[moeadham]

All this will do is push US customers to self custody, and outside the regulatory perimeter of the SEC.

Bravo Gary. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[cool_dude85]

The point is to stop Kraken from offering an unregulated security, not to stop people choosing to stake their Lunas.

[matthewdgreen]

I think the point is to establish some precedent that what Kraken was offering actually was an unregulated security, something that might not have been completely clear before this. I doubt that the Fed is deeply concerned about Kraken beyond that.

[nemothekid]

>and outside the regulatory perimeter of the SEC.

I think that's the point? The SEC doesn't want an issue where Kraken loses all the funds because they didn't actually stake anything at all and instead were investing in tulip futures.

[babyshake]

Are you suggesting that exchanges might be misappropriating customer funds? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

[the_gastropod]

I doubt it will push a significant chunk of these users to self-custody. Self-custody is significantly more complicated than leaving assets on an exchange—which is why most people don't do self-custody. I'm sure this will drive some to self-custody. But I don't imagine it'll be a very large percentage.

[rhodorhoades]

Is it tho? A MetaMask wallet staking directly with the protocols/ yield aggregators is easier than creating a kraken account and doing KYC verification.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Right. I self custody most of my stuff, but I do stake a few coins with Kraken because the amount is relatively small and it's easier. Taking away this service is annoying.