particular. Some of the biggest names in decentralized finance are now fighting back.
In a 40-page filing on Tuesday, Uniswap Labs — which builds decentralized finance infrastructure including a popular DeFi crypto exchange that enables users to custody their own coins — details to the SEC all the reasons why the agency shouldn’t pursue legal action against them. It comes a few weeks after the commission issued Uniswap a Wells notice, warning the company that it identified potential violations of U.S. securities law.
“The SEC’s entirecase rests on the false assumption that all tokens are securities. Tokens are in fact, simply a file format for value,” said Uniswap’s chief legal officer Marvin Ammori.
“The SEC has to essentially unilaterally change the definitions of exchange, broker, and investment contract in order to try to capture what we do,“ continued Ammori.
A Wells notice is typically one of the final steps before the SEC formally issues charges. It generally lays out the framework of the regulatory argument and offers the potentially accused an opportunity to rebut the SEC’s claims.
So far this year, the federal regulator has sent Wells notices, filed lawsuits, or reached settlements with a host of crypto firms, and the agency’s legal challenges are increasingly focused on ethereum and players working in decentralized finance, including ShapeShift, TradeStation, Uniswap and Consensys. It also comes as the agency is reportedly investigating the Ethereum Foundation.
CNBC reached out to the SEC about the recent batch of Wells notices sent out to crypto firms, and an agency spokesperson declined to comment.
In April, Consensys tried to preempt the SEC’s action with its own lawsuit, alleging regulatory overreach on the part of the regulator. The 10-year-old crypto firm said its suit followed three subpoenas issued last year, plus a Wells notice from the SEC that claimed the company was violating federal securities laws.
“This action is about the almost certainty that we hold that the SEC is trying to slow or kill ethereum, decentralization, disintermediation, and disintermediated technology in the U.S. and probably wouldn’t stop there with its long arm,” said long-time ethereum veteran Joseph Lubin, who went from co-founding the blockchain to launching and running Consensys.
“It might influence other nation states to do similarly draconian things,” continued Lubin.
Read more about tech and crypto from CNBC Pro
Security vs. commodity
The recent spate of actions targeting major names working in the Ethereum ecosystem come ahead of a long-awaited decision on whether the regulator will approve or deny applications to launch spot ether exchange-traded funds.
To date, the agency’s stance on ether’s classification as either a commodity or a security remains uncertain.
“We think big banks like the way things are organized. We think certain factions of the U.S. government like the way they operate,” said Lubin. “Without explicitly stating their intentions, without public discussion and clear rule-making, the SEC seems to have decided to reclassify ether as a security without being able to utter that that’s what they’re doing.”
The industry argues if ether — the native token of the Ethereum blockchain — gets classified as a security, it could throw the future of the Ethereum network and many adjacent crypto firms into question. Exchanges, both centralized and decentralized, would be forced to choose between registering with the SEC, or delisting ether altogether.
“If the SEC, in fact, does take the position that Ethereum is a security, pretty much everyone in this business that is using or providing services of the Ethereum blockchain, they’re going to be on notice that they might need to be registered,” said digital assets attorney Christopher Gerold, who previously served as the chief of the New Jersey Bureau of Securities.
“Whatever protections they thought they had before are no longer going to be there, and we’re going to see a shift in the industry,” continued Gerold.
The head of litigation and investigations at Consensys told CNBC that they’ve been alarmed that the SEC has been targeting developers.
“They asked for a list of the names of any Consensys developers who contributed any coding to the merge,” said Laura Brookover.
The so-called merge was a years-in-the-making systemwide upgrade to the Ethereum blockchain that took effect in September 2022 and changed the way transactions are verified. The proof-of-stake model, which replaced the proof-of-work model, requires volunteers on the network to put up their ether tokens, or “stake” them, in order to secure the network.
Brookover says the agency has explicitly asked for the identities of public and private Consensys software developer code repositories.
“Those are very strange requests from a financial regulator,” continued Brookover. “I can speak to that, because I used to be in the CFTC’s enforcement division and investigated cases myself.”
Multiple coders and industry executives have told CNBC that it is possible the SEC could be taking more of an interest in Ethereum, because the regulator thinks its native token functions more like a security after the merge.
Brookover told CNBC that their suit asks the court to declare both that ether is not a security and that the SEC lacks jurisdiction to investigate Ethereum. Ultimately, the regulator will have to respond to the Consensys complaint in a legal filing.
“They’re going to be hard pressed not to stay in their answer whether they think Ethereum is a security or not,” said Gerold, adding that he suspects that the agency will take the position that it is a security because of the proof-of-stake change that took effect two years ago.
One thing the SEC has been clear on is its classification of bitcoin as a commodity. With ether, the narrative has changed.
In 2018, when Bill Hinman was still the Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance, he told CNBC that, “When we look at bitcoin or if we look at ether and the highly decentralized nature of the networks, we don’t see a third-party promoter where applying the disclosure regime would make a lot of sense.”
“So we’re comfortable…viewing these as items that don’t have to be regulated as securities,” continued Hinman.
In April 2023, when Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) asked SEC Chair Gary Gensler whether ether was a commodity or a security, Gensler demurred.
SEC vs. crypto
Gensler has, in multiple interviews, repeatedly shared that he believes much of the industry already belongs under its jurisdiction, and its lawsuits are simply bringing the industry under compliance. Crypto firms argue that the recent legal battles haven’t given the regulatory clarity the industry has been seeking for years.
With the Uniswap Wells notice, for example, a source at the company told CNBC that dealing with the SEC was akin to “talking to a wall.”
For two years preceding the Wells notice, Uniswap described the protracted interactions with the agency as an opaque process that involved responding to multiple requests, including giving testimony and sending several documents to the agency, without getting much feedback about the regulator’s concerns around potential wrongdoing. This source also told CNBC they had not heard from the regulator at all in 2024 until the agency told them in a half-hour phone call that they would be receiving a formal notice.
Both Consensys and Uniswap suggest the SEC’s broad approach to classifying securities may be outdated.
“The SEC is arguing that the Uniswap protocol is an unregistered securities exchange, and that the Uniswap interface and wallet are both unregistered broker brokers,” Ammori said.
But Uniswap argues that the protocol itself is a general purpose computer program that anyone can use and integrate.
“So the protocol is not an exchange also, because under the law, it would have to be specifically designed for securities trading, and it is not,” continued Ammori.
Uniswap argues in its response to the SEC that the majority of its trading volume is obvious non-securities, like ether, bitcoin, and stablecoins.
“It’s not run by a group, as the definition requires, but as autonomous software no person or group controls,” added Ammori.
“The SEC knows that the current definition of exchange does not cover the protocol, or anything we do. That’s why as we speak, there’s a pending rulemaking, for the SEC is trying to redefine about a half dozen words in their own regulations to try to capture us,” contined Uniswap’s chief legal officer.
Alma Angotti, partner and global legislative and regulatory risk leader at the consulting firm Guidehouse, cautions that it is less clear whether decentralized exchanges function like an alternative trading system, or a market maker — or whether they really are just a technology that does not act as a broker dealer.
Meanwhile, as the SEC ramps up its focus on decentralized players in the crypto ecosystem, centralized players also remain under scrutiny by the regulator.
In May, investment platform Robinhood announced it received a Wells notice for the company’s crypto operations. The SEC has also sued Coinbase and Binance. With multiple pending legal challenges from the regulator and enduring uncertainty about the future of crypto regulation in the U.S., multiple crypto businesses have said they are considering decamping from the country altogether.
“We’ve got companies that are wasting resources trying to figure out, ‘Am I a broker dealer? Are these assets securities?'” said Binance’s former chief compliance officer, Christina Rea.
“We’re already having a hard enough time trying to get them to be compliant with other important laws — anti-money laundering laws, anti-bribery and corruption laws.”
On Thursday, the commission will issue a decision on whether to approve one of the spot ether ETF applications after a multi-month delay. Many are waiting to see whether the regulator will offer clarity on its stance on ether.
Even if you’re not knee-deep into electric bikes like many of us, you very likely may have heard of the e-bike brand SUPER73. The company’s motorcycle culture-inspired electric bikes have proven incredibly popular among teens and young adults, but the heyday of fast and questionably (or clearly) illegal e-bike modes seems to be coming to an end for the brand.
SUPER73 didn’t invent the moped-style electric bike, but it is often credited for kickstarting the boom. The name has become so ubiquitous that even other brands of moto-inspired electric bikes are often erroneously referred to as SUPER73 e-bikes.
Technically, SUPER73s were always intended to be perfectly street-legal electric bikes, and they always shipped in what was known as “Class 2 Mode”. That meant the bikes could top out at 20 mph (32 km/h) and largely met most electric bicycle regulations around the US for the last few years.
However, SUPER73 e-bikes could be quickly and easily unlocked via the company’s own smartphone app, letting riders access Class 3 mode of up to 28 mph (45 km/h) on pedal assist, or even an Off-Road Mode that basically removed all restrictions and allowed faster speeds on throttle-only riding as well. Despite the name, Off-Road Mode was largely used for street riding and turned the bike into something of a mini-motorcycle.
But those days of easily unlocking higher performance are officially gone, with SUPER73 now reacting to new California regulations that put stricter interpretations of e-bike classification laws on the books. Those new regulations, which took effect on January 1, 2025, required any e-bike with a functional throttle to limit its motor assist to just 20 mph. If an e-bike was designed to be modified for faster speed or higher power (such as via a setting change on the bike’s display or in the smartphone app), the bike would no longer be considered a street-legal electric bicycle in California.
SUPER73, which has often found itself at the center of the debate around faster e-bikes, reacted quickly. A major change now results in the higher performance modes being removed from SUPER73’s app. According to a notice on the company’s website, “In light of newly implemented regulations, customers who download and pair the SUPER73 app after January 1, 2025, will not have the ability to access modes other than the Class 2 mode in which the product is sold.”
While the bikes still have the mechanical ability to go faster, SUPER73’s new update basically removes the ability to access that higher performance, essentially limiting its e-bikes to 20 mph on both throttle and pedal assist.
Is there a workaround?
No, SUPER73 has developed an ironclad solution to prevent their e-bikes from being operated in illegal ways.
Just kidding. No, of course this isn’t a perfect solution, but not really due to any fault by SUPER73. There are multiple apps already available that can be used instead of the company’s app, which allow riders to re-access that higher performance. I won’t list them here, but it’s not exactly hard for anyone with an e-bike and internet connection to figure it out.
That doesn’t mean that every SUPER73 e-bike out there is going to be back in its former 30 mph form, and a significant number of riders will likely simply be stuck with new 20 mph speed limits. But we shouldn’t pretend like this is a foolproof system that can’t be defeated. As long as the e-bikes are built in a way that they are physically capable of higher performance (like a chunky 2,000W motor that is software-limited to 750W and 20 mph), the possibility remains that they will be somehow unlocked to access that performance.
It should be noted that such unlocking would still fall outside the regulations of California’s new electric bike laws, but at that point the punishment would likely fall upon the riders themselves instead of the e-bike maker, if it did its part to remove performance unlocking from its native app.
Electrek’s Take
I think that a lot of us could see this as an inevitability, though I’m not sure we expected to see companies come around this quickly, or rolling out updates that covered their e-bikes nationwide instead of just in California.
I agree that in the short term, this will likely have a positive effect on the few bad apples who ruin it for everyone – basically the roving gangs of teens on illegally fast e-bikes. People who ride e-bikes in dangerous ways around other cyclists and pedestrians are a danger, plain and simple.
In the long run though, I still don’t think this is the proper route to go. When you can buy a 125 mph car that weighs as much as a military vehicle and yet it is simply the responsibility of each driver to never exceed barely half of its performance, it seems silly to put so much effort into reducing the speed of bicycles from 28 mph to 20 mph. Is this really the major public safety threat to spend our time and legislative resources on?
I still believe that the better solution combines education and enforcement. It’s simply not that hard. If some snot-nosed kid is riding dangerously in the bike lane, street, or sidewalk, confiscate the bike and slap a fine on his or her parents. But don’t tell me that a responsible adult who is simply trying to get to work efficiently is a menace to society on an e-bike that goes 28 mph instead of 20 mph.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Volkswagen U.S. assembly of all-electric ID.4 flagship in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 2022.
Volkswagen
The new Republican-majority Congress has wasted no time in making its energy priorities clear. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said from the House floor minutes after his reelection, “We have to stop the attacks on liquefied natural gas, pass legislation to eliminate the Green New Deal. … We’re going to expedite new drilling permits, we’re going to save the jobs of our auto manufacturers, and we’re going to do that by ending the ridiculous E.V. mandates.”
Data from the auto industry shows a more complicated story. There are more investments in EVs and related battery technologies in states under the control of Republican governors than in states run by Democrats. The top 10 states for total investments in EV technology, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, are either solidly red or swing states such as Michigan, Arizona, North Carolina and Nevada. Far from help the fortunes of automakers, Trump confidante Elon Musk is on record as saying that repealing EV incentives would be a pill he could swallow, even as CEO of Tesla, because it would hurt other automakers even more.
Amending or possibly repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s sweeping 2022 law that allocates approximately $369 billion over the next decade to clean-energy and climate-related projects, has been a talking point for President-elect Trump and many members of the GOP. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill — saying its subsidies, tax credits, grants and loans are wasteful government overreach — and the party and Trump have since railed against it.
On this year’s campaign trail, Trump said he will “rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.”
He and fellow Republicans have also talked about eliminating the IRA’s $7,500 federal personal tax credit for buying a new electric vehicle, as well as various incentives for private companies investing in manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, EV batteries, heat pumps and other clean-energy products.
But in an interview with CNBC last fall, Speaker Johnson hinted at the potential problem for the GOP now that investments have been made, and job growth continues to climb, across Republican states. He said it would be impossible to “blow up” the IRA, and it would be unwise, since some aspects of the “terrible” legislation had helped the economy. “You’ve got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer, because there’s a few provisions in there that have helped overall,” Johnson said.
The economic boost that hundreds of IRA-funded projects have given the country, beyond just the EV industry, are predominantly in red states — and the hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs linked to the IRA as well as the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. A vast portion of that workforce voted for Republicans in November, and jeopardizing their livelihoods could fuel a balloting backlash.
“The IRA is the quintessential policy that can create jobs, drive economic growth and improve our economy,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group comprising about 10,000 business leaders and investors, “while at the same time giving us the tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
While the clean energy jobs market remains small relative to a total U.S. employment market of roughly 160 million Americans, it has become more than just a blip in the jobs picture. Data for the full year 2024 is not yet available, but according to E2’s Clean Jobs America 2024 report released in September, more than 149,000 clean-energy jobs were created in 2023, accounting for 6.4% of new jobs economy-wide and nearly 60% of total employment across the entire energy sector. Over the past three years, E2 reported, clean-energy jobs increased by 14%, reaching nearly 3.5 million workers nationwide. “Our members and businesses across a lot of sectors are very concerned about the potential of repealing” the IRA, Keefe said.
In the two years since the IRA passed, E2 has tracked private-sector clean-energy projects, including solar, wind, grid electrification, clean vehicles and EV and storage batteries. To date, it has identified 358 major projects in 42 states and investments of nearly $132 billion. More than 60% of the announced projects — representing nearly 80% of the investment and 70% of the jobs — are located in Republican congressional districts.
In November, the Net Zero Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University released a study focused on the domestic and global impacts of tinkering with Biden’s climate bills, in particular, the IRA. “Our scenario analysis shows that U.S. repeal of the IRA would, in the most likely scenario, harm U.S. manufacturing and trade and create up to $80 billion in investment opportunities for other countries, including major U.S. competitors like China,” the study said. “U.S. harm would come in the form of lost factories, lost jobs, lost tax revenue and up to $50 billion in lost exports.”
The fallout of gutting the IRA has not been lost on GOP lawmakers whose states and counties are benefiting from the law’s largesse. In August, 18 House Republicans sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, urging him not to axe the tax credits that have “created good jobs in many parts of the country — including many districts represented by members of our conference.”
Coincidentally, one of the signees, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, is Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor. Another, Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia, has touted the eight clean-energy projects, totaling $7.8 billion in investments and creating 7,222 jobs, the IRA has brought to his district. And the tiny town of Dalton, Georgia, home of the largest solar panel manufacturing plant in the western hemisphere and source of about 2,000 jobs, is in the district represented by Marjorie Taylor Greene, a vociferous climate-change skeptic who has nonetheless cheered the factory.
The QCells solar panel manufacturing plant in Dalton, Georgia, U.S., on Monday, May 3, 2021.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
In a survey of nearly 930 business stakeholders conducted in August by E2 and BW Research, more than half (53%) said they would lose business or revenue as a direct result of an IRA repeal and 21% would have to lay off workers.
If Republicans fully repeal the IRA, which would require congressional approval, they “would be shooting themselves in the foot and hurting their own constituents,” said Andrew Reagan, executive director of Clean Energy for America, a nonprofit that advocates for the clean-energy workforce. “You would see not only projects canceled, but job losses,” he said.
West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who will chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee this year, talked in a recent interview with Politico about a focus on rolling back elements of the IRA, including “frivolous” spending, while pushing to keep parts that have created clean-energy jobs. In her state, “some people have taken advantage of this tax relief and are now employing 800 and 1,000 people,” Capito said, “and that’s what this should be all about.”
Union organizing at EV and battery plants
In addition to spurring new job growth, the IRA, Infrastructure Act and CHIPS Act each have provisions ensuring that a significant portion of jobs created go to union members or provide prevailing wages and benefits, apprenticeships and job training to non-union workers. So it’s no surprise that unions are also on the front line in the battle to protect the bills.
Unionization rates in clean energy have surpassed traditional energy employment for the first time, reaching 12.4%, according to a recent Department of Energy report. “That’s a really big deal for us and we want to keep building on that,” said Samantha Smith, strategic advisor for clean energy jobs for the AFL-CIO, which represents more than 12.5 million U.S. workers in manufacturing, construction, mining and other sectors. “We’re going to work to make sure that every job and clean-energy project with this federal funding can be a good union job,” she said. “That is our focus when looking at this legislation and what Congress might do.”
The Laborers’ International Union of North America represents about 530,000 workers in the energy and construction industries. Executive director Brent Booker noted that LIUNA members voted for both Trump and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, but that “none voted to take their jobs away.” And while “cautiously optimistic that the IRA is going to stay in place,” the union “will hold to account this administration to make sure” it does.
A recent report from the Center for Automotive Research outlines the critical workforce needs to meet the demand for EV batteries, which is expected to grow six-fold in the U.S. by 2030. There are a significant skills gaps in the battery industry, the report stated, which will require increased recruitment and training of workers — especially engineers, technicians and assemblers — for years to come.
This paves the way for unions to organize workers at battery plant factories, many of which are joint ventures located in the so-called “battery belt” that stretches from Michigan down to Georgia. In February of last year, the United Auto Workers committed $40 million through 2026 in funds to support non-union autoworkers and battery workers who are organizing across the country, and particularly in the South.
“In the next few years, the electric vehicle battery industry is slated to add tens of thousands of jobs across the country,” the UAW said in announcing the investment. “These jobs will supplement, and in some cases largely replace, existing powertrain jobs in the auto industry. Through a massive new organizing effort, workers will fight to maintain and raise the standard in the emerging battery industry.”
Indeed, just this week, workers at Ford’s $6-billion BlueOval SK EV battery plant in Glendale, Kentucky, a joint venture with South Korea’s SK On, filed with the National Labor Relations Board to hold a union election.
Clean Energy for America’s Reagan said he assumes that Trump will be true to his America First platform: to strengthen U.S. manufacturing and supply chains, cut consumers’ energy bills in half by increasing domestic energy production and reduce reliance on foreign trade, especially with China. “He can’t do any of those things if he repeals the tax credits or tries to stifle American companies that are creating jobs,” Reagan said. “If he’s going to be successful, he can’t take an adversarial approach to a huge part of our economy.”
Yolo County, California depends on its climate for continued agricultural success. As such, the county’s leaders are taking environmental stewardship seriously by aiming for full carbon neutrality by 2030. To help achieve that goal, they’re putting zero-emission machinery like the Volvo DD25 Electric compactor to work.
We got our first chance to sample the DD25 Electric at Volvo Days last summer, where the all-electric tandem roller’s vibrating drums impressed dealers and end users alike. It was no surprise, then, that when Yolo Country fleet superintendent, Ben Lee, when shopping for a compactor the DD25 Electric was high on his list.
“The DD25 Electric will help us achieve our goals in several ways,” explains Lee. “By reducing emissions, lowering noise levels, being more energy-efficient, improving working conditions and promoting environmentally friendly practices … we’ll use it to compact soil, gravel and other base materials for road and foundation projects, as well as rolling out and leveling asphalt during road construction and resurfacing.”
To help Lee handle those various projects, the Volvo’s drum frequency can be adjusted from 3500 vpm (55 Hz) to 4000 vpm (67 Hz) to cater to different applications and materials.
Getting power to the compactor, too, is something Yolo is considering. “There are some remote areas in the county, so we’re looking into a mobile, self-contained charging unit as well,” explains Lee, apparently referencing the Volvo PU130 mobile battery. “So we wouldn’t have to bring the machine back to the yard each night during a long-term project.”
Yolo County views electric equipment as an essential step in reducing emissions and energy consumption, especially as communities work towards stricter regulations and sustainability goals.
Electrek’s Take
This press release came to us ahead of the devastating wild fires in Southern California that are dominating headlines right now – so much so that I effectively sat on the news for a few days, debating whether or not we should even be talking about a California news story that isn’t about the fires right now.
But I realized: this story is about the fires. Climate change driven by combustion and carbon emissions is driving climate change and that’s making fires like these possible … and I should have run it sooner.