Early this morning, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams posted on the X platform that Uniswap received a good notice from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Once the news broke, UNI's price fell by about 5.5%, from $11.1 to the current $9.3. Odaily Planet Daily will analyze Wells' notice and Uniswap's response in this article.
Last night, Uniswap released a blog post in response titled “Fighting for DeFi,” and Odaily summarized the key points as follows.
This is a political attack
Today, Uniswap Labs received good notice from the SEC's Enforcement Division, and they plan to recommend legal action against Uniswap. The entire existing UniSwap product range will remain available, and we will continue to introduce new products. Given the ongoing lawsuits brought by the SEC against Coinbase and other companies, and their complete reluctance to provide clarity or a path to registration for companies to legally operate in the US, we can only conclude that this presents a challenge for even the most established companies relying on blockchain technology. The latest policy effort from Best Solutions Corporation.
The SEC has no authorization from Congress
The SEC only has jurisdiction over securities, such as assets classified by law as “investment contracts.” The court's ruling in SEC v. Ripple made clear that secondary market transactions in digital assets generally do not constitute investment contracts. These are the assets that make up the vast majority of transactions on the Uniswap protocol. Even the head of the SEC acknowledged in his testimony before Congress that new regulation of tokens would require Congress to pass new laws, which the SEC lacks the authority to do.
Uniswap does not meet the legal definition of an exchange
Even putting the Ripple issue aside, the Uniswap protocol, decentralized applications, and wallets still do not meet the legal definition of a stock exchange or broker. This was demonstrated in the recent SEC v. Coinbase case, where in the early stages of the case the court rejected the SEC's claim that the cryptocurrency wallet was an intermediary.
UNI does not meet the legal definition of security
The UNI Token is not a security because it does not meet the legal definition of any type of security, including the definition of an “investment contract.” There is no contract or obligation between Uniswap Labs and the 300,000 token holders, there is no shared foundation, and the value of the token depends solely on the efforts of Uniswap Labs.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has made it very clear that...
BTC and ETH are not securities. And the Uniswap technology ecosystem is decentralized enough, just like$BTC And$ETH
