2026-01-02 17:20:23

#数字资产动态追踪 A major exchange in California is facing an escalating tug-of-war with regulators, with the core issue being: who should oversee staking services? Is it the authority of state-level agencies, or does it fall under securities regulations requiring federal oversight?

California users are currently disabled from staking, which essentially means missing out on passive income. But the impact of this issue goes far beyond California. Once this case is settled, it could serve as a benchmark for other states across the US. If the exchange wins, staking services nationwide will be able to operate more freely with greater compliance space; conversely, if regulators win, the entire industry could face stricter regulatory storms. $BTC

This lawsuit essentially addresses a fundamental question: how can the staking ecosystem in the crypto market survive within the current legal framework? The outcome will directly influence the business strategies of all exchanges over the next year.

BTC1,97%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasFeeLady

· 9h ago

ngl this staking ban is basically the perfect storm scenario... watching the gas prices while cali's entire yield economy implodes is something else entirely. federal vs state jurisdiction, classic regulatory theater. whoever wins this one basically sets the template for how everyone else plays it safe or goes aggressive next quarter.

Reply0

rekt_but_vibing

· 9h ago

California's recent staking ban is truly outrageous, setting an example for the whole country. If the regulators win, we all have to suffer the consequences. Staking yields are just gone like that. The federal and state governments arguing back and forth, and in the end, it's us users who suffer. Basically, it's about defining what staking actually is. If the rules aren't clear, how can we play? If exchanges really lose, how serious the consequences will be is hard to say. The entire industry will have to be reshuffled. If this sets a precedent, it will be the end of it. Other states will follow suit and ban it too. Regulators and exchanges are both gambling, betting on what the industry will look like in the next year. The legal status of staking needs to be clarified as soon as possible. The current ambiguity is the hardest to deal with. California users are truly unlucky, watching passive income just fly away. Regulators still don't quite understand Web3. Making such a sweeping move is really reckless. If it weren't for this lawsuit, more states might have already followed suit and banned it.

View OriginalReply0

FalseProfitProphet

· 9h ago

California's ban on staking is really extreme, it feels like they're trying to kill retail investors' passive income. The real key is the battle for staking rights; winning means the whole country relaxes, losing could mean everything is over. This lawsuit's outcome could truly determine how exchanges operate for the next year, it's quite intense. Honestly, it's still about figuring out how crypto staking can survive within the legal framework, very realistic. California users are basically being used as test subjects, while other states are watching this case. The entire industry is actually betting on the outcome of this lawsuit, it's a bit thrilling. Banning staking sounds simple, but the power struggles behind it are incredibly complex. Just waiting to see who surrenders first—exchanges or regulators—this game isn't as fun as it looks.

View OriginalReply0

CodeAuditQueen

· 9h ago

The issue of staking ownership is essentially a reentrancy vulnerability in smart contracts—everyone wants to withdraw funds from the same function, but the legal framework hasn't been properly checked or established yet. California's ban is like temporarily inserting a require(false) statement, which only treats the symptoms but not the root cause. The real problem is that regulators' understanding of staking mechanics is still stuck in ancient times, still applying traditional securities logic. In my opinion, we need to wait for the audit reports to be finalized before we can see who will come out on top. Honestly, the longer these disputes drag on, the more beneficial it is for the entire ecosystem—giving technical teams time to conduct security vulnerability assessments. If exchanges actually win, they should be more cautious, as a relaxed compliance environment is most likely to breed new attack vectors.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoCross-TalkClub

· 9h ago

Laughing to death, California's recent move is really just a test version of the "staking ban" for the whole of the US. The deadlock between exchanges and regulators essentially boils down to asking "who the hell manages the money-making," and as a result, ordinary users are banned. Isn't this causing us to miss out on passive income? Incredible. Once this lawsuit is over, other states will probably start lining up to copy the move. Betting a little, but the impact on the entire industry could be even harsher than a bear market.

View OriginalReply0