Shifting Perspectives on Crypto Tokens: The End of the Regulatory Excuse

Securities law is increasingly seen as a weak justification for governance tokens that provide no real value to holders, according to Ben DiFrancesco, CEO of ScopeLift. During a recent interview on the Uneasy Money podcast, he suggested that this transformation is likely to prompt closer examination of crypto projects that fail to deliver tangible benefits to their token holders.

Changing Perspectives on Token Governance

DiFrancesco's remarks reflect a critical shift in attitudes toward governance tokens within the crypto community. Historically, many projects considered their governance tokens to offer intrinsic value based solely on governance rights, but as he points out, that rationale is losing traction. Investors and participants are looking for more than just a seat at the table; they want demonstrable returns and clear value propositions. This heightened scrutiny may compel projects to be more transparent about how they intend to generate actual value for token holders. If you're working in this space, anticipating this shift could be a major advantage.

Cactus: A New Direction for ScopeLift

ScopeLift recently revamped the Tally governance platform, rebranding it as Cactus. DiFrancesco highlighted that fears surrounding regulatory repercussions have historically deterred many crypto projects from offering dividends or buybacks. “When you promised either, you faced a significant risk of breaching securities law,” he stated. “But the good news is that this landscape is changing.” It’s clear that innovations like Cactus are aiming to provide genuine economic incentives to token may pave the way for other projects. These changes come as the crypto sector is pushing for more accountability, seeking to distance itself from previous associations with pump-and-dump schemes and unfulfilled promises.

Valuing Tokens: The Need for Real Benefits

DiFrancesco emphasized that for any protocol aiming to monetize through a token, a compelling narrative behind distributing real value is essential. He pointed to Uniswap as a key player, illustrating how their fees are systematically allocated to buy back tokens. “A large protocol that generates revenue should have a redemption plan that’s grounded in reality,” he remarked. This approach illustrates a growing trend among successful protocols that are keen to reinforce their ecosystem's integrity while also fostering trust among users.

The importance of maintaining economic security is central to this discourse. DiFrancesco warned that if a token's market valuation drops too low, it could pose a threat to the integrity of the assets that the protocol safeguards. What this means for you, a project creator or investor, is that economic fundamentals must be prioritized. When teams assert that a token is irrelevant, DiFrancesco expressed skepticism, stating, “I don’t buy that excuse anymore. The regulatory excuse is vanishing.” This growing reluctance to accept superficial justifications may embolden more investors to demand proof of value.

Further illustrating these points, recent guidance from the SEC clarified that a mere commitment to buybacks without a functional and decentralized mechanism would not suffice to absolve teams from regulatory scrutiny, a detail emphasized in revisions issued on September 28. This shift indicates a growing demand for active management and responsibility in token offerings. In this environment, teams can no longer rely solely on regulatory ambiguity to justify their tokenomics. Without effective governance that translates into real benefits for holders, projects could face significant backlash.

The Shifting Governance Landscape

DiFrancesco's insights emerged during a discussion surrounding the Safe multisig wallet. Recently, Greenfield Capital, an investor in Safe, called for an independent review of the governance at the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. Citing a dramatic decrease in held assets—from roughly $66 billion in January 2024 to about $30 billion by August 2026—Greenfield urged for changes that promote accountability, including the introduction of independent board members. This event spotlights a growing recognition that, just like traditional companies, crypto establishments must be subjected to governance practices that can ensure accountability and transparency.

A spokesperson for the foundation confirmed no formal request had been made by regulators and declined to comment on Greenfield's allegations. However, DiFrancesco praised the original Gnosis team behind Safe, asserting that as tokens are increasingly held to higher standards of accountability, this represents a maturation phase within the crypto ecosystem. And this is the part most people overlook: true accountabilities are now expected of these foundations, or they risk losing their community’s trust.

Implications for the Future of Crypto Governance

The discourse around token governance and the expectations for value return is transitioning rapidly. The changes materializing from this environment may define how crypto projects operate in the coming years. If you’re involved in project development, this might compel a complete reevaluation of your token strategy. Tokens must now fulfill tangible promises, or else risk being sidelined as regulatory scrutiny intensifies.

With emerging frameworks encouraging responsible governance and value creation, projects can no longer merely coast on the allure of decentralization or technological innovation. The demand from the user base, combined with regulatory evolution, could transform the space toward offering not only governance rights but also meaningful, quantifiable benefits. That said, projects unwilling to adapt may find themselves increasingly isolated, as the new breed of crypto enthusiasts prioritizes accountability and transparency.

Related Listen: Why the ‘Regulatory Excuse’ for Tokens Is Ending: Uneasy Money

The post DAO Tooling CEO Says the ‘Regulatory Excuse’ for Tokens That Return No Value Is Going Away appeared first on Unchained.