SEC Staking Shake-Up: Agency Says Proof-of-Stake Isn’t a Securities Deal – What It Means Now

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporate Finance is clarifying its stance on cryptocurrency staking activities according to new guidance unveiled Thursday.

SEC Offers Clarity on Staking Services

In the statement, the federal regulator claims that several staking activities—including ancillary staking services, Proof-of-Stake Networks, and third-party service providers—do not constitute securities transactions.

https://t.co/qT7IIuJgBf | Statement on Certain Protocol Staking Activities https://t.co/dZkS5uZGZd

— Mike Selig (@MikeSeligEsq) May 29, 2025

“It is the Division’s view that ‘Protocol Staking Activities’ (as defined below) in connection with Protocol Staking do not involve the offer and sale of securities,” the statement reads in part.

“Accordingly, it is the Division’s view that participants in Protocol Staking Activities do not need to register with the Commission transactions under the Securities Act, or fall within one of the Securities Act’s exemptions from registration in connection with these Protocol Staking Activities.”

Commissioner Peirce Applauds SEC Staking Stance

Following the news, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw and Hester Peirce released statements of their own about the crypto guidance.

Peirce celebrated the decision in a May 29 commentary, saying prior regulatory uncertainty on staking “constrained participation in network consensus and undermined the decentralization, censorship resistance, and credible neutrality of proof-of-stake blockchains.”

“Today’s statement provides welcome clarity for stakeholders and ‘staking-as-a-service’ providers in the United States,” she said.

However, Democratic Commissioner Crenshaw slammed the SEC’s latest guidance, saying the agency’s statement on the matter ignores “how its conclusions conflict with that applicable law.”

“This is yet another example of the SEC’s ongoing ‘fake it till we make it’ approach to crypto—taking action based on anticipation of future changes while ignoring existing law,” Crenshaw said.

“I continue to believe that these staff statements do more harm than good by purporting to carve out broad categories of crypto products without analyzing the realities of how they really work,” she added. “These statements paint an incomplete picture that obfuscates, rather than clarifies, what the law is.”