The former SEC chief of staff likened liquid staking to the Lehman crisis, but pro in the encryption industry refuted this.

Amanda Fischer, the chief of staff to former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, recently posted on social media platform X, comparing #流动性质押 (liquid staking) in the cryptocurrency space to similar re-hypothecation practices before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, and warned that this model could trigger systemic risks in the crypto market.

She believes that the SEC's current regulatory stance is akin to "recognizing high-risk operations similar to Lehman Brothers," as liquid staking allows assets to be used multiple times through synthetic tokens, and the lack of regulation in a decentralized environment may exacerbate this risk.

This statement quickly sparked a strong reaction in the encryption industry. Several industry insiders pointed out that Fischer's analogy has fundamental errors.

For example, Matthew Sigel, head of digital asset research at VanEck, rebutted that her claim of the SEC condoning the encryption industry while also criticizing its lack of SEC regulation is inherently contradictory.

Blockchain lawyer Kurt Watkins believes that Fischer has overinterpreted the SEC's position, which only grants regulatory exemptions for passive, unleveraged liquidity staking models, rather than supporting complex derivatives operations.

Mert Mumtaz, the CEO of Solana infrastructure company Helius Labs, criticized Fischer, stating that he "either does not understand technology or is deliberately playing dumb."

He emphasized that the transparency of blockchain is completely different from the "black box operations" of traditional finance. The operation mechanism of #liquid staking tokens (LST) is auditable and public, and should not be compared to Lehman's "shadow banking" model.

It is reported that Fischer is currently working at Better Markets, an organization that has strongly opposed the launch of a Bitcoin spot ETF in the United States. Industry insiders believe that her remarks indicate that some traditional financial regulators still view encryption with a "centralized mindset" and fundamentally do not understand the underlying logic of decentralized finance (DeFi).

Currently, the SEC has not made an official response to this controversy. However, the debate also highlights the fundamental divergence between regulators and the encryption industry: regulators are concerned about systemic financial risks, while industry practitioners emphasize technological innovation and industry transparency.

In the future, as the liquid staking market continues to grow, similar regulatory disputes may continue to intensify.