Crypto Council For Innovation
Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Leadership
    • Membership
    • Careers
    • CCI News
    • Contact
    • Events
    • Press Releases
  • Analysis
    • All Analysis
    • Crypto in Action
    • News Analysis
    • Explainer
  • POSA
  • Comment Letters
  • Policy Briefs
  • Reports
  • Security
  • Financial Literacy
  • Policy
  • EU Elections
  • Crypto in Action
  • Explainer
    • Defi
    • NFTs
    • DAOs
    • Layer 1s
    • Layer 2s
    • Government
    • Infrastructure
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Leadership
    • Membership
    • Careers
    • CCI News
    • Contact
    • Events
    • Press Releases
  • Analysis
    • All Analysis
    • Crypto in Action
    • News Analysis
    • Explainer
  • POSA
  • Comment Letters
  • Policy Briefs
  • Reports
No Result
View All Result
Crypto Council For Innovation
No Result
View All Result

Home » Most liquid staking tokens are not securities

Most liquid staking tokens are not securities

byCCI
August 7, 2023
in Explainers

By Evan Weiss, Founder of POSA.

I talk with a lot of people in the ecosystem about liquid staking. It’s time to address a common misconception head-on. When tokens are staked via a liquid staking protocol and are pooled together simply to be staked, that pooling does not make participation in the protocol a security. 

Staking in this scenario does not represent an investment contract and the persistence of this myth unnecessarily harms those participating in securing proof of stake networks. The recent ruling in the SEC lawsuit vs. Ripple shows the US courts agree that whether or not the sale or issuance of tokens represent investment contracts depends on the facts and circumstances associated with each specific sale or issuance: in other words, it depends on the specific scenarios in which the tokens are offered. There is well established case law specifically relevant to service provider relationships that clearly shows that most liquid staking tokens are not securities as their protocol’s offerings are designed. 

Let’s start with some facts. The CFTC determined that ETH is a commodity, like grain and pork bellies. These are staple foods that are warehoused. If you’re not familiar with the concept of bailments, the idea is simple: a bailment is a legal/contractual relationship, where an owner transfers physical possession of property for a time to a bailee, but retains ownership of that property. The bailee safeguards the property for the owner and is required to return it when requested. In certain bailments the bailee/safeguarder issues the owner a warehouse receipt to represent the owner’s ownership. These warehouse receipts can be exchanged to efficiently trade the underlying property which happens today at large exchanges like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). 

Bailments have been a part of law for so long that no one knows their origin. There has always been a need to define the obligations and liabilities of someone contracted to take care of other people’s commodities. The concept of warehouse receipts or electronic documents of title have been around for decades and are commonly used for all types of commodities, including livestock, gold, crops, and more.

Today there is well-established case law about pooling of commodities. Consider a farmer securing their wheat in a commodity warehouse. It’s stored there in one big silo with everyone’s deposited wheat. The farmer sells their wheat using their warehouse receipt. The buyer doesn’t care about getting back the exact grains of wheat that were deposited, because wheat is a fungible commodity, just like ETH. What matters is that the warehouse receipt is a document of title representing ownership of the amount of wheat the farmer sold and that the grain is safeguarded in a safe and secure way by the warehouse owner. 

So what does liquid staking have to do with pooling grain and pork bellies?

Warehouse receipts and electronic documents of title are commonly used today. They’re incredibly important for increasing the feasibility, growth, and capital efficiency of commodity markets by removing the need to physically transfer the commodity. 

The case law surrounding the pooling of bailments provides a clear example of how liquid staking tokens (LSTs) should be considered as a document of title. LSTs as documents of title are in effect receipt tokens, just like warehouse receipts, that allow the stakers to trade/utilize the ETH being secured by the liquid staking protocol. These types of relationships even cover specific concerns, like how liquid stakers earn network rewards and socialize staking losses.

The liquid staking protocol as a staking facility compares to the storage facilities for commodities like grain, pork bellies, or whiskey. The liquid staking protocol is akin to the warehouse where everyone’s wheat is stored and safeguarded, and the relationship between the staker and the liquid staking protocol is akin to the relationship between a bailee and bailor. 

The courts have already considered whether documents of title qualify as investment contracts. The court in Noa v. Key Futures held that certificates of ownership for silver bars pooled together and warehoused by a seller, where a seller advertised that it “would buy the silver back at any time at the spot price quoted by the Wall Street Journal,” were not investment contracts because the future value of the silver did not depend on the efforts of the seller. 

Even the SEC has taken a no-action position regarding several offerings of gold and the issuance of warehouse receipts. As early as 1974, the SEC considered how the issuers of the warehouse receipts had arranged for the storage of, and insurance for, gold. They determined that such arrangements and activities did not result in the warehouse receipts being investment contracts. 

Relating to multiple arrangements, the SEC found that these warehouse receipts were not securities because the sellers’ efforts did not rise to the level of being those essential efforts in which the purchaser would rely on to realize a profit. Instead they were focusing on safeguarding the assets and ensuring they retained their value for their owners. 

However, courts have found warehouse receipts for whiskey to be investment contracts where the purchaser depended on the efforts of others to achieve profits because such persons provided their expertise in the selection of whiskey, casks, and finding a market for the whiskey, along with the administrative efforts of arranging for warehousing and insurance for the whiskey. Given the structure of these offerings, the investors had a dependence “upon the seller or others to select, store and trade the whiskey,” which created an investment contract. These cases show that there is a thin line between the efforts provided by the promoter, especially when it comes to identifying the ability to significantly increase the value of the underlying commodity or controlling secondary markets for resale. 

While too-often the industry uses the term ‘pooling’ solely to describe the pooling of assets into a joint venture, as described under securities law, the example of ‘pooling commodities,’ or storing them together under commodities law is much more aligned with how liquid staking tokens work. 

Liquid staking protocols may pool an end user’s ETH together with the ETH of other end users in a single blockchain address or smart contract. This is just like how physical commodities may be maintained in a single warehouse as a fungible bulk. Whether it’s gold, silver, wheat, or livestock, this kind of pooling for storage happens in all types of service provider relationships. 

The direct parallels between pooling commodities as fungible bulk in a warehouse and pooling ETH as fungible bulk to be staked even cover staking rewards and slashing losses:   

  • A warehouse receipt or bill of lading for physical commodities allows the holder to transfer legal and beneficial ownership of the commodity while it is maintained in storage or is in transit. The holder of the receipt is entitled to any naturally occurring fruits of its owned commodities, such as offspring of livestock, or any staking rewards generated in the case of liquid staking. 
  • When storing physical commodities as fungible bulk with a bailee, a huge silo fire could result in all bailors’ grain being lost at the same time. Gold under custody could be robbed from the vault, or all stored milk could be affected by a facility power outage. This is just like how losses could be experienced across a liquid staking protocol’s end users due to a slashing event. The users of these service providers may be simultaneously affected by these losses (sharing losses pro-rata), and these losses could even come as a result of other customers’ actions, but that doesn’t mean that all users of the service provider are engaging in an investment together.  

How does this all relate to liquid staking? Let’s look at liquid staking through the commodity lens: 

  • The CFTC has determined that ETH is a commodity akin to grain or pork bellies.
  • The staking protocol is akin to a storage warehouse for digital commodities used by end users for purposes of safekeeping their staked ETH and network rewards.
  • End users will deposit this commodity into the staking facility to be staked by validators. 
  • The protocol will issue an electronic document of title in the form of a LST to an end user as evidence that the end user has ETH staked via the protocol and is entitled to the network rewards generated by their portion of staked ETH, as well as losses due to slashing.
  • The staking protocol has no discretion or ability to reappropriate the ETH. ETH must be staked on the beacon chain, making the arrangement very different from lending, which requires underwriting, third parties, and transfer of funds. 
  • As a result, the LST has characteristics that are consistent with the receipt instruments in Noa v. Key futures and the SEC’s Warehouse Receipt No Action Letters. They should not be considered as securities.

Not every liquid staking offering will fit into this mold cleanly. And, as true with any analysis under Howey, there will be cases where the facts and circumstances differ. As with any investment contract analysis every solution must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Most liquid staking tokens are not securities

Examining well-established case law to debunk the myth that pooling tokens in liquid staking represents an investment contract

By Evan Weiss, Founder of POSA

8/17/2023

Noa v. Key Futures: Not investment contracts

  • Future value of the silver did not depend on the efforts of the representatives
  • Future value of silver depended on the market rate for silver as quoted in the Wall Street Journal
  • Participants didn’t get their value from the relationship by relying on the representative’s ability to select the best asset 

SEC v. Glen-Arden Commodities, Inc.: Investment contracts

  • Representatives of the issuer of the warehouse receipts “would utilize [their] expertise in selecting the type and quality of Scotch whisky and casks to be purchased,” providing participants with value by selecting the best assets likely to appreciate in value
  • Made themselves available to warehouse receipt holders to obtain information about the market
  • Traded whiskey on the owners’ behalf

Direct staking designs

  • Allow users to stake directly, retain legal and beneficial ownership of their staked tokens, and stake in any amount
  • Act akin to technical service providers, with network rewards generated organically from the Ethereum blockchain
  • Selling price of the ETH (or LST) is dictated by the markets
  • Do not actively manage or create secondary trading venues

Actively managed staking designs

  • Enhanced yield generation mechanisms
  • Fractional reserves held for arbitrary deployment and/or increased liquidity for users
  • Varying levels of discretion held by the custodian or service provider
  • Offer guaranteed returns or instant rewards 

Just as there is room for technical service providers in staking, some teams may choose to build liquid staking solutions that are more akin to financial intermediaries.

So, what makes a liquid staking protocol aligned with a traditional service provider relationship, with the LST akin to a document of title in terms of case law? Here are some of the defining features that differentiate most liquid staking tokens from securities. 


  • No discretion on the part of a liquid staking protocol to use the end stakers’ ETH
  • ETH locked into the Ethereum deposit contract
  • Protocol does not have the ability to transfer, exchange, or otherwise exercise control over the ETH maintained within the staking facility
  • The ETH is just used for staking

No ability to transfer, exchange, or utilize the staked tokens 


No centralized control: you can exchange or redeem an LST through many different venues

  • LST can be traded or exchanged on many different venues
  • Decentralized community operating the protocol may assist in integrating those venues
  • LST holder is responsible for making any sales

  • Liquid staking protocol doesn’t offer secondary trading opportunities, just the ability to redeem LST for ETH
  • This is even better than in Noa v. Key Futures (not an investment contract) where the warehouse was offering to buy silver on their balance sheet at rates dictated by the market 

No offer of secondary trading


  • The technical service action of selecting validators that meet performance requirements is distinct from a financial services offering 
  • Using a service provider to earn network-determined staking rewards is different than paying a representative to choose a whiskey likely to appreciate in value for you to buy, or to provide the financial service of choosing different investment schemes to deploy staking pool reserves into

Not selecting value or appreciation 


  • In the case of slashing, all LSTs associated with the liquid staking protocol are equally impacted 
  • Functions like a commodity warehouse, where an outage, fire, or burglary would have an equal chance of affecting any participant

Losses are shared 


Simply storing and securing commodities or tokens together does not automatically make a relationship an investment contract. Based on standing case law on the pooling of commodities, the service of liquid staking should most often be considered that of a service provider safeguarding assets. 

In my five years working on staking legal issues I have yet to see case law or a contractual structure that better represents the relationship between a staker and service provider than that of liquid staking as a document of title. Now that participation in liquid staking is broadening, it’s time for the industry as a whole to accurately represent liquid staking to the world according to existing legal precedent. 

When regulators issue blanket statements that all staking services fit into a given model of case law, it’s harmful to consumers. We need tailored evaluation for each offering based on its design, just as the courts have shown in the SEC v. Ripple case. Our collective goal should be to work with regulators and lawmakers to craft a framework for technical staking services without necessitating securities registration. Having clear and appropriate rules will allow staking providers the ability to offer safe services to users, protecting consumers while ensuring one of the fastest parts of the industry continues to flourish. 

In the absence of proper regulatory clarity, the PoS ecosystem must step up to the plate and self-regulate. We can foster responsible growth by designing liquid staking protocols that don’t actively manage participant’s funds, precisely defining the relationship between stakers and liquid staking solutions, and getting everyone to stop inaccurately portraying LSTs as investment contracts or liquid staking derivatives. This will allow for the ecosystem to continue to grow responsibly while we advocate for the clear, nuanced rules of the road we need.

Resources:

  • U.S. Federal Securities and Commodity Law Analysis of Liquid Staking Receipt Tokens – Proof of Stake Alliance 
  • SEC Releases, No-Action Position Relating to Certain Offerings of Gold, Securities and Exchange Commission, (Dec. 26, 1974) (“Release No. 5552”).
Tags: cryptoethereumPOSAstakingtokens
Tweet

Related Posts

Photo of the White House illustrating crypto policy during the first 100 days of the Trump presidency.
Explainers

Trump, Crypto, and the First 100 Days 

May 17, 2025
Solana Staking Mechanics: A Step-by-Step Explanation
Explainers

Solana Staking Mechanics: A Step-by-Step Explanation

May 16, 2025
Load More
Next Post
US State Crypto Policy in 2023 – Part 1

US State Crypto Policy in 2023 - Part 1

By Categories

  • CCI News
  • Comment Letters
  • Congressional Testimony
  • Crypto in Action
  • Data
  • Explainers
  • Letter
  • News Analysis
  • Oped
  • Pinned Event
  • Policy Briefs
  • Press Releases
  • Previous Events
  • Recent Coverage
  • Report
  • Uncategorized
  • Upcoming Events
  • About
  • Contact

© 2025 Crypto Council For Innovation.

No Result
View All Result
Subscribe
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Leadership
    • Membership
    • Careers
    • CCI News
    • Contact
    • Events
    • Press Release
    • Recent Coverage
  • Analysis
    • All Analysis
    • Crypto in Action
    • Explainer
      • All Explainers
      • DeFi
      • NFT
      • DAO
      • Layer 1s
      • Layer 2s
      • Government
      • Infrastructure
    • News Analysis
  • Recent Coverage
  • Comment Letters
  • Policy Briefs
  • Reports
  • Security
  • Financial Literacy
  • Policy
  • EU Elections
  • In Action
  • Explainer
    • All Explainers
    • DeFi
    • NFT
    • DAO
    • Layer 1s
    • Layer 2s
    • Government
    • Infrastructure

© 2025 Crypto Council For Innovation.

Saskia Seidel

Policy Fellow

Saskia Seidel is the Policy Fellow at CCI, conducting legal and policy analysis on crypto regulations and legislative developments across key jurisdictions. She examines bills and regulatory proposals as well as case decisions, providing insights into the evolving landscape of digital assets policy.

Saskia holds a Master of Laws in International Business and Economic Law from Georgetown University Law Center. Originally from Germany, she earned a Bachelor's degree in Law and Economics and passed the First German State Exam in Law to qualify in the legal system.

Before joining CCI, Saskia worked at various law firms specializing in corporate and international tax law, where she developed a strong understanding of how businesses navigate legal and regulatory challenges in a cross-border context and advising on complex legal matters.

Krisina Antonio

Office Manager / Administrative Assistant

Krisina Antonio is the Executive Assistant to the CEO and DC Office Manager at CCI. Prior to joining CCI, Krisina has led executive offices in education and finance. She also worked within the pro-sports sales and marketing space for teams within the NFL, MLS, and Minor League Baseball

Emily Ekshian

Communications Specialist

Emily Ekshian is the Communications Lead at CCI, working closely with the communications team on branding, marketing and publicity efforts. She holds a Master of Science in Journalism from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, with concentrations in Finance, Technology, and Human Rights.

She also earned a Bachelor of Arts in Political Economy and Media Studies, with a Minor in Human Rights, from the University of California, Berkeley. Emily is passionate about the intersection of blockchain, digital assets, and global policy, focusing on how emerging technologies can support climate resilience, financial inclusion, and freedom of expression.

Through her work, she explores the transformative potential of Web3 in addressing global challenges and advancing positive social impact.

Renee Barton

Director, Impact Research

Renée leads Impact Research at CCI, documenting real world Web3 use cases to create shared understandings of how Web3 technologies are shaping the future for people and communities. She has ten years of experience examining the policy, economic, and community development implications of technology deployments.

She previously led primary ethnographic research at the Crypto Research and Design Lab (CRADL), where her research helped policymakers and business leaders understand why people are turning to crypto through evidenced-based insights.

Prior to her work at CRADL, Renée advised public, private, non-profit, and philanthropic clients at the intersection of technology, economic development and community-building.

Giles Swan

European Public Police Advisor

Giles has been a regulator, policymaker, the policy lead of a major digital asset service provider and the global policy director of a leading investment fund trade association. Giles advises trade associations, investment funds and asset managers, and web3 and crypto firms, on public policy, licensing, regulation and advocacy. During his time as a policymaker,

Giles was a national expert on the Investment Management Standing Committee of the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA), a national representative on the Standing Committee on Investment Management of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and a member of the European Union’s Council of Ministers Financial Services Working Party.

Giles holds a BA in Banking and Finance, first class, from London Guildhall University, an MSc in Finance and Investment from CASS Business School and professional certificates in teaching and learning, and blockchain strategy.

Peter Herzog

Associate Director, State Government Affairs

Peter Herzog is a dedicated government affairs professional, specializing in issues impacting emerging financial technologies. As the Associate Director of State and Local Government Affairs at the Crypto Council for Innovation, Peter oversees initiatives to advance responsible regulation for the digital asset industry across state and local governments.

He has developed a pragmatic approach to building relationships with key decision makers and navigating nuanced policy issues. Before joining CCI, Peter served on the government relations team at the digital mortgage startup Better.com, where he led the organization’s state government relations strategy. He began his career at the Health and Medicine Counsel, a boutique healthcare lobbying firm on Capitol Hill,

where he was one of the youngest registered lobbyists in Washington, DC. His former clients include patient advocacy organizations, trade societies, and pharmaceutical companies. Peter holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Government and International Politics from George Mason University.

Ryan Eagan

Associate Director, Federal Affairs

With nearly 10 years of experience working for Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, Ryan advised the Leader on a wide array of banking policies and housing priorities. He worked with members in the House and Senate and the relevant Committees to advance legislative priorities.

This includes federal responses to COVID such as the American Rescue Plan,statutory changes to securities law, ESG rulemaking, cryptocurrency policy, and certain appropriations topics.

He graduated Williams College with a BA in both Political Science and History.

Rashan Colbert

Director, U.S. Policy

Rashan A. Colbert is the US Policy Director for the Crypto Council for Innovation. A seasoned policy leader with extensive experience in government, politics, and the crypto industry, he has served as a senior legislative advisor in the U.S. Senate, led policy efforts for a cutting-edge DeFi protocol, and has amassed a high-powered network across the public and private sectors. As Head of Policy at dYdX Trading, Rashan took the firm’s advocacy strategy and effort from zero to one.

His work involved educating policymakers, advising company leadership on policy risks, and ensuring DeFi’s importance to the future of the United States was well understood in Washington. Before transitioning to the private sector, he spent seven years in Senator Cory Booker’s office, where he led on technology, telecommunications, and commerce issues, with work focused on AI, big tech, social media regulation, and digital assets.

As Booker’s lead staffer on crypto policy for the Senate Agriculture Committee, he developed a deep understanding of fi nancial regulation and the legislative vehicles that will be used to shape it.

Patrick Kirby

Policy Counsel

Patrick is joining CCI as Policy Counsel, and brings considerable experience engaging with policymakers on emerging technology and financial services issues. Before joining CCI, he worked as an attorney in the US Policy & Government Relations group at the law firms Dentons and Squire Patton Boggs.

In those roles, he advised domestic and international clients on a variety of legal, policy, and regulatory issues related to technology, financial services, and digital assets. He assisted clients in developing and executing government relations strategies to further their legislative and regulatory interests before Congress and the Executive Branch.

In prior roles, he served as a legal intern at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Yele Bademosi

Africa Advisor

Yele Bademosi is the co-creator of Onboard, a community-first onchain neobank designed for creators and builders. Onboard's goal is to expand the onchain economy, making it accessible to anyone, anywhere, and empowering people to live radically better lives.

Throughout his career, Yele has invested in close to 100 startups globally, primarily in the financial services and onchain sectors. His purpose extends beyond geographical borders, aiming to leverage innovation, capital, and policy to create sustainable economic opportunities worldwide.

Sean Lee

Senior APAC Advisor

Sean is an advisor and entrepreneur in Web3 and FinTech, and has been frequently quoted in Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg, CoinDesk, among others. Sean was previously the CEO of the Algorand Foundation, an MIT incubated Layer-1 blockchain protocol that reached top-10 by network valuation during his tenure.

He is currently leading the efforts at VSFG, a global financial services platform and the first licensed virtual asset manager in Hong Kong, to develop the regulated HKD stablecoin for programmable payment and cross border use cases across Asia and beyond. Before entering into crypto and blockchain, Sean spent 10 years and held global leadership positions in cloud computing and open source software development companies.

Sean also advises crypto startups and engages in mentorship and advocacy programs including the MIT Entrepreneurship & FinTech Innovation Node, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Business School, and the Hong Kong FinTech Association.

Matt Homer

Senior Advisor

Matthew Homer is the Founder & General Partner of The Venture Dept. Previously, he was an investor at Nyca Partners, a $1B+ AUM fintech VC firm, where he remains involved as an Operating Partner in an advisory capacity.

Before venture investing, he was Executive Deputy Superintendent at the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), where he oversaw the licensing and supervision of major digital asset firms, including some of the largest exchanges, custodians, and stablecoin issuers in the U.S.

Earlier in his career, he worked as a federal regulator at the FDIC, focusing on policy development and new technologies. Matt has also held operating roles in fintech startups, starting at Quovo and continuing at Plaid after its acquisition.

Laura Navaratnam

UK Policy Lead

Laura is a digital assets policy expert, and serves as the UK Policy Lead for CCI. Laura is a fintech policy expert, specializing in digital assets. Laura has worked in financial services policy for over 15 years. She worked at the UK Financial Conduct Authority for 7 years where she ultimately served as the Head of the FCA’s Innovate function,

which included all aspects of cryptoasset policy and fintech (sandbox, firm support, international engagement and strategy). She is also a Director at bespoke fintech consultancy Gattaca Horizons, supporting a broad range of US and UK based fintech clients and leveraging her experience to provide policy, regulatory and strategy advice.

She is also a Non-Executive Director for Zero Hash UK, a leading crypto-as-a-service provider.

Cameron Jones

Director, Strategic Initiatives

Cameron has over 30 years of experience in technology, philanthropy, and civil society sectors. She worked in the nonprofit and private sectors in the U.S., Europe, and Asia.

She developed and scaled strategic social good programs for leading tech companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit, and VMware, leading the development of program delivery and marketing strategies.

At CCI she leads strategic initiatives, manages new partnerships and current members.

Amanda Russo

Director, Communications

She led C-suite media relations and content for IHS Markit research divisions across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. As a strategic communications advisor to CEOs, heads of state, and policymakers, Amanda worked on the World Economic Forum’s Public Engagement leadership team as Head of Media Content. Amanda started her career as a terrorism and intelligence analyst.

Yaya J. Fanusie

Director, Policy, AML & Cyber Risk

He spent seven years as an economic and counterterrorism analyst in the CIA, briefing federal law enforcement, military personnel, White House-level policy makers and the President. After government service, he joined the think tank world and as Director of Analysis at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Sanctions and Illicit Finance led research on sanctions evasion and terrorist financing threats.

In 2016 he began tracking the illicit use of crypto and wrote some of the first public analysis on a terrorist crypto crowdfunding campaign. He later published a major study on efforts by Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and China to build national blockchain infrastructure. Yaya is currently an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and Visiting Fellow at Georgetown's Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy.

He is a frequent media commentator and has testified before Congress multiple times on illicit financing issues. He is considered a leading expert on China’s CBDC.

Annie Dizon

Chief Operating Officer

With more than 20 years of tech, operations, and marketing experience, Annie has held several senior executive positions at the global social impact nonprofit TechSoup; most recently serving as Vice President of Customer Experience. Prior to TechSoup, she led marketing communications programs for leading Fortune 500 companies in the financial and professional services sectors.

Ji Kim

President and Acting Chief Executive Officer

Ji Kim is the President and Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Crypto Council for Innovation - the premier global alliance for advancing the promise of this new technology through research, education and advocacy. Prior to this role, he served as the Chief Legal & Policy Officer for CCI. Before joining CCI, he was General Counsel and Head of Policy & Regulatory Affairs at Gemini, a global digital asset exchange and custodian.

In his role, Ji led the legal, policy, and regulatory affairs teams and also set and implemented Gemini’s global strategy for engaging with regulators, policymakers, and the government. Prior to that, he was a senior attorney at Kraken, another global digital asset exchange. In prior roles, he was an attorney at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and served as Federal Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert D. Drain of the Southern District of New York, U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

Sheila Warren

Senior Global Policy Advisor

In 2023, Sheila was voted one of the most influential women in DC by the Washingtonian. Prior to the Crypto Council, she founded the World Economic Forum’s blockchain and digital assets team and was a member of the Executive Leadership Team. She oversaw tech policy strategy across 14 countries and regularly briefed ministers, CEOs of the Fortune 100 and Heads of State.

She spent significant time as a lawyer and executive in the nonprofit sector helping companies work with emerging technology to solve problems and increase efficiency. She was on the leadership team at TechSoup and built NGOsource, an online service that helps US foundations reduce costs on cross-border grants.

Sheila began her career as a Wall Street attorney at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP after earning her J.D. at Harvard Law School. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College with a degree in Economics. She is the co-host of Money Reimagined, a CoinDesk podcast.

Senator Cory Gardner

Senior Political Advisor

Senator Gardner honorably represented the state of Colorado from 2015 to 2021 after two terms in the United States House of Representatives. During his tenure, Cory was consistently recognized as one of the most bi-partisan members of the Senate, sponsoring and passing milestone legislation like the Great American Outdoors Act,

America COMPETES Act, the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act and the 988 Suicide Prevention Hotline. He served on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Mark Foster

EU Policy Lead

Mark has over 20 years of experience advising public and private sector entities on EU policy and politics. He started his career in Brussels as a European Parliamentary Assistant from 2003 to 2007. He later developed expertise in EU financial services as a Senior Official in the UK Permanent Representation.

In 2011, he moved to Kreab, a global public affairs and consultancy firm, where he became Partner in the financial services practice. He has held elected roles in trade associations including vice-chair at the financial services committee of AmCham EU and he retains a role as vice-chair for the EU/UK task force at the British Chamber of Commerce to the EU.

Mark was VP of Government Relations at Barclays from 2019-2021 before establishing his own business – Strategic Advisory Management - at the start of 2022.

Alison Mangiero

Senior Director, Staking Coalition & Industry Affairs

Alison Mangiero is the Executive Director of Proof of Stake Alliance (POSA), a CCI project that advocates for clear and forward-thinking public policies that foster innovation in the rapidly growing, sustainable, multi-billion dollar staking industry.

Alison began working in the industry in 2018, when she founded the Tocqueville Group (“TQ”), an entity that created open-source software and other public goods for Tezos, one of the first proof-of-stake blockchains to launch. Before founding TQ, she spent a decade in public policy and academia, and has broad experience fundraising and growing membership associations.

A passionate advocate of the liberal arts, Alison also teaches courses on leadership at the College of the Holy Cross and is on the Executive Board of Advisors for the University of Richmond's Jepson School of Leadership Studies.An alum of the University of Richmond and Boston College, Alison lives in the New York City suburbs with her husband and two young daughters.