Prometheum, a cryptocurrency platform registered with the SEC, has decided to treat Uniswap (UNI) and Arbitrum (ARB) tokens as securities, following a compliance strategy that has sparked debates in the sector.
Let’s see all the details below.
Compliance strategy of Prometheum: custody of Uniswap and Arbitrum as securities
In the cryptocurrency landscape, where regulation remains a complicated issue, Prometheum has taken a significant step by deciding to treat Uniswap’s UNI tokens and Arbitrum’s ARB tokens as securities.
This decision, which aligns the company with the vision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States, has sparked considerable discussions within the sector.
This is because the majority of cryptocurrency actors do not share the SEC’s interpretation of digital assets.
In any case, this strategic choice follows the hard line adopted by the SEC, according to which most digital tokens should be considered a security regulated by the commission itself.
The CEO of Prometheum Capital, Benjamin Kaplan, stated that the company believes federal securities laws are the best regulatory framework to ensure consolidated and tested protections for investors.
Prometheum has always aimed to provide a regulated mechanism to allow investors to responsibly participate in the digital asset market.
The expansion of custody operations to include UNI and ARB represents a further step towards this goal.
Treating these tokens as securities is not just a compliance choice, but also a move that could position Prometheum as an example of “cryptocurrencies done right,” as suggested multiple times by the SEC chairman, Gary Gensler.
However, despite Kaplan’s reassurances, the decision to treat UNI and ARB as securities has generated criticism.
Some representatives of the sector believe that this interpretation is too restrictive and does not reflect the real decentralized nature of many tokens.
Uniswap Labs, for example, has vigorously contested the SEC’s position, calling the attempts to classify UNI as a security “unfounded.”
The debate on what exactly constitutes a security in the context of cryptocurrencies is still open. Furthermore, Prometheum’s strategy could come under the spotlight as the debate intensifies.
The opposite view to the SEC: Coinbase and Ripple
The case of Prometheum fits into a broader context of discussion on the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States.
While Prometheum closely aligns with the SEC’s vision, many other companies in the sector are actively fighting against this interpretation in federal courts.
Some of the main cryptocurrency companies, such as Coinbase and Ripple, have challenged the SEC. Specifically, arguing that many digital assets should not be treated as investment contracts or securities, but rather as commodities or digital goods.
This tension between the SEC and companies in the sector has created an uncertain environment for the future of cryptocurrencies in the United States.
While on one hand Prometheum has chosen to adopt a conservative stance, on the other hand the success of the legal challenges against the SEC could redefine the entire regulatory framework.
The fate of Prometheum and other companies that follow a similar compliance line could depend on the outcome of these legal battles.
The classification of digital assets
An additional element of complexity is represented by the different classification of digital assets by various regulatory authorities.
For example, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has treated ether (ETH) as a commodity, creating a potential overlap of jurisdiction with the SEC.
This misalignment between US regulatory authorities further complicates the landscape for companies operating in the cryptocurrency sector. Forced to navigate in a fragmented and constantly evolving legal environment.
Prometheum, with its decision to treat UNI and ARB as securities, places itself in a unique position in the market.
Being the only company formally established as a broker-dealer for crypto assets, it has distinguished itself as a pioneer in cryptocurrency regulation in the United States.
However, this role also involves significant risks, as the company could find itself at odds with industry trends and potential legislative developments.
In conclusion, Prometheum’s move to expand its custody operations to include UNI and ARB as securities reflects its adherence to a rigorous compliance strategy, aligned with the SEC’s vision.
However, this choice has raised significant debates within the cryptocurrency sector. Furthermore, it could have far-reaching implications for the future of the market in the United States.
As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the case of Prometheum could become a benchmark for understanding how cryptocurrencies will be regulated and treated in the coming years.
