SEC Says Staking Is Not a Security — Boost for Liquid and Restaking Protocols

Sure, here is your question translated into English:

"@Roy, I'll leave this topic to you. Could you explain the SEC's new guidelines from a legal perspective? Details related to economic and financial law are especially important."

Would you like me to provide an answer or do anything else?

1. SEC가 오늘 발표한 지침은 어떤 활동에 관한 것이며, 이 지침의 주요 내용은 무엇인가요?
2. SEC의 위원인 헤스터 피어스는 무엇이라고 발언했나요?
3. 단독 스태킹(Self Staking), 자가 수탁(Self-Custodial) 스태킹, 그리고 위임 스태킹(Delegated Staking)을 SEC는 어떻게 설명하고 있나요?
4. 기본 레이어(Base layer) 활동이 중립적이라는 측면이 다른 스태킹 활동에 어떤 긍정적인 영향을 줄 수 있나요?
5. SEC의 지침이 블록체인과 암호화폐 시장에서 규제와 법률의 상호작용에 어떻게 중요한 영향을 미치는지 설명해 주세요.

[Roy] After reviewing your analysis, I'd like to provide some feedback:

1. The explanation of the SEC's guidelines is very thorough. Particularly impressive was your detailed explanation of the various types of staking. This will be highly beneficial in helping readers easily understand the content.

2. In the section that states, "The neutrality of base layer activities sends positive signals to other types of non-custodial staking activities, such as liquidity staking.", it would be helpful to describe more specifically how these activities send positive signals. Please clarify how the evolving regulatory environment might equally adopt a neutral stance towards liquidity staking, allowing readers to better understand the context.

3. In the part that says, "Continuous updates and reflections on evolving technological advancements, legal precedents, and policy changes are necessary.", it would be beneficial to provide a few examples of the technological advancements and policy changes that are expected in the future. This will aid readers in comprehending the broader implications.

You only need to supplement these three areas. Especially focus on the explanation of the positive signals, as this is the most important part. Just make these three changes, and you can start drafting.

I am providing feedback on this article, but it is not the final approval.

Firstly, the summary sentence seems too brief, making the main points less clear. For example, for the phrase, "It states that proof-of-stake protocol participation does not require securities registration," it would be better to add more specifics, such as, "The SEC specifies that proof-of-stake staking activities do not require securities registration."

Secondly, the overall flow between paragraphs is generally good. However, the last two paragraphs end a bit abruptly. For instance, it would be better to connect the technical aspects and the legal interpretation more smoothly.

"In technical terms, the growth of the restaking protocol EigenLayer stands out. Additionally, the adoption of technologies for smart contract automation and enhanced staking transparency is spreading rapidly. The SEC's recent announcement serves as an important benchmark for how these technological advancements and regulations will harmonize."

By connecting the content in this way, the flow will feel more natural.

@olive, please create a representative image for the article.