Impact of airdrops on the blockchain ecosystem What losses do US regulatory policies cause?

Source: Dragonfly; Translated by: Wuzhu, Golden Finance

Airdrop is a strategic tool for blockchain adoption and value allocation

Airdrops distribute tokens directly to wallet addresses (usually free) and are a strategic tool for blockchain projects to enhance user engagement, decentralized token distribution, and reward community loyalty. This analysis explores the impact of airdrops in the blockchain ecosystem and provides insights on how they contribute to the broader goals of value creation and distribution in emerging digital economies.

We analyzed data from 12 airdrops (11 geoblocked airdrops and 1 non-geographed airdrop as a comparison) between 2019 and 2023 to determine the economic impact of preventing US users from receiving tokens.

• Number of Americans affected by geographic blockades: We estimate that in 2024, between 920,000 and 5.2 million active U.S. users (5-10% of the estimated 18.4 million to 52.3 million cryptocurrency holders in the U.S.) are generally affected by geographic blockade policies. These policies limit airdrop participation and limit their use of certain projects.

• Percentage of active US addresses in 2024: About 22-24% of all active encrypted addresses worldwide belong to US residents.

• Total airdrop value in our sample: In our 11 project samples, they have created a total of approximately $7.16 billion in total value to date, with approximately 1.9 million claimants worldwide participating during this period, with an average median claim value of approximately $46,000 per eligible address.

• Estimated revenue losses for U.S. users based on our sample: Among our 11 samples of geo-blocked airdrops, the total revenue losses for U.S. users are estimated to be between $1.84 billion and $2.64 billion from 2020 to 2024.

• Estimated revenue losses for U.S. users based on CoinGecko’s sample: Applying the percentage of our active addresses in the U.S. to another 21 geo-blocked airdrop sample analyzed by CoinGecko, the potential total revenue losses for Americans could range between $3.49 billion and $5.02 billion between 2020 and 2024.

• Personal Tax Income Missed Due to Geographical Lockdown Airdrops: Based on our sample of Geographical Lockdown Projects (for the lower limit) and CoinGecko (for the upper limit), the estimated loss of federal tax revenues lost from Geographical Lockdown Airdrops between 2020 and 2024 is estimated between $418 million and $1.1 billion, with an additional estimated state tax loss of $107 million to $284 million. Overall, this means an estimated tax loss of $525 million to $1.38 billion. These estimates do not include the additional taxes that will arise after the final sale of these tokens, which is another source of loss for government revenue.

• Offshore migration leads to corporate tax losses: The transfer of cryptocurrency businesses overseas has significantly reduced tax revenue in the United States. For example, Tether reported that the company had a profit of $6.2 billion in 2024, but the company was incorporated overseas and could be paid about $1.3 billion in federal corporate tax and $316 million in state tax if the company fully accepts U.S. taxes. While actual liability depends on the company structure, it is only a company, which suggests that cryptocurrency companies operate overseas will cause wider tax losses.

Preface

Cryptocurrency and blockchain technology are not fleeting technological trends; it is a major shift in the global economic landscape, providing the United States with a golden opportunity to provide visionary leadership and pioneering governance in this transformative industry. However, the United States did not accept this role, but found itself trapped in political infighting and efforts to undermine the development of this new model.

In such an environment, it is no surprise that many crypto projects are reluctant to engage with U.S. users, as fuzzy application of digital assets hinders them. This uncertainty leads to significant financial losses and limits U.S. users’ opportunities to participate in the industry, including participating in airdrops—an innovative approach to distributing new tokens and promoting user engagement.

This report is intended to provide data-driven insights into the role of cryptocurrency airdrops in accelerating economic growth and to account for financial losses due to U.S. restrictive policies. It will meet the urgent need for regulatory frameworks that support innovation, while providing clear guidelines to protect investors and market integrity. Our analysis explores the tangible economic impact of current regulatory practices, including detailed indicators of geofencing of U.S. users to protect against airdrops and the resulting government tax losses.

By examining these key factors, and a broader analysis of the U.S. regulatory environment and its impact on the cryptocurrency sector, we advocate for regulatory change. These adjustments will enable U.S. citizens and businesses to actively and effectively participate in the global cryptocurrency market, using airdrops to stimulate job creation, drive business growth and increase tax revenue. The urgency of this study is underscored by the ongoing development of the global digital economy and the need for the United States to take a more competitive and supportive regulatory stance to maintain its leadership.

This paper adopts a two-pronged approach to analyze airdrop distribution, and utilizes off-chain and on-chain data sources. By combining these complementary datasets, the analysis aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the distribution patterns, token claims and valuation dynamics of multiple projects in the United States. Our approach aims to test specific assumptions about the effectiveness and coverage of airdrops in the U.S. cryptocurrency ecosystem. The key questions we aim to answer include:

- How many percentages of global cryptocurrency users are US users?

- How many active U.S. cryptocurrency users are affected by geo-blocking practices?

- Will geographic blockades of U.S. claimants lead to significant revenue losses for users and the U.S. government?

1. Airdrop background

Definition of airdrop

What is airdrop?

Cryptocurrency airdrop is a way to distribute platform native tokens to a specific wallet address without paying money. Blockchain startups often use airdrops to attract early interest and support for their projects, promote decentralization by expanding token distribution, and reward community engagement. [6] Typically, airdrops involve sending small amounts of tokens to the wallets of active users within the project ecosystem. [7] Airdrops usually reward those who are always informed of cryptocurrency developments, participate in social media communities, and meet certain criteria. [8]

How to determine the short investment range?

Blockchain projects use various methods for airdrops—in most cases, several methods are combined to maximize impact. This tailored approach ensures that airdrops are not only used to distribute tokens, but also support the broader goals of the project, such as user acquisition, community building or market penetration. The project uses various criteria to determine eligibility for receiving airdrops, including the following:

• Past activities. The team determined a series of heuristics based on previous on-chain activities to derive the claimable amount for each address. These methods usually consider past interactions with airdrop protocols. Additionally, these protocols often reward users for previous activity on competitor platforms, part of a strategy called vampire attacks designed to entice users away from competitors.

• Early contributors. In almost all cases, airdrops reward early users. Airdrop participants will choose to receive tokens individually based on a variety of factors such as reputation and contribution to the project. [9] This approach is a more centralized way to reward early and active users’ participation, providing targeted rewards for those who have made significant contributions to the community or project. [10]

• Snapshot. Existing token holders receive token time based on their actual token holdings at a specific point in time. [11] Take a "snapshot" of the blockchain, recording all transactions and balances to determine whether you are eligible for airdrops. [12]

• Fork. Forking refers to the splitting of the blockchain into two independent chains to distribute new tokens to users. [13] Most of the time, if you hold the original token of the forked chain, you are eligible for this airdrop. This ensures that new tokens are widely distributed among existing holders, providing an established broad user base for newly created chains from the outset. [14]

• lottery. Some airdrops are combined with a raffle draw, and participants have the opportunity to get a raffle ticket by holding tokens, accumulating points, or simply expressing interest. [15] This is usually used when the number of individuals interested in airdrops exceeds the number of tokens that the project plans to distribute. In this case, a raffle is held, with a limited number of wallets randomly selected to receive airdrops, adding some opportunity elements to the process. [16]

How do users who meet the criteria receive airdrops?

• In most cases, the airdrop collection process follows a similar structure. Airdrop collection smart contracts are created by the project team, which contains a list of address qualifying and related available amounts. The user goes to the collection website, proves the ownership of the address by connecting to the wallet, and then collects the allocated tokens. In some cases, users can also register using other blockchain addresses or accounts on off-chain platforms such as X, Github and Discord, which may have related receivable tokens.

• In most cases, users must take the initiative to collect tokens. In rare cases, the project may not require the user to take any proactive steps, but instead transfer the tokens to each recipient in batches, which is usually done with low transaction fees. If the airdrop date is consistent with the blockchain creation date, the token may be distributed via airdrop at the time of blockchain creation, thus mitigating the need for transfers.

How is airdrop technically executed?

Performing airdrops involves multiple technical processes. First, the process involves defining airdrop parameters and ensuring that all prerequisites are in place. This involves establishing eligibility criteria, determining total token allocations, specifying schedules for airdrops, finalizing snapshot dates, allocation mechanisms, and any related claims requirements to provide a clear framework for subsequent steps. In addition, existing wallets and network activities can be audited to improve eligibility criteria to meet the project's objectives. [17]

To identify qualified participants, blockchain snapshots will be taken on a specified date. The system utilizes advanced snapshot tools to capture wallet status that meets predefined criteria and provides a verifiable recipient ledger. The system filters data to exclude unqualified addresses, such as dormant wallets or known robots, ensuring that the distribution list is fair and accurate. [18]

At the same time, the development of airdrop smart contracts is also to automate the distribution process. These smart contracts play a key role in automated distribution, ensuring fairness and transparency, while eliminating the need for manual intervention and efficiently handling tasks such as managing lists of qualified wallets and allocating the appropriate number of tokens. [19]

Prior to deployment, smart contracts will undergo a comprehensive third-party security audit to identify and resolve vulnerabilities and ensure they can resist potential attacks. Anti-robot mechanisms, wallet verification protocols, and repeated claims prevention are integrated into the contract to provide additional security. [20]

After the qualification list and smart contract are prepared, new tokens will be generated specifically for the airdrop process for distribution. The tokens will then be transferred to a designated distribution wallet under the control of the smart contract. This ensures that all tokens used for airdrops are securely managed in a traceable environment. [21] Through smart contracts, wallets identified during snapshots can seamlessly receive their allocated tokens. For claims-based distributions, participants will be notified through official communication channels and provide detailed instructions to ensure user-friendly access. Throughout the process, blockchain provides an immutable record of all transactions, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability.

The evolution of airdrops

Airdrops, initially a mechanism to attract users and distribute tokens, evolved into a more complex tool influenced by user expectations, regulatory interpretations, and market behavior.

Initial stage: Large-scale gift (2014-2019):

The initial airdrop is a simple token distribution mechanism used to create an initial market and increase project visibility. [22] A typical example is the Aurora Coin issued in Iceland in 2014, which aims to provide cryptocurrency to all Icelandic citizens as a form of universal access. [23] Users need to actively collect tokens. [24] Aurora experiment marked the beginning of airdrops as a digital asset distribution strategy, although it was restricted in attracting users to participate in the decentralized ecosystem. The subsequent airdrops of the era involved distributions of platform forks (such as Zcash in 2018) and community building (such as Stellar’s ​​XLM in 2016)—elementally focused on rapidly expanding the user base rather than meaningful interaction with the protocol.

Retrospective and regular airdrops (2020-present):

After Uniswap airdrops in 2020, the airdrop distribution model has become a more strategic tool, marking a critical moment in the evolution of airdrops. When Uniswap found itself under attack by SushiSwap, a Uniswap fork platform that provides token-incentives for users, Uniswap counterattacks with its own tokens and airdrops. [25]Uniswap rewards users who have previously interacted with the platform with UNI tokens, which gives governance rights within their ecosystem. [26] This successful, traceable airdrop shows that airdrops are promoting decentralized governance and positioning them as both a user reward mechanism and a tool for community participation. [27]

Following the success of Uniswap, airdrops have evolved to reward users based on protocol usage. [28] These changes encourage behaviors that are directly beneficial to the project and help build an engaged community. For example, the 2021 dYdX airdrop interacts with the dYdX protocol based on specific transaction volume rewards implemented in a specific time frame. [29]

In addition, the project has begun attempting to phased or periodic airdrops to provide feedback on the airdrop design. An example is Optimism, which launched its fifth airdrop in November 2024. In this airdrop, the project rewards users who interacted with at least 20 smart contracts on their hyperchain between March 15 and September 15, 2024, and later developed to also reward users who interact frequently with various categories of applications on their hyperchain. [30]

However, as airdrops become more popular, they begin to have unexpected consequences, such as “cultivation” behavior, which participants can play with the system to drop from the airdrop. [31] Users start to expect airdrops and interact with the platform simply to qualify for future token allocations, usually through surface or minimal interaction. [32] The problem with this is that airdrop farmers rarely increase long-term value because they stop farming and sell immediately after receiving and rarely participate in the project. Interestingly, projects become savvy and sometimes use mining behaviors that occur on the protocol to raise usage metrics. Overall, over time, mining behavior weakens the effectiveness of airdrops in promoting organic use, and instead users try to use these airdrops to acquire as much value as possible. [33]

In response to airdrop mining, the project implemented a sybil attack detection procedure before determining the airdrop allocation, which included certain addresses on the airdrop claim blacklist. However, mining behavior develops as fast as sybil attack filtering, resulting in a continuous cat-and- mouse game between projects and airdrop miners.

While innovative thinking has largely driven the evolution of airdrop design, the US legal environment has become one of the most important factors affecting its development trajectory. The project faces scrutiny from regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), prompting people to carefully consider the structure of airdrops to avoid triggering legal pitfalls.

To reduce the risk of triggering SEC or CFTC actions, the project will exclude U.S. users [34] or avoid early announcement of airdrops, thereby reducing any signs of soliciting investments, which may otherwise be interpreted as an attempt to create a secondary market that indirectly benefits the issuer. This strategy is strengthened by ensuring that no compensation is received directly or indirectly from the recipient.

In response to the increasing regulatory pressure, some projects have explored alternative token allocation models. These models include "locking airdrop", where users lock assets within the protocol in exchange for tokens (the longer the locking time, the more tokens you get); [35] and Dutch auctions, where tokens are gradually released at a price reduction, allowing participants to buy at a price consistent with market demand, ensuring fair and transparent distribution. [36] These models are designed to deal with complex regulatory environments, but they are still not tested to a large extent in the legal environment and may still face scrutiny. Most projects continue to rely on established low-risk strategies and are cautious about trying new models that are not legally tested, as they can lead to regulatory challenges.

Ultimately, the evolution of airdrops demonstrates a balance between innovation and compliance. When projects strive to attract users and reward loyal participants, they must also deal with regulatory environments that view many of these strategies as potential securities transactions. This often leads to market distortions and undue incentives, obscuring the full potential of airdrops and how they continue to grow organically.

2. Current U.S. Regulatory Environment

The U.S. cryptocurrency industry is at a critical moment, facing strict regulatory scrutiny that could kill innovation and push promising projects overseas. Recent enforcement actions by the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission highlight the shift to “law enforcement regulation” where institutions impose penalties and litigation on individual projects to establish regulatory standards rather than creating clear and consistent rules. This approach (particularly the SEC) bypasses formal rule-making requirements and poses blatant overreach through the fact that regulation of key emerging technologies is a blatant overreach that the original securities laws of 1933 and 1934 did not consider nor address. [37]

This strategy brings great uncertainty and risks, has a chilling effect on innovation and forces many crypto projects and companies to go overseas to seek clearer regulatory frameworks. This uncertain atmosphere complicates the compliance of startups and established companies, forcing many companies to seek a more favorable regulatory environment abroad and raises questions about the long-term legitimacy and transparency of U.S. regulatory practices in this area.

Is a cryptocurrency a security, a commodity or something else - Ouve Test

The Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Transaction Act”) granted the SEC the power to regulate “securities”, a term widely defined in two regulations through a detailed list of categories, including stocks, bonds, warrants and “investment contracts.” [38] It is worth noting that terms such as “tokens,” “cryptocurrency,” and “digital assets” do not appear in this definition. Therefore, the SEC attempted to classify these assets as "investment contracts" by applying the quadruple*Ouvian test.

The Howey Test originated from the Supreme Court case in 1946 SEC v. WJ Howey Co., is the main criteria for determining whether a transaction qualifies for an “investment contract” and is therefore bound by U.S. securities laws. [39] To be considered an investment contract, it must involve: (1) investment in money, (2) investing in a common enterprise, (3) expecting profits, and (4) mainly from the efforts of others. [40] However, applying the Howie test to crypto assets raises new and complex problems, as the test was originally intended to regulate traditional securities, which are often centralized and rely on identifiable entities that are obliged to investors. [41]

Crypto assets themselves often lack the basic characteristics of securities. [42] Under Howey rules, the key to a transaction being recognized as a securities is the structure and context of the specific transaction (such as an ICO, i.e. raising funds and promising profits), rather than the underlying asset itself. [43] By contrast, many tokens in the secondary market do not establish the necessary legal relationships that identify the issuer and the individual token holder, which is a key feature that distinguishes securities from other assets. [44] In addition, crypto tokens generally do not promise or imply profits associated with ongoing management or entrepreneurial efforts. Therefore, viewing crypto tokens as securities may require the introduction of a completely new concept in securities laws: "securities independent of issuers", which no current legal precedent supports. [45]

Regulatory ambiguity around crypto airdrops and token classifications highlights a major challenge facing the crypto industry: the inability to “come in and register.” [46] The existing U.S. securities laws are designed for centralized assets such as stocks and bonds, issued by identifiable entities and have an ongoing obligation to investors, making traditional registration requirements unsuitable for decentralized, practical-focused tokens. These laws do not take into account the various token types—stable coins, governance tokens and practical tokens—each plays a different role in its ecosystem. For example, a practical token can grant access to the service, while a governance token allows holders to participate in decentralized decisions. Unlike traditional securities, these tokens usually do not promise profits or direct financial returns, which challenges the assumption that digital assets are essentially an investment contract and therefore a securities.

The diversity of distribution models in the crypto field further complicates the regulatory environment. Unlike traditional assets issued through a single centralized entity, crypto tokens are distributed through mining, forks, airdrops, and ICOs, with the structure and purpose of each method varying greatly. [47] For example, mining generates tokens as rewards to network participants rather than through financing investment plans. The fork splits the existing blockchain into a new token and distributes it to holders for free, while airdrops involve giving out tokens to expand network adoption rather than raising funds. [48] ​​These models generally do not meet the criteria of “investment of funds” and “expect to profit from other people’s efforts” under the Howie test, challenging the assumption that tokens are essentially securities based solely on their issuance.

The real problem is the nature of the transaction, not the token itself. The Howie Test is used to determine what constitutes an investment contract, and it focuses on the situation of the transaction—the commitments, relationships and expectations of both parties to the transaction, not just assets. [49] For example, if the token is sold to fund a project under an investment plan, it can be considered a security. But the same token, if later freely traded in the secondary market without any accompanying contractual commitments or obligations, does not necessarily become a securities. This distinction reflects the core legal principle, namely, transactions, rather than assets, which determine whether an investment contract exists. Just like the Orange Garden in the landmark Howie case [50], the assets themselves (the tokens in this case) are not an investment contract just because they are sold. The situation and nature of the transaction determine whether the transaction itself meets the investment contract qualification under the Ouvian case.

In this case, traditional registration is unrealistic. Cryptocurrency companies often face the dilemma of either trying to build products to avoid triggering securities laws, which brings considerable legal uncertainty and costs, or limiting the United States entirely to circumvent regulatory issues. Registering as a securities will bring a disproportionately high compliance burden, as the existing framework requires that each token transaction be considered a securities sale. This requirement is not only unfeasible for lean crypto startups operating decentralized networks, but also does not conform to the nature of the blockchain ecosystem, where tokens often have different roles than traditional securities. The current regulatory framework does not take into account the highly diverse functions and distribution of tokens in the blockchain ecosystem and is often used as a tool within the network rather than an investment tool. Therefore, a clear and updated regulatory approach is crucial - distinguishing between financing transactions (the securities law may apply), secondary market token trading, airdrops, mining, etc. - all of which should be treated differently.

As we explore the complex situation of cryptocurrency regulation, it is obvious that differentiating different types of crypto activities is crucial. This distinction is particularly important when considering airdrops, as airdrops have unique characteristics that differ from traditional securities offerings.

Airdrops are more similar to these examples

Cryptocurrency airdrops are more similar to (i) loyalty programs or (ii) membership systems rather than traditional securities or stock allocations. Loyalty programs are designed to inspire customers to retain and reward customers for repeat purchases or continuous participation in brand activities. Such programs include airline frequent flyer programs or credit card rewards. Member programs, on the other hand, often offer exclusive benefits, such as attending private events, discounts, or advanced features, with the focus on creating a sense of belonging and exclusiveness for participants. Despite these functional differences, the SEC often evaluates airdrops based on the “free” stock case framework, [51] regards it as free stock allocation and is regulated by securities. This regulatory approach fails to take into account the unique nature of airdrops, which are more suitable for analogies to promote participation and community-building mechanisms rather than equity allocations.

i. Loyalty Program

Frequently Flying Mileage and Credit Card Points, such as cryptocurrency airdrops, are stored value programs that inspire user loyalty and engagement. Miles and points are redeemed for flights, upgrades or catering, encouraging users to be loyal to a particular brand, just as airdrops use tokens as a means of rewarding loyalty or encouraging participation in the platform. Both approaches prioritize engagement and ecosystem growth, but neither is the fundamental purpose of providing a return on investment.

Companies often offer loyalty programs, such as airline mileage or credit card points, without triggering the Howey test. It is worth noting that the SEC has not yet taken enforcement action on credit card points or airline miles, further emphasizing that their nature is consumer incentives, not investment vehicles. If applicable to airlines, credit card points fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). [52] Therefore, there is strong argument that airdrops should not be treated differently from these well-established loyalty programs, which companies often adopt to build loyalty and drive engagement.

While tokens are different from points and mileage because they have secondary markets and can be used for governance, it is important to consider that the existence of secondary markets itself does not necessarily classify tokens as investments. Like gift cards, the transferability of tokens is mainly used to improve consumer utility and flexibility rather than to indicate investment intentions. In addition, allowing token holders to participate in governance is similar to joining a client advisory committee or club with voting rights, which does not convert these tokens into securities, but promotes greater user engagement and community input. The core purpose of token airdrops is very similar to traditional loyalty programs, which is to inspire usage and loyalty to the platform. Regulatory precedents surrounding similar functions support this explanation, highlighting the need to view airdrops as an extension of consumer loyalty strategies.

Credit cards such as Chase Sapphire Preferred are typical of this model, providing points that can be redeemed within a flexible reward incentive structure to promote reuse. [53] In this model, the accumulated points can be used in various services and products within the Chase ecosystem, or can be transferred to numerous partners. [54] This flexibility allows cardholders to choose from a variety of redemption options, including different airlines and hotel chains, thereby maximizing the utility and potential value of points to meet a wider range of preferences and needs. Similarly, Aave’s Merit program reflects a loyalty program that rewards user token allocations based on user’s meaningful contribution to the protocol, such as governance participation or liquidity provisions. [55] The functions of these tokens are similar to points, creating an open-loop incentive structure that encourages continuous participation and strengthens user commitment to the platform, but also allows users to transfer points to take advantage of better transactions. Although regulatory frameworks often confuse airdrops with securities, their true similarities are closer to loyalty programs, as they both allocate value primarily to enhance engagement rather than provide financial returns.

This analogy is even stronger for tokens with stable value such as stablecoins. Just as loyalty programs reward recommended friends’ user points, airdrops also incentivize user acquisition and ecosystem participation. These mechanisms are not speculation, but lay the foundation for long-term participation.

Ultimately, loyalty programs and cryptocurrency airdrops share a common core principle: leveraging value allocation to deepen user engagement, promote community development and enhance ecosystem sustainability. Both show how incentives are combined with utility to drive meaningful participation without relying on speculative investment dynamics.

ii. Membership

Whether in traditional industries or in digital ecosystems, membership programs are designed to develop loyalty and engagement by providing exclusive, practical benefits. For example, NFL fan membership grants privileges such as priority ticketing rights, team merchandise discounts, VIP event invitations and behind-the-scenes content, creating a sense of community and deepening connections with the team ecosystem. [56]The value of these rewards stems from their direct connection to the platform, not from external resale opportunities. It is worth noting that the SEC has confirmed that such membership programs (such as the Los Angeles Rams Fan Club) do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. [57] In a letter that does not take action, the SEC clarified that these memberships were purchased for entertainment and consumption, rather than as investments for expected profits, further distinguishing them from securities. [58]

Similarly, airdrop services in the cryptocurrency sector are similar in purpose. For example, Stargate Finance airdrops reward active participants with free tokens that can be used within the ecosystem. [59] This strategy not only inspires engagement and loyalty, but also supports the development of new projects within the platform. Both examples emphasize the intrinsic value of rewards designed to enhance participation and commitment within a specific ecosystem, prioritizing utility and community engagement over external financial returns.

Why airdrops do not meet the securities trading qualifications specified

by Howey

Airdrops should not be classified as securities trading. The SEC's position is that airdrop tokens constitute an investment contract and therefore belongs to unregistered securities. This position is reflected in many enforcement actions and informal guidance detailed later in this report. [60] However, unlike traditional securities offerings designed to raise funds, airdrops are often designed to facilitate network participation by distributing tokens for free. [61] Therefore, applying the securities law to airdrops is a mischaracter of its purpose, posing unnecessary regulatory burden to many blockchain projects.

According to the Howey test, airdrops failed to meet critical criteria:

1. No funds investment: Howey The core element of the test is "investment of funds" that aims to generate income or profits, thereby establishing a direct link between investment funds and expected returns. [62] However, in the case of airdrops, the distribution of tokens does not require the recipient to provide any financial consideration. Minimum operations such as registering an account do not constitute financial investment, which makes airdrops more closely related to promotions than securities trading.

2. Lack of common cause: To make an arrangement meet the conditions of a securities, it must involve a “common cause”, which requires a common financial relationship between participants and aggregation of financial resources between participants. This can be manifested as horizontal commonality—investors concentrate resources into a single enterprise, linking their destinies together [63]; it can also be manifested as vertical commonality—investor's financial success is directly related to the efforts or success of the promoter or issuer. [64] However, airdrops are independently distributed tokens, and there is no shared financial interest or risk of interdependence among the recipients, thus lacking common career elements. Regarding horizontal commonality, airdrops distribute tokens directly to individual recipients without the need for the recipient to invest any money, energy or resources. There is no asset concentration or shared risk, because the fate of each recipient is completely independent of the other recipients. For vertical commonality, the receiver does not need to invest because they do not pay any money, so it is impossible to have any dependence on the initiator because there is no investment in the first place.

3. No profit expectations: Securities usually means expected to make profits from the efforts of the promoter or third party. In contrast, airdrop tokens are often used for consumer purposes within the platform, rather than investment purposes. Tokens may grant users access to platform-specific features in order to participate, such as voting on governance proposals or paying for services. While some recipients may choose to sell them, any potential profit comes from market forces rather than the issuer’s active promotion, eliminating this criterion for the Howey test.

4. Not relying on issuer's efforts: Recipients of airdrop tokens do not rely on issuer's actions to increase the value of tokens. Unlike securities that usually rely on continuous management to maintain or increase value, airdrop tokens fluctuate based on external market factors, which further distinguishes them from securities. Furthermore, any effort comes entirely from the individual receiving the airdrop tokens, not from the platform or the project itself.

Distinguish past precedents from modern airdrops

"Free" Stock Case in the 1990s/21st Century

In the legal debate on whether airdrops are eligible for securities, it must be distinguished from the “free” stock cases during the “Internet bubble” of the late 1990s and early 21st century. At the time, the SEC targeted internet companies that distributed stocks to attract online traffic, deeming these giveaways illegal “sales” of securities because they were not registered or exempted. [65]这些免费分发的明确目的是为发起人创造利润，并让发行人获得经济利益。这些公司经常从事欺骗行为，利用免费股票的诱惑诱骗投资者提供个人信息或积极推广这些企业，这种做法最终因美国证券交易委员会的严格执法行动而受到遏制。 [66]此外，这些证券预计将在二级市场上出售，表明这些免费证券是一种投资。

SEC 的分析表明，这些并不是真正的免费赠送，而是以股票换取价值的交易。 [67]通过引荐新用户或吸引公众关注公司，这些公司从有效充当营销代理的接收者那里获得了可观的收益。 [68] SEC 将这些交易视为证券的“销售”，因为根据证券交易委员会的规定，存在价值交换。 bill. [69]

在确定是否存在价值交换方面，代币空投和“免费”股票案例之间存在几个关键差异：

• 没有交换条件：在“免费”股票促销中，明确承诺奖励，用户推荐他人以换取股票，导致垃圾邮件广泛传播。相比之下，加密货币空投往往缺乏这样的交换条件；许多接收者仅仅因为积极参与而获得奖励，而事先并不知道他们的参与会导致代币分发。没有交换条件，就不可能交换有价值的东西。

• 缺乏对价：在“免费”股票案例中，参与者给予的对价包括电子邮件地址和社会安全号码等个人数据，这些数据具有内在价值，因为它们可以被发行人用于有针对性的营销和其他货币化策略。根据证券法，这些个人数据可以被视为“对价”，这是合乎逻辑的，因为它为发行人提供了经济价值。相比之下，在空投中，参与者的唯一要求是提供公共钱包地址。这些地址的价值不同，因为：

1. 公开信息：公共钱包地址已在区块链上可访问，任何人都可轻松获取。它们的公开性质意味着它们不会为空投发行者提供独家价值。

2. 无个人身份信息：与电子邮件或社会安全号码不同，从证券法的角度来看，公共钱包地址不应归类为个人身份信息。它们不提供直接识别、联系或定位个人的方法，因此降低了它们在区块链上进行交易验证以外的用途的实用性。

鉴于这些特点，公共钱包地址不构成证券法规定的有价对价。

• 代币的独立效用：代币在功能和用途上与股票有很大不同。虽然股票的价值主要由市场表现和公司管理决定，但代币通常具有超越投机目的的内在效用。例如，代币可以提供平台访问和参与等直接、有形的利益。这种效用是代币设计和目的不可或缺的一部分，强调其主要目的不是在二级市场上转售。因此，不应通过与股票相同的法律视角来看待代币，因为它们的主要价值和用途根本不同。

因此，虽然免费股票和空投都可以成为实体用来扩大用户群或奖励忠诚度的促销工具，但这些机制的基本法律解释因资金投资和利润预期而存在很大差异，而这些通常不直接适用于加密货币空投。

Morrison 域外效力：离岸交易不应受SEC 管辖

2010 年美国最高法院在Morrison v. National Australia Bank 案中的裁决从根本上重新定义了美国证券法的范围，将其适用范围限制在美国境内的交易。[70]该裁决确立了通常所说的“交易测试”，限制了美国证券的域外效力[71]具体而言，法院裁定《交易法》第10(b) 条仅适用于在国内交易所上市的证券交易以及其他证券的国内交易。[72]这一先例与分发加密货币空投的实践尤其相关，因为空投往往是全球性的，并不局限于美国管辖范围。

加密货币空投通常涉及向广泛的国际接收者分发数字代币，通常不进行任何货币交换。除非代币随后在美国交易所交易，否则这些分发不一定涉及美国市场。即便如此，向非美国接收者空投代币的原始行为（接收者不在美国领土上进行交易）也超出了Morrison定义的范围。

鉴于这些因素，对离岸空投实施美国证券法不仅会超出Morrison规定的地域限制，而且还会错误描述证券法框架下这些交易的性质。因此，离岸空投不应受美国证券法约束的论点既得到了Morrison判决的法律支持，也符合证券监管的基本原则。

执法监管的历史及其对空投和加密货币行业的影响

美国加密货币行业的执法监管历史揭示了一种零散的监管方式，这种方式造成了严重的混乱和矛盾，尤其是在空投和代币分类方面。下一节将深入探讨不断变化的监管执法和不断变化的证券法解释如何为处理空投的加密货币项目创造了一个不确定且有时相互矛盾的监管环境。

2017 年之前：*监管机构开始对首次代币发行进行审查和执法

最初，随着加密货币行业开始发展，SEC 和CFTC 等监管机构采取了不干预的态度。直到ICO 的普及和加密货币的知名度不断提高，SEC 才开始表明其监管意图。

SEC 的DAO 报告

SEC 于2017 年发布的DAO 报告标志着SEC 在加密领域采取的首次重大监管行动。[73]通过将Howey 测试应用于去中心化自治组织（“DAO”）分发的代币，SEC 强调许多此类代币可被视为证券。[74]该报告是SEC 在“加密货币领域”的“底线”。 ” 正式通知数字资产行业，无论公司位于美国境内还是境外，参与者都需要遵守美国证券法。[75]SEC 没有提供明确的监管框架，而是采取了执法主导的方式，根据代币销售的结构和对投资者的期望进行评估。这种方法增加了监管的不确定性，尤其对使用空投的公司产生影响，因为他们必须谨慎应对这些不断变化且不明确的标准。

2018 年至2020 年：执法监管的开始

Tomahawk – “免费”代币分发案

空投的真正转折点来自SEC 于2018 年8 月对Tomahawk Exploration LLC 的行动。[76]在本案中，SEC 辩称，如果通过赏金计划分发的代币符合Howey 规定的证券资格，则这些代币可能违反证券法测试。[77]Tomahawk 的“Tomahawkcoin”被赠送给提供促销服务的接收者，SEC 认为这是《证券法》第5 条规定的一种“销售”形式，尽管没有金钱易手，而且是“免费”的代币分配。[78]SEC 甚至将免费的代币分配归类为可能创造证券，如果它们以某种方式使发行人受益可衡量的（例如知名度、市场兴趣或网络参与度的提高）可以量化为一种价值形式。[79]此案警告称，SEC 正在密切审查美国的赏金计划和类似的空投活动，并强调即使是免费分发，如果与旨在增加其价值的促销活动挂钩，也可能被视为证券发行。

SEC 的投资合同框架

随后，在2019 年4 月，SEC 首次直接提及空投，并发布了一份非约束性指导文件，名为“数字资产'投资合同'分析框架”（“框架”）。 [80]该框架旨在阐明数字资产如何根据Howey 测试归类为证券。然而，它留下了大量的灰色地带——比如什么才是“持续的管理努力”（第4 条），以及代币何时可能通过“充分的去中心化”从证券转变为非证券，未能解决代币如何最初作为证券发挥作用，但随着它们实现更大的去中心化或效用，可能会成为非证券的问题。 [81]

具体到空投，该框架建议，即使是“免费”代币分发，如果它们有助于促进生态系统的经济利益，也可以被视为证券发行，将许多促销活动置于监管之下审查。[82]尽管该框架没有对空投提供具体指导，但通过空投推动采用数字资产网络的项目开始评估第三方接收和索取资产所需采取的行动是否可以被视为豪威测试下的“金钱投资”。[83]

尽管该框架提供了一些有用的指导，但它也为发行人和平台引入了复杂的、针对具体事实的分析，模糊了数字资产领域中证券和商品之间的界限。[84]这种模糊性导致执法行动增多，合法项目在试图遵守美国证券交易委员会不断演变且模糊的标准时面临更严格的审查。[85]

SEC 针对Kik、Telegram 和Ripple 的行动

尽管接下来的这些案件并不直接涉及空投，但它们对更广泛的加密货币市场的重大影响间接影响了空投策略。从2019 年到2020 年，SEC 显著转移了监管重点，针对主要平台对Kik、Telegram 和Ripple 采取执法行动，从而加深了对之前以监管模糊为特征的市场的关注。在这些案件中，SEC 成功阻止了Telegram 的17 亿美元ICO[86] 和Kik 的1 亿美元ICO[87]，认为所涉及的代币构成未注册证券。法院站在SEC 一边，确认这些代币发行本质上是投资合同，因此受联邦证券法的约束。此外，这两起案件都强调了SEC 对可能导致美国转售的外国代币销售的管辖权，扩大了美国证券法规在国际上的适用性。Kik 和Telegram 发出了一个明确的信息，即与生态系统发展相关的代币发行可能会被归类为证券。针对Ripple Labs 的诉讼指控其出售XRP 代币构成未注册证券发行，这进一步加剧了这些监管的不确定性，导致主要交易所将XRP 下架，从而加剧了市场波动。[88]

SEC 针对Kik、Telegram 和Ripple 采取的激进行动深刻影响了加密货币市场，极大地重塑了空投策略。在这些执法行动中，SEC 已做好充分准备，将代币发行归类为未注册证券。随着SEC 加强审查，利用空投的项目必须仔细考虑代币分发的方式和原因，以避免类似的法律挑战。SEC 的行动和指导方针留下的监管模糊性意味着，空投传统上被视为提高用户参与度和网络参与度的良性方法，现在需要仔细评估空投过程的任何部分是否可以根据豪威测试解释为“金钱投资”。这包括评估参与者为接收空投所采取的步骤是否可以被视为可能获得回报的努力投资，受到代币发行人持续努力的影响。

因此，SEC 备受关注的案件的后果扩大了可能被视为证券的范围，使空投变得扑朔迷离。这种监管环境迫使空投策略以更谨慎和法律上更细致的方式发展，例如阻止美国用户参与空投的资格。项目必须在这些浑水中航行，调整空投策略以尽量降低法律风险，同时在可能受到SEC 执法的阴影下努力实现其推广和网络增长目标。

2021 年至2022 年：适应模糊性和对空投的直接攻击

封锁美国用户和使用VPN

到2021 年，随着CFTC 和SEC 加大对提供加密衍生品的未注册离岸交易所的法律行动，加密的监管环境趋紧。两家机构均表示，根据美国法律，由于风险加大且缺乏投资者保护，美国用户在这些平台上进行交易属于非法行为。 [89]在日益增大的监管压力下，FTX 和币安等主要离岸交易所宣布措施禁止美国交易者，包括强制性的了解你的客户（“KYC”）检查、IP 地址屏蔽和地理位置过滤器，旨在防止美国人访问他们的账户。 website. [90]

然而，尽管存在这些限制，许多美国交易员仍绕过这些障碍，继续在FTX 和币安等平台上进行交易。[91]由于别无选择，美国交易员开始使用虚拟专用网络（“VPN”）来掩盖他们的位置，在某些情况下，在KYC 验证期间提供误导性信息。一些平台的最低验证要求（例如简单的电子邮件地址和自我报告的国家/地区）造成了可利用的漏洞。然而，监管机构注意到了此类变通方法。

这一时期也标志着空投方式的转变。继2020 年9 月16 日Uniswap 进行大规模代币分发[92]（最后一次不受地理封锁的重大空投）之后，后续项目开始越来越多地采用地理封锁策略来排除美国参与者。2020 年12 月25 日的1inch[93]、2021 年9 月8 日的dYdX[94] 和2021 年11 月9 日的ENS[95] 等空投都体现了这种合规举措。这些例子说明了加密项目如何发展其策略以适应复杂的国际法规并保持符合美国证券法，强调在不断变化的监管环境中的法律安全。

加里·根斯勒宣誓就任美国证券交易委员会主席

2021 年4 月19 日，加里·根斯勒宣誓就任美国证券交易委员会主席后，美国监管机构与加密货币公司之间的紧张关系显著升级。 [96] 根斯勒在麻省理工学院任职期间以对加密货币的积极看法而闻名，[97]在他担任美国证券交易委员会主席期间，他改变了自己的立场。 office. [98]他开始将加密行业描述为“狂野西部”，主张加强监管，并经常警告说，许多代币可能被归类为未注册证券。 [99] 到2022 年，Gensler 的做法进一步强硬，声称市场上近10,000 种代币中的“绝大多数”很可能证券。 [100]由于对国会立法反应迟缓感到失望，Gensler 积极推行“执法监管”战略，发布威尔斯通知(Wells Notices)，并针对币安(Binance) 和Coinbase 等主要交易所提起诉讼，这在整个行业引起了震动。 [101]

Hydrogen – 空投案

在SEC v. Hydrogen Technology Corp. (2022 年9 月) 案中，SEC 辩称，通过空投、赏金计划和员工薪酬进行的代币分配可能被视为未注册证券发行，从而扩大了证券法的范围，包括非货币分配。[102]具体而言，SEC 辩称，这些方法创造了一种“金钱投资”（Howey 测试下的第1 条），因为空投接收者通常必须主动领取代币，有时还要支付gas 费，这意味着财务承诺。[103] 这种不断发展的解释表明，传统的“免费”空投概念已经过时，SEC 认为它们是需要用户积极参与和潜在财务支出的免费声明。投诉起草中的含糊之处引发了人们对SEC 是否真正区分了赏金计划和空投的质疑，这让行业对要遵循的标准更加不确定。

此外，SEC 认为，围绕代币分配的促销活动或“推销”表明这些代币是以“盈利预期”为目的的，从而将其归类为证券。[104] 这一行动强调了SEC 的立场，即将代币分配标记为“空投”或“赏金”并不能使其免受证券监管。

2023 年至今：关注大参与者

到2023 年，SEC 创下了加密相关执法行动的记录，其重点从中心化交易所扩展到去中心化组织和协议。随着2023 年2 月针对Terraform Labs 和Do Kwon 采取行动，SEC 明确表示，该机构正在将其范围扩大到稳定币和其他传统上不被视为证券的加密产品。[105]这一转变表明该机构打算作为主要执法机制主导该行业，并推动其追捕该行业一些最大的参与者，包括Coinbase 和币安。[106]

SEC 针对孙宇晨、Tron 和BitTorrent 的行动——空投案

2023 年3 月，SEC 指控孙宇晨及其三家全资公司Tron Foundation Limited、BitTorrent Foundation Ltd. 和Rainberry Inc.（前身为BitTorrent）未经注册提供和出售加密资产证券Tronix (TRX) 和BitTorrent (BTT)。[107]被告进行了多次空投活动，向TRX 持有者和各种在线活动的参与者分发BTT。这些活动促进了BitTorrent 和TRX 生态系统的发展，增加了对TRX 的需求和交易量，并向广大受众介绍了BTT。目前，该案仍在美国纽约南区联邦地区法院审理。

2024 年4 月，SEC 修改了其申诉，声称对孙宇晨及其在美国境内的相关活动拥有管辖权。[108] 这项修正案强调了孙宇晨在美国的广泛旅行以及他为Tron、BitTorrent 和Rainberry 进行的推广活动，包括从旧金山办公室进行的直播。这些细节凸显了SEC 致力于监管涉及美国居民或领土的外国数字资产运营，即使连接很少。该案源于外国发行，凸显了SEC 对与美国有联系的外国实体的严格执法，并警告空投项目要仔细评估合规策略，包括屏蔽美国用户。

逃离美国

由于执法行动、诉讼和行业整体不确定性的猛烈冲击，从2023 年3 月到8 月左右，开始出现有关加密项目表达担忧并希望迁往海外的新闻报道。[109] 公司对他们认为美国不明确且限制性的监管指导表示沮丧，这使得在国内开展业务变得具有挑战性。尽管公司表示希望有一个更清晰的监管环境，但随着更多执法行动的涌入，并没有提供任何帮助。

Ripple Labs 的决定和Terraform Labs 的决定——法院裁决的矛盾

作为加密社区长期以来所争论的辩护，2023 年7 月13 日，纽约南区美国地方法院法官Analisa Torres 取得了加密领域最重要的法律胜利之一。在对Ripple 案的驳回动议作出裁决时，Torres 法官区分了机构销售和程序化销售，发现散户投资者的程序化销售不符合证券发行的资格。[110]她推断，买家不可能合理地预期XRP 销售会用于增强XRP 生态系统并推高其价格，因此未能满足Howey 的第三和第四个条件测试。[111]此外，该判决为区分一级市场和二级市场销售的论点奠定了基础，这影响了交易所和平台面临的证券责任。

然而，不到一个月后，即2023 年7 月31 日，在同一地区法院，法官杰德·S·拉科夫(Jed S. Rakoff) 在机构销售和程序化销售的区别上采取了与法官托雷斯截然不同的立场，驳回了Terraform Labs 的驳回动议，因为他将所有交易归类为证券发行。[112] 尽管两起案件的事实惊人地相似，但裁决却大相径庭，凸显了美国联邦监管机构不仅在如何对加密交易进行分类方面存在极大的不确定性和缺乏明确性，而且联邦法院在如何对加密交易进行分类方面也存在极大的不确定性和缺乏明确性。

CFTC 针对Opyn、ZeroEx 和Deridex 的行动——努力阻止受到攻击的美国人员

2023 年9 月，CFTC 同时对Opyn、ZeroEx 和Deridex 等DeFi 平台提起并达成和解，这些平台面临与非法衍生品交易相关的指控。[113] CFTC 针对DeFi 平台的执法行动凸显了该机构打算将其既定的衍生品和保证金交易监管框架应用于去中心化金融领域的意图。这些行动强调了CFTC 的立场，即仅仅阻止美国的IP 地址不足以将美国用户排除在DeFi 协议之外。然而，该机构尚未明确哪些措施才足够，这使得DeFi 平台处于不稳定和不确定的境地，也加剧了计划空投的项目对如何有效遵守规定的困惑。

Beba LLC 和DeFi 教育基金诉SEC——一项主动出击的空投项目

鉴于SEC 对空投缺乏明确规定，且正在针对各种平台采取执法行动，各公司被迫主动出击，以自己的方式积极应对监管不确定性。Beba LLC（“Beba”）是一家位于德克萨斯州韦科的小型服装公司，通过其在线商店销售手工制作的行李箱和配饰，该公司已与总部位于华盛顿特区的无党派研究和倡导组织DeFi 教育基金（“DEF”）合作，对SEC 提起执法前诉讼。该诉讼寻求法院在Beba 计划空投其$BEBA 代币之前提供保护，旨在澄清围绕该计划的监管不确定性。[114]

Beba 创造了$BEBA 代币，并通过免费空投的方式分发，没有任何金钱对价。然而，由于SEC 的执法方式监管不力，以及总体上缺乏关于哪些代币和行动属于SEC 管辖范围的明确指导，该公司推迟了第二次计划中的空投。原告正在寻求宣告性和禁令性救济，认为SEC 对数字资产的监管立场超出了其法定权限，违反了《行政程序法》（“APA”），因为该机构在没有参与官方规则制定过程的情况下采用了全面的加密政策。[115] 具体而言，它寻求宣告$BEBA 代币的空投不是证券交易，$BEBA 代币本身不是投资合同。这一澄清将为Beba 提供法律确定性，使他们能够继续开展业务运营，而不会面临执法行动的迫在眉睫的威胁。

尽管SEC 声称“尚未对Beba 采取任何行动，如果真的有那么一天，Beba 将有机会为自己辩护”，[116]但这种说法似乎与现实脱节。在SEC 出人意料的严厉执法行动的重压下，小公司被迫倒闭，这些行动往往让Beba 等企业措手不及，无法恢复。因此，这起诉讼还旨在挑战SEC 的越权行为，并确认其执法策略和对数字资产法规的解读已经超越了其法定权限。因此，通过以APA 违规指控为目标，该诉讼有可能为SEC 在空投中的作用以及更广泛地说，其在数字资产行业中的地位提供急需的澄清。目前，该案仍在美国德克萨斯州西区地方法院审理中。

美国加密货币的合规环境变得如此混乱和令人困惑，以至于企业家几乎不可能有效地驾驭。在2024 年9 月17 日的一封信中，由众议员汤姆·埃默(Tom Emmer) 领导的两党国会议员小组敦促该机构放弃对“执法监管”的依赖，并强调了对SEC 对空投立场的担忧，指出该机构未能澄清空投（通常用于在去中心化网络中分发）应如何根据证券法处理，导致项目和投资者处于监管不确定的状态。[117]

为了使美国保持其在技术和创新领域的全球领先地位，迫切需要转向积极主动、明确定义和平衡的监管政策。只有这样清晰的认识，我们才能培育一个蓬勃发展、合规创新的加密生态系统，使美国市场和消费者受益。

项目正在阻止美国人

除了寻求减少与美国的联系外，许多加密项目还积极阻止美国用户使用各种手段访问其平台，以安抚美国监管机构。由于加密产品通常是去中心化的和无需许可的，因此完全遵守为传统的中心化企业设计的法规在技术上具有挑战性，在财务上也很繁重。[118]

由于这种环境，加密项目被迫使用各种方法来限制美国用户。

• 地理封锁或地理围栏：地理封锁涉及在特定地理区域周围创建虚拟边界（围栏），以便这些位置的用户无法访问服务或在线内容。[119] 网站可以使用各种方法来检测您的位置。它可以使用您的互联网协议（“IP”）地址来检测您的大致位置，检查哪个国家/地区处理您的域名系统（“DNS”）服务，确定您的支付数据位置，甚至确定您用于在线购物的语言。[120]

• IP 地址封锁或IP 封锁：IP 封锁是一种地理封锁技术，可根据用户的特定IP 地址限制对在线平台的访问。每个互联网设备都有自己独特的IP 地址，因此网络可以记录此类地址。当IP 地址被封锁的人将来访问平台时，该平台的安全系统（防火墙）就可以阻止访问。[121]

• VPN 阻止：VPN 允许您加密互联网连接，以便您的流量和IP 地址保持未知状态。[122]它用于维护您的隐私和安全。VPN 服务器通常会将相同的IP 地址分配给多个用户以增强隐私，但这种共享使用可能会导致网站和服务监控单个IP 的高流量或多样化活动。因此，网站可能会屏蔽该地址以限制访问。[123]作为预防措施，VPN 屏蔽通常与地理封锁一起使用。

• KYC 流程：平台可能还具有KYC 检查和合规计划，这有助于检测非法融资和洗钱。此外，一些项目要求用户通过使用钱包签署消息来确认其非美国身份。此类流程还可用于通过检查用户身份来验证和阻止美国人进入平台。[124]

各机构尚未明确哪些行动足以阻止美国用户

虽然许多项目试图真正努力阻止美国用户，但美国证券交易委员会和商品期货交易委员会等监管机构尚未就哪些措施足以阻止美国用户提供明确指导。合规方面的模糊性让项目无法确定他们应该采取哪些措施。这形成了一个自我审查的循环，项目选择限制其范围以避免法律后果的风险，导致美国公司在全球加密市场的存在感下降。

例如，CFTC 对DeFi 平台Opyn 采取了执法行动，指控其通过其平台提供非法杠杆和保证金数字资产零售商品。[125]然而，尽管Opyn 努力对美国用户进行地理封锁，但CFTC 仍认为该措施不够充分，没有明确说明什么是充分合规。[126] CFTC 专员Summer K. Mersinger 特别批评了该机构在针对该执法行动的反对声明中表示：

“然而，由于缺乏一个透明的通知和评论程序来制定规则，委员会为那些想要遵守法律的人创造了一个不可能的环境，迫使他们要么关闭美国市场，要么将美国参与者拒之门外。”[127]

运营挑战和合规成本

虽然监管环境迫使加密项目采取各种限制措施以避免美国的执法行动，但[128]这些要求不仅带来了重大的运营挑战，而且还增加了公司的成本和法律风险。许多团队必须在内部开发定制地理封锁解决方案和依赖Vercel 等第三方提供商之间做出选择。[129]虽然第三方服务更高效且通常更具成本效益，但它们增加了对外部提供商的数据准确性和可靠性的依赖，这可能导致合规风险和系统漏洞。

例如，据传闻，我们采访的一个项目遇到了严重的合规恐慌，因为第三方地理封锁数据错误地指示了来自受限制区域的访问，引发了人们对第三方解决方案的有效性和准确性的担忧。 虽然这个问题后来被认定为一个错误，但它凸显了依赖外部数据提供商实现合规所固有的运营风险和不确定性。任何违规行为的责任最终仍由项目方承担，而不是第三方提供商，[130]这意味着执法行动仍然可能针对加密公司进行访问违规，即使第三方服务导致了该问题。

这种严格合规的要求不仅增加了运营复杂性和成本，而且还带来了巨大的法律风险，因为项目对任何制裁或未注册的证券法违规行为都要承担严格责任。在这种情况下，严格责任意味着公司即使无意违反合规规定，也可能面临严重的财务和声誉后果。这种加重的合规负担和风险阻碍了创新，并使在美国境内安全扩展加密生态系统的努力变得复杂，进一步说明了执法监管对整个行业的不利影响。

除了排除美国用户外，建议项目不要鼓励使用VPN，因为这可能被解读为试图规避美国法规。明确指示美国用户使用VPN 的项目可能会受到美国证券交易委员会的审查，正如组织因被认为规避监管控制而面临处罚的案例所见。通过明确声明空投不适用于美国人，并真诚努力实际限制美国人，各项目方强化了他们的论点，即分配不属于美国管辖范围。

执法监管违反《行政程序法》

机构使用执法监管，尤其是有关空投的监管，与《行政程序法》的原则相冲突，《行政程序法》要求制定一个结构化且透明的规则制定流程。[131] SEC 依靠诉讼而不是制定正式规则，以不可预测且往往具有追溯力的方式执行证券法。[132]这造成了监管环境不稳定，正如美国证券交易委员会（SEC）对Ripple Labs 的备受瞩目的案件所表明的那样，SEC 指控Ripple 的XRP 代币（一种用于国际支付的实用代币）构成了证券，尽管XRP 持有者与Ripple 缺乏财务