The Digital Chamber has called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to stop what it described as ongoing attacks on the crypto industry, following the agency’s enforcement action against Consensys over MetaMask swaps and staking services. In a public statement, the industry group said the lawsuit is another example of the SEC pushing beyond clear legal boundaries while undermining innovation in digital assets and decentralized finance.
Industry group says SEC is stretching its authority
The Chamber said it strongly opposes the SEC’s lawsuit against Consensys, the company behind the MetaMask wallet. According to the organization, the case specifically targeting decentralized exchange routing and staking functionality reflects a pattern of regulatory overreach. Rather than offering clear rules for the market, the SEC has continued to rely on enforcement actions, a strategy the Chamber argues creates confusion and instability across the digital asset sector.
In its statement, the group argued that services such as MetaMask swaps and staking are part of a broader decentralized finance ecosystem that can expand access to financial tools. It said these products help democratize finance by giving users more autonomy, efficiency, and direct access to services that have traditionally been controlled by centralized intermediaries. The Chamber also framed DeFi as a potential driver of financial inclusion, especially for people who are unbanked or underbanked.
From the Chamber’s perspective, the SEC’s claims against Consensys misread the underlying technology and risk blocking progress that could benefit millions of users. The organization further argued that repeated enforcement in the absence of a transparent rulebook conflicts with the agency’s investor protection mission because it leaves market participants unsure of the standards they are expected to follow.
Consensys pushes back on MetaMask allegations
Consensys has already responded publicly to the SEC’s action. The company said it firmly believes the SEC does not have the authority to regulate software interfaces such as MetaMask. It also said it will continue pursuing its case in Texas in search of judicial clarity on the core legal questions involved.
For Consensys, the dispute is not just about one company or one product suite. The firm has presented the case as a broader fight over how Web3 technologies should be treated under U.S. law. If software interfaces are treated as regulated financial intermediaries, the implications could extend far beyond MetaMask and affect wallet developers, DeFi access tools, and other parts of the decentralized technology stack.
The Digital Chamber echoed that concern by placing the lawsuit in a larger policy context. In its view, the SEC is not simply challenging one provider’s product design; it is effectively trying to define the regulatory treatment of emerging crypto infrastructure through litigation rather than formal rulemaking or legislation.
DeFi, financial access, and the policy debate
A central part of the Chamber’s argument is that decentralized finance should not be evaluated solely through the lens of traditional securities enforcement. The group said DeFi platforms can expand participation in financial markets by lowering barriers to access and reducing dependence on centralized institutions. It described MetaMask-related swap and staking services as examples of tools that can make digital financial services more open and widely available.
This argument reflects a broader industry position that crypto technology can improve market efficiency while broadening access. Supporters of DeFi often claim that self-custodial wallets, decentralized routing, and open blockchain-based applications give users more control over assets and transactions. Critics, however, have questioned whether those benefits can be delivered safely without stronger oversight. In this case, the Chamber’s statement focused on the risk that poorly defined regulation could suppress useful experimentation before policymakers establish a clear framework.
The group said the SEC’s approach has increased market uncertainty by leaning on case-by-case actions rather than providing direct guidance. In practice, that uncertainty can affect builders, investors, and service providers who must make legal and operational decisions without knowing where regulators will ultimately draw the line.
Chevron decision could reshape regulatory disputes
The Chamber also linked the Consensys case to a major development in U.S. administrative law: the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Chevron deference. For decades, Chevron gave federal agencies broad room to interpret ambiguous statutes. Its removal is widely seen as a shift that could limit how aggressively agencies interpret existing laws in new areas, including crypto.
Cody Carbone, the Chamber’s chief policy officer, described the ruling as a “game changer” for the crypto industry. In his view, the decision opens the door to a regulatory environment that is more predictable and more closely tied to clear legislative intent rather than evolving interpretations by agencies and unelected policymakers.
That matters because many of the most important U.S. crypto disputes center on exactly this issue: whether existing securities laws clearly cover modern blockchain-based products and services, or whether regulators are stretching older statutes to fit new technology. With Chevron deference gone, courts may scrutinize agency interpretations more directly, potentially affecting future litigation involving exchanges, wallets, staking programs, and token-related services.
Call for “fair regulation” instead of enforcement-first policy
The Digital Chamber concluded by saying it stands with Consensys and the wider crypto community in calling for regulation that supports innovation, protects investors, and promotes financial inclusion. Its message was direct: “Enough is enough”—the SEC should stop attacking the digital asset industry and begin embracing what the group describes as the future of finance.
The statement highlights a familiar divide in U.S. crypto policy. Industry advocates want clearer rules written through legislation or formal rulemaking, while the SEC has continued to pursue major cases under its existing interpretation of securities laws. The Consensys matter now adds another high-profile dispute to that conflict, with potential consequences for wallet software, DeFi access, and the limits of agency authority.
Whether the SEC changes course remains uncertain. But the Chamber’s intervention shows that this case is already being treated as more than an isolated enforcement action. For many in the industry, it is part of a broader fight over who gets to define the legal boundaries of crypto in the United States—and whether those boundaries will be set by Congress, the courts, or regulators acting through enforcement.