SEC Raises Key Questions on REX Osprey Staked ETH ETF Qualification

Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has expressed significant concerns about whether a proposed staked Ether (ETH) Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) from REX Shares and Osprey Funds qualifies under federal securities laws.
• SEC staff highlighted unresolved questions regarding the fund’s ability to meet the definition of an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
• There are also concerns that the registration statement for the REX-OspreyETH ETF might have been improperly filed on Form N-1A.
• The SEC is scrutinizing whether disclosures about the fund’s status as an investment company could be potentially misleading to investors.
• If these issues aren’t resolved, the SEC staff will consider further actions to ensure compliance, potentially impacting the launch of such staked ETH products.

SEC Voices Concerns Over Staked ETH ETF Structure

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is taking a close look at a new type of cryptocurrency investment product, specifically a proposed staked Ether (ETH) Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) from REX Shares and Osprey Funds. In recent communications, SEC staff have raised “unresolved questions” about whether this fund, as currently designed, would meet crucial legal definitions under U.S. federal securities laws. This scrutiny could have significant implications for the future of ETFs that aim to offer returns from staked crypto assets.

The core of the SEC’s concern, as outlined in a letter and reported by various financial news outlets, centers on the fund’s classification. Specifically, the agency is questioning:

• Investment Company Status: Whether the REX-OspreyETH ETF, if it operates as proposed, would legally qualify as an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act of 1940. This act provides a framework for regulating pooled investment vehicles.
• Appropriate Filing Form: The SEC staff suggested that the fund might have improperly filed its registration statement using Form N-1A, which is typically used by open-end investment companies (like mutual funds and most ETFs). If the fund doesn’t fit the traditional mold, a different form or approach might be required.
• Potentially Misleading Disclosures: There are concerns that the information provided in the registration statement regarding the fund’s status as an investment company could be misleading to potential investors.

Staking Mechanism and Traditional ETF Rules Under Review

The introduction of staking into an ETF structure appears to be a key area of the SEC’s examination. Staking involves locking up cryptocurrencies to support a blockchain network’s operations in return for rewards. The SEC is looking into how this activity fits with existing ETF regulations.

Key aspects likely under review include:

• Nature of Assets: The SEC has previously indicated that some cryptocurrencies might be considered commodities rather than securities. If an ETF primarily holds an asset deemed a commodity (like Ether, in some contexts), its eligibility to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act could be questioned. The Investment Company Act generally applies to companies primarily engaged in investing in securities.
• Liquidity and Redemption: Traditional ETFs are known for specific liquidity, redemption, and pricing mechanisms. The SEC is likely examining whether the staking and unstaking processes, which can sometimes involve lock-up periods or delays, align with these established ETF operational standards.
• Disclosure of Risks: The agency is also focused on whether the fund adequately explains the mechanics of staking, the associated risks (such as slashing penalties or illiquidity), and how staking rewards will be generated, accounted for, and distributed to investors.

Implications for Crypto ETFs and Regulatory Path Forward

The SEC’s cautious approach to these new staked crypto products is not entirely unexpected, given the agency’s broader stance on digital assets and investor protection. The questions raised about the REX-OspreyETH ETF highlight the regulatory hurdles that innovative crypto investment vehicles face in the U.S. market.

Potential outcomes and considerations include:

The resolution of the SEC’s concerns regarding the REX Osprey staked ETH ETF carries significant potential outcomes. Failure to adequately address these issues could lead to delayed approval or even outright rejection of the proposed ETF. This situation also highlights the pressing need for greater regulatory clarity for crypto-based financial products, especially those involving newer mechanisms like staking. Central to the SEC’s review is its mandate to protect investors, meaning any product must demonstrate sound structure, transparency, and full risk disclosure. Ultimately, how these specific concerns are handled will likely set an important precedent for future filings of similar staked crypto ETFs in the U.S. market.