美国证券交易委员会的加密货币打击：创新受到抑制还是投资者保护得到加强？

SEC 对加密货币创新的打击正受到 DeFi 教育基金和 Beba 的挑战。他们认为，将 $BEBA 代币归类为证券会扼杀创新，并声称它们不符合证券的定义。投资者担心，加强投资者保护会被用来扼杀加密货币领域的创新和创造力。

Is the SEC's Overreach Stifling Innovation?

SEC 的越权行为是否会扼杀创新？

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 教育基金和服装公司 Beba 在一项具有里程碑意义的法律挑战中质疑美国证券交易委员会 (SEC) 的权威。他们声称 SEC 将他们的 $BEBA 代币空投归类为证券既是任意的又是非法的。

Not a Security, They Argue

他们认为这不是证券

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.

原告辩称，$BEBA 代币不是投资合约，因此不符合证券的定义。他们认为代币是免费的，Beba 和接收者之间没有共同的企业，也没有基于他人努力的合理利润预期。

SEC's "Regulation by Enforcement"

SEC的“执法监管”

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.

加密行业长期以来一直批评 SEC 的“强制监管”做法。原告声称，美国证券交易委员会未能就数字资产的监管提供明确的指导，而是依赖于临时执法行动。他们认为，这种不确定性会抑制创新并损害像 Beba 这样的企业。

Did SEC Violate the APA?

SEC 是否违反了 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.

除了质疑 $BEBA 代币的分类之外，原告还指控 SEC 在采用数字资产新政策之前未提供公众通知并征求意见，违反了《行政程序法》(APA)。

Implications for the Crypto Industry

对加密行业的影响

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.

这起诉讼是针对美国证券交易委员会加密货币监管方式的一系列法律挑战中的最新一起。如果成功，可能会对加密行业产生重大影响。它可以澄清数字资产的法律地位，限制 SEC 的执法权限，并迫使该机构采用更加透明和可预测的监管框架。

SEC's Response

SEC 的回应

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 天的时间对投诉做出回应。该机构尚未对这些指控发表评论。然而，SEC 主席加里·詹斯勒 (Gary Gensler) 一再表示，大多数加密货币都是证券，应该受到相应的监管。

The Stakes are High

风险很高

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.

此次诉讼的结果将受到加密货币行业和更广泛的金融界的密切关注。原告的胜利可能会增强该行业自我监管的论点，并削弱美国证券交易委员会在数字资产领域的影响力。相反，美国证券交易委员会的胜利可能会巩固其对加密货币的权威，并赋予其在这个新兴市场定义和执行证券法的广泛自由度。