SEC official warns liquid staking guidance adds confusion, raising Lehman-like risks
US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw has criticized recent staff guidance on liquid staking, warning that it fails to reflect the practice’s complexities.
On Aug. 5, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance asserted that certain liquid staking arrangements, specifically those involving receipt tokens, do not fall under securities regulations.
However, Crenshaw pushed back, arguing that the statement adds confusion rather than clarity to the legal treatment of liquid staking.
“Instead of clarifying the legal landscape, today’s statement, like other recent staff statements before it, only muddies the waters.”
Crenshaw pointed to two major flaws in the SEC staff’s position. First, she said the guidance relies on a long list of questionable assumptions about how liquid staking operates. Second, the staff’s legal conclusions are heavily caveated, making them unreliable for firms trying to navigate compliance.
She noted that any staking activity not fitting the precise conditions described in the document would fall outside its scope. Because of this, she argued, the guidance offers little protection or direction to those involved in staking-related services.
Crenshaw also reminded investors that the guidance represents the opinion of SEC staff, not the official stance of the Commission itself. As such, she believes it should have been framed as a cautionary alert, not a position of regulatory clarity.
Lehman-like risks in crypto staking
Adding to the concerns, Amanda Fischer, a former SEC Chief of Staff under Gary Gensler, drew parallels between liquid staking and the risky financial practices that led to Lehman Brothers’ collapse in 2008.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Fischer warned that liquid staking could expose crypto markets to cascading failures. She explained that the practice allows users to deposit digital assets and receive a synthetic version of the same token, which can be reused to earn additional rewards.
According to Fischer, this mirrors how Lehman reused client assets to back high-risk trades. She argued that liquid staking could replicate the same vulnerabilities without strong regulatory oversight.
The former SEC official also highlighted the risks of relying on token issuers, the possibility of long delays when unstaking, and the threat of technical failures or hacks. Together, these factors could amplify systemic risk across the crypto sector.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
After bitcoin returns to $90,000, is Christmas or a Christmas crash coming next?
This Thanksgiving, we are grateful for bitcoin returning to $90,000.

Bitcoin security reaches a historic high, but miner revenue drops to a historic low. Where will mining companies find new sources of income?
The current paradox of the Bitcoin network is particularly striking: while the protocol layer has never been more secure due to high hash power, the underlying mining industry is facing pressure from capital liquidation and consolidation.

What are the privacy messaging apps Session and SimpleX donated by Vitalik?
Why did Vitalik take action? From content encryption to metadata privacy.

The covert war escalates: Hyperliquid faces a "kamikaze" attack, but the real battle may have just begun
The attacker incurred a loss of 3 million in a "suicidal" attack, but may have achieved breakeven through external hedging. This appears more like a low-cost "stress test" targeting the protocol's defensive capabilities.

