Representatives from multiple universities met with the US SEC Crypto Task Force on June 23 to discuss a staking rulebook.

The meeting included representatives from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, the University of Chicago Law School, and venture firm Placeholder.

According to the logs, the discussions focused on narrow definitions, economic guardrails, and open-source requirements related to staking digital assets.

Mutual-funds approach

The delegation operated under the Blockchain and Law at Berkeley (BLAB) banner, requesting that the SEC certify the term “staking” solely for products that perform protocol-level validation, requiring pre-approval for any retail marketing using the label.

They likened this approach to the mutual-fund “80% names rule,” arguing that precise terminology would prevent custodial yield programs from disguising themselves as core network staking.

Furthermore, the group proposed capping published yields at a protocol’s base reward rate and limiting intermediary fees to 5% of those rewards to curb aggressive advertising. Providers could increase fees only if they justify higher charges with auditable cost data.

The BLAB also recommended standardized, on-interface disclosures of gross network yield, net customer payout, and slashing liability, ensuring users see real-time risk and fee data within wallets and explorers.

The meeting followed a May 29 staff bulletin in which the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance stated that self-staking, delegated staking, and most non-custodial services do not trigger securities registration requirements.

Industry participants view the exemption as a starting point rather than an endpoint. ETF advocates note that the IRS still must decide how grantor-trust structures can distribute staking rewards.

Transparency beyond exemption

In this policy context, the universities informed SEC staff that disclosure alone cannot address concentrated validator power or hidden rehypothecation loops in liquid-staking and restaking protocols.

They urged the agency to mandate public dashboards to display validator influence, uptime, censorship behavior, and jurisdictional exposure, along with an open-source requirement for any client software interacting with consensus.

The presenters also recommended licensing thresholds for entities controlling a significant share of network stake, similar to bank-style oversight for dominant validators. They contended that the combination of slashing, live data, and licensing would “close the gap between on-chain enforcement and real-world accountability,” according to the meeting memo.

The SEC took the suggestions into consideration, leaving academic advocates and industry stakeholders waiting for further guidance on whether staking’s new regulatory safe harbor will develop into a formal framework.