As seen in Ethereum network, staking—the process of locking a certain amount of crypto assets on a blockchain for a set period to contribute to transaction validation (Proof of Stake), earning rewards in return—is gaining traction globally as well as in Japan. Major Japanese crypto asset exchanges now offer staking services, contributing to its expansion. This paper outlines key legal issues related to staking under Japanese law and briefly addresses the concept of restaking, which is a mechanism in which existing staked crypto assets or staking rewards are staked again to earn additional rewards, with the aim of enhancing network security and enabling new services.
Regulatory applicability depends on the manner in which staking is conducted and its legal framework. Relevant regulations include those governing Crypto Asset Exchanges and Funds as referenced and further explained below.Staking one’s own crypto assets remains unregulated under such regulations, therefore, this discussion focuses on cases where a service provider stakes on behalf of users. To summarize the key conclusions in advance:
| Staking Structure and Legal Framework | Applicability of Crypto Asset Exchange Regulations / Fund Regulations as per Japanese Law |
| Service provider does not receive the user’s private key (only delegation) | No applicable regulations |
|
Service provider gets the user’s private key |
|
| Legal structure: “Custody” | Crypto Asset Exchange regulations apply (registration as a Crypto Asset Exchange) |
| Legal structure: “Investment” | Fund regulations apply (registration as a Type II Financial Instruments Business Operator) |
| Legal structure: “Lending” | No applicable regulations |
Custody, Investment, and Lending are key legal classifications in the regulatory framework for staking services. While details will be discussed later, these terms can be briefly defined as follows:
✓Custody refers to the management of crypto assets on behalf of users. Possession of private keys is a key factor in determining regulatory applicability of Custody. If structured as Custody, it falls under Crypto Asset Exchange regulations under the Payment Services Act (PSA).
✓Investment refers to a scheme where users contribute funds (including crypto assets) to a service provider, which then utilizes them for business operations (e.g., staking) and distributes profits to the users. If structured as Investment, it falls under Fund regulations governed by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA).
✓Lending refers to an arrangement where users lend their crypto assets to a service provider, which manages the crypto assets at its discretion and returns them after a specified period. If recognized as a Lending agreement, it is generally not subject to PSA or FIEA regulations.
Under Japanese law, Crypto Asset Exchange regulations under the PSA, Article 2, Paragraph 15, apply to the following activities:
Among these, staking is particularly relevant to Item 4., which refers to the Custody services.
Regarding “managing crypto assets on behalf of others” (hereinafter referred to as “Custody”), the Financial Services Agency (FSA) guideline1 states:
“[…] in a case where the business operator is in a state in which the business operator is able to proactively transfer a Crypto-Asset of a user, such as a case where the business operator holds a secret key [Author’s Note: referring to a private key] sufficient to enable the business operator to transfer the Crypto-Asset of the user without any involvement of the user, either alone or in cooperation of an affiliated business operator, such a case falls under the management of Crypto-Assets.”
This indicates that possession of private keys is a key factor in determining regulatory applicability of Custody.
Additionally, staking may also be subject to Fund regulations governed by FIEA (Article 2, Paragraph 2, Item 5). This FIEA applies where users contribute funds (including crypto assets) to a service provider, which then utilizes them for business operations and distributes profits to the users.
If a service provider only receives delegation from users without holding their private keys2, it does not qualify as a Custody activity under the FSA guideline as quoted above and is not subject to Crypto Asset Exchange regulations under the PSA.Additionally, in this case, since users do not contribute funds to the service provider —given that the service provider cannot transfer the crypto assets for business operations without possessing the private key— it does not constitute an “Investment” and therefore, Fund regulations under the FIEA do not apply either.
If a service provider holds the user’s private key, it may be classified as a Custody activity under the PSA. Additionally, depending on the legal structure of the arrangement, the user’s contribution could be considered an “Investment,” making it subject to Fund regulations under the FIEA.
First, if the arrangement is structured as a “Custody,” the provider is deemed to be managing the user’s crypto assets on their behalf. This qualifies as a Custody activity under Crypto Asset Exchange regulations and falls under the Payment Services Act (Article 2, Paragraph 15, Item 4).
If the legal structure is such that the provider receives “Investment” of crypto assets from users, it does not meet the Custody regulation requirement of “managing crypto assets on behalf of others,” as the assets are received for business use rather than for custodial management on behalf of users. Therefore, Custody regulations under the PSA do not apply. However, since the provider uses the contributed funds to operate a business (staking) and distributes the revenue to users, it is likely subject to Fund regulations under FIEA.
If the arrangement is structured as Lending, where the user lends crypto assets to the service provider, which manages them at its discretion and returns them after a specified period, rather than making a Custody (where assets are held and managed on behalf of the user) or an Investment (where assets are contributed with an expectation of return), no specific regulations apply. However, according to the aforementioned FSA guideline3, “The borrowing of Crypto-Assets […] falls under the management of Crypto-Assets […] if a business operator substantially manages a Crypto-Asset on behalf of another person under the name of the borrowing of a Crypto-Asset such that the user can receive the return of the Crypto-Asset borrowed at any time at the request of the user. “
Therefore, regulatory authorities may classify such circumvention schemes as a Custody activity, making them subject to Custody regulations under the PSA.
Thus, even when a service provider holds the user’s private key and conducts staking, the applicable regulations vary depending on the legal structure of the arrangement. However, in practical business operations, the distinction between “Custody”, “Investment” and “Lending” is not always clear. To determine the applicable regulations, it is useful to analyze the staking scheme based on the following factors:
Based on these factors, the conclusions for typical cases are summarized as follows. However, if a case does not fit within these typical scenarios, determining whether it qualifies as Custody service or a Fund Investment can be challenging.
The licenses required for service providers under each scheme are summarized as follows:
Restaking is a scheme where crypto assets that have already been staked are staked again in another protocol.
The demand for restaking arises from two key factors: enhance security of certain decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and similar services and enabling users to obtain higher yields.
If a DeFi service uses its own Proof of Stake token for validation of transactions and hence its security, its effectiveness may be limited due to low token value or poor distribution and can be open to security vulnerabilities through holding a significant number of the related tokens. Restaking solves this by reusing staked crypto assets (e.g., ETH) to provide the security of major public blockchains like Ethereum.
In return, DeFi services share rewards with crypto assets holders, who also bear slashing risks. This allows holders to earn additional rewards on top of their staking returns, boosting overall yields.
The key legal issues related to restaking under Japanese law include:
Regarding Custody regulations, the applicability of Custody regulations depends on the structure of the restaking service. However, based on the previously mentioned stance of the FSA on Custody, if the crypto assets are managed by a smart contract and the restaking service provider does not have the technical ability to transfer the crypto assets, Custody regulations would not apply.
Regarding Fund regulations, the application of Fund regulations requires that the contributed assets be used to conduct a business. In the case of restaking, if crypto assets are merely locked as a form of collateral to cover potential penalties from slashing, rather than being allocated for business operations, it would not meet the legal definition of an Investment. Therefore, Fund regulations would not apply.
Note that, as with staking, the applicable regulations may vary depending on the specific structure of the restaking scheme.
This article discusses the structure of EigenLayer, which has recently gained rapid attention in the DeFi space, and the applicable regulation on it under Japanese law.
Our firm is a law firm well-versed in the Web3 domain, and we have published numerous articles in both Japanese and English on legal issues related to the Web3 field3. In May 2024, we published a Japanese article titled “Structure of Restaking Services such as EigenLayer and Japanese Law4.”
While the Japanese version of the article provides a more detailed analysis, this article summarizes the conclusions of the Japanese version to facilitate easy understanding for overseas entities considering offering restaking services in Japan.
The Structure of Restaking in EigenLayer
EigenLayer is a service designed to ensure secure execution for programs running outside of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) by using ETH.
For instance, when a DeFi application that uses the Ethereum blockchain consists of parts that operate within the EVM and parts that do not, the security for the EVM parts is guaranteed by the Ethereum blockchain. However, the parts that run outside the EVM are not covered by the security of the Ethereum blockchain, making them vulnerable. The traditional approach to this issue has been to issue native tokens for that application, but this comes with several problems:
EigenLayer aims to provide a solution to these problems.
In simple terms, EigenLayer “reuses” ETH that is already staked on Ethereum to provide security to services built on EigenLayer (Actively Validated Services, or AVS). For example, consider an AVS that periodically surveys numerous crypto exchanges and DeFi protocols to collect token price information and calculate their average values. In this case:
A key feature is that ETH staked for the regular Proof of Stake mechanism on Ethereum can also be used as collateral for multiple AVS, allowing operators to earn additional rewards. Furthermore, users who are not operators can deposit their ETH, etc. into EigenLayer, restake it through selected operators, and receive a share of the rewards that operators earn from the AVS. The advantage for users is that they can earn multiple layers of rewards through EigenLayer restaking compared to simple ETH staking.
Liquid Restaking
In addition, external entities offer a service related to EigenLayer known as Liquid Restaking. This service involves users depositing their ETH with a liquid restaking provider, who then stakes the ETH on Ethereum and restakes it through EigenLayer once the minimum staking unit of 32 ETH is accumulated. In this case, users only interact with the liquid restaking provider, while the provider handles transactions with EigenLayer. This arrangement frees users from the responsibility of selecting operators. Liquid restaking services thus play an important role in providing users with the opportunity to generate revenue through EigenLayer.
Restaking and Japanese Law
When considering restaking services such as EigenLayer under Japanese law, it is primarily necessary to evaluate the applicability of:
If the act of depositing ETH, etc. into EigenLayer is viewed as the entrustment of crypto, the custody regulations under the Crypto Act may apply. However, if the deposit is made to a smart contract and the smart contract technically prevents EigenLayer, the AVS, the operators and other people except for users to transfer the ETH, etc., we believe the custody regulations would not apply.
FIEA regulates funds that collect money, use such money for some kinds of investment or some business activities, and distribute the profits to investors. There is a concern about whether the fund regulations under the FIEA apply to the mechanism where EigenLayer receives deposits of ETH, etc., operators provide security to the AVS in return for rewards, and a portion of these rewards is distributed to users, who also bear the risk of penalties such as slashing. However, if the deposited ETH, etc. is not used for investment or business activities but merely locked in a smart contract as a form of collateral to address penalties like slashing, we believe that the fund regulations under the FIEA would not apply.
In restaking services such as EigenLayer, users may receive points6.as rewards. These points might lead to future airdrops. The potential applicability of the UPMR, which prohibits excessive premiums provided in connection with transactions of goods and services, needs to be considered. Under UPMR, premiums refer to (1) economic benefits such as goods or money that are provided (2) as a means to attract customers, and (3) in connection with transactions. In this respect, users of restaking services likely view these points as part of the rewards associated with restaking, and the high yields might incentivize them to restake. Therefore, these points can be seen as part of the primary transaction, not as “premiums” provided in connection with the transaction, implying that the UPMR might not apply.
Liquid Restaking and Japanese Law
Liquid restaking providers, being external entities, likely operate under various structure. It is necessary to evaluate the applicability of:
If the act of depositing ETH for liquid restaking is deemed as custody, the custody regulation under the Crypto Act may apply. Whether liquid restaking providers manage private keys is a critical issue. We believe, however, it seems that most liquid restaking providers do not own private keys and thus the custody regulation do not apply.
There is a concern about whether issuing Liquid Restaking Tokens upon depositing ETH constitutes crypto exchange. Legally, if tokens are issued as proof of deposit, it would not be considered trading or exchange under the Crypto Act, and thus, the trading and exchange regulations would not apply.
Fund regulations must also be considered for liquid restaking providers. Key considerations include how private keys are managed. If the smart contract ensures that the deposited ETH is used solely as collateral and cannot be otherwise utilized, we believe the operation may not be classified as a fund. Conversely, if the smart contract is not properly set up and allows the provider to use the private keys and crypto assets, the operation may be subject to fund regulations.
Disclaimer
The content of this article has not been confirmed by the relevant authorities or organizations mentioned in the article but merely reflects a reasonable interpretation of their statements. The interpretation of the laws and regulations reflects our current understanding and may, therefore, change in the future. This article does not recommend the use of staking, liquid staking, liquid restaking, EigenLayer or LIDO, etc.. This article provides merely a summary for discussion purposes. If you need legal advice on a specific topic, please feel free to contact us.