美國證券交易委員會的加密貨幣打擊：創新受到抑制還是投資者保護加強？

SEC 對加密貨幣創新的打擊正受到 DeFi 教育基金和 Beba 的挑戰。他們認為，將 $BEBA 代幣歸類為證券會扼殺創新，並聲稱它們不符合證券的定義。投資人擔心，加強投資者保護會被用來扼殺加密貨幣領域的創新和創造力。

Is the SEC's Overreach Stifling Innovation?

SEC 的越權行為是否會扼殺創新？

The DeFi Education Fund and apparel company Beba are questioning the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) authority in a landmark legal challenge. They allege that the SEC's classification of their $BEBA token airdrop as a security is both arbitrary and illegal.

DeFi 教育基金和服裝公司 Beba 在一項具有里程碑意義的法律挑戰中質疑美國證券交易委員會 (SEC) 的權威。他們聲稱 SEC 將他們的 $BEBA 代幣空投歸類為證券既是任意的又是非法的。

Not a Security, They Argue

他們認為這不是證券

The plaintiffs contend that $BEBA tokens are not investment contracts and therefore do not meet the definition of a security. They argue that the tokens are free, there is no common enterprise between Beba and recipients, and there is no reasonable expectation of profits based on the efforts of others.

原告辯稱，$BEBA 代幣不是投資合約，因此不符合證券的定義。他們認為代幣是免費的，Beba 和接收者之間沒有共同的企業，也沒有基於他人努力的合理利潤預期。

SEC's "Regulation by Enforcement"

SEC的“執法監管”

The crypto industry has long criticized the SEC for its "regulation by enforcement" approach. Plaintiffs claim that the SEC has failed to provide clear guidance on the regulation of digital assets and instead relies on ad hoc enforcement actions. This uncertainty, they argue, stifles innovation and harms businesses like Beba.

加密產業長期以來一直批評 SEC 的「強制監管」做法。原告聲稱，美國證券交易委員會未能就數位資產的監管提供明確的指導，而是依賴臨時執法行動。他們認為，這種不確定性會抑制創新並損害像 Beba 這樣的企業。

Did SEC Violate the APA?

SEC 是否違反了 APA？

In addition to challenging the classification of $BEBA tokens, the plaintiffs allege that the SEC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide public notice and solicit comments before adopting its new policy on digital assets.

除了質疑 $BEBA 代幣的分類之外，原告還指控 SEC 在採用數位資產新政策之前未提供公眾通知並徵求意見，違反了《行政程序法》(APA)。

Implications for the Crypto Industry

對加密產業的影響

This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the SEC's regulatory approach to cryptocurrency. If successful, it could have significant implications for the crypto industry. It could clarify the legal status of digital assets, limit the SEC's enforcement authority, and force the agency to adopt a more transparent and predictable regulatory framework.

這起訴訟是針對美國證券交易委員會加密貨幣監管方式的一系列法律挑戰中的最新一起。如果成功，可能會對加密產業產生重大影響。它可以澄清數位資產的法律地位，限制 SEC 的執法權限，並迫使該機構採用更透明和可預測的監管框架。

SEC's Response

SEC 的回應

The SEC has 60 days to respond to the complaint. The agency has not yet commented on the allegations. However, SEC Chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly stated that most cryptocurrencies are securities and should be regulated accordingly.

SEC 有 60 天的時間對投訴做出回應。該機構尚未對這些指控發表評論。然而，SEC 主席加里·詹斯勒 (Gary Gensler) 一再表示，大多數加密貨幣都是證券，應該受到相應的監管。

The Stakes are High

風險很高

The outcome of this lawsuit will be closely watched by the crypto industry and the broader financial community. A victory for the plaintiffs could bolster the industry's argument for self-regulation and reduce the SEC's influence in the digital asset space. Conversely, a victory for the SEC could solidify its authority over cryptocurrency and give it wide latitude to define and enforce securities laws in this emerging market.

此次訴訟的結果將受到加密貨幣產業和更廣泛的金融界的密切關注。原告的勝利可能會增強該行業自我監管的論點，並削弱美國證券交易委員會在數位資產領域的影響力。相反，美國證券交易委員會的勝利可能會鞏固其對加密貨幣的權威，並賦予其在這個新興市場定義和執行證券法的廣泛自由。