Recently, a heated discussion has once again erupted in the field of Crypto Assets. The catalyst was a striking statement made by Amanda Fischer, the former chief of staff to former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler. Fischer compared the liquidity staking mechanism of Crypto Assets to the practice of asset re-hypothecation that led to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a viewpoint that immediately sparked widespread controversy within the industry.

Fischer believes that the SEC's attitude towards liquid staking is equivalent to endorsing practices similar to those of Lehman Brothers, a statement that quickly drew rebuttals from several industry insiders. Matthew Sigel, the head of VanEck's digital asset research department, pointed out the logical contradictions in Fischer's argument. Meanwhile, Austin Campbell, the founder of Zero Knowledge Consulting, stated that current policymakers still tend to understand and judge the cryptocurrency industry from a traditional financial perspective, a practice that may lead to misunderstandings of emerging technologies.

Blockchain legal expert Kurt Watkins also shared his views on this event. He believes that Fischer may have overinterpreted the SEC's stance and pointed out that the SEC's guidance is primarily aimed at liquidity staking setups that lack independent decision-making authority, rather than a blanket rejection of the liquidity staking mechanism.

This debate highlights the ongoing tension between regulation and innovation in the Crypto Assets industry. As the industry develops rapidly, how to protect investors' interests without stifling innovation has become a challenge faced by regulators and industry participants alike. In the future, the formulation of regulatory policies in the Crypto Assets field may require more industry dialogue and deeper understanding to find a balance.