A heated dispute has resurfaced in the crypto world after UniSwap creator Hayden Adams disclosed what he describes as one of the most alarming regulatory ideas ever discussed in the United States: a scenario in which Bitcoin, Ethereum, and the rest of the major cryptocurrencies would have been branded securities.
The claim was not tied to a theory but to a conversation Adams says he had with Sam Bankman-Fried shortly before FTX collapsed. According to his recollection, SBF suggested that the SEC — under Gary Gensler at the time — was preparing to expand its jurisdiction to cover the entire crypto market. The way Adams tells it, the plan would have also placed FTX at the center of the U.S. crypto trading system.
Instead of a multi-exchange environment, Adams says he understood the proposal as leading to a single licensed on-ramp for trading cryptocurrencies in the United States. One company would receive the only legal brokerage license to handle crypto assets; another, tied to FTX, would receive the only exchange license. In practice, all other platforms would lose legal access to U.S. markets.
Adams says SBF never spoke the words “exclusive monopoly,” but the direction of the conversation left him with no doubt. He claims he rejected the idea on the spot, calling it contrary to the foundation of open blockchain networks.
What has attracted the most attention is not the licensing model — but which assets were allegedly targeted. Adams claims he was told that even Bitcoin and Ethereum were on the SEC’s radar for securities designation, not just smaller altcoins.
If true, that would represent the single largest shift in the legal treatment of digital assets in U.S. history.
According to Adams, the plan never left the negotiation stage because FTX imploded days later. He framed the outcome as an unexpected turning point for the industry:
If FTX hadn’t gone down when it did, the entire market could look completely different right now.
Adams’ post reignited old questions about how closely SBF was working with regulators before the collapse and whether some industry players were attempting to shape crypto rules in their favor while presenting themselves publicly as advocates for “responsible regulation.”
Neither the SEC nor SBF has responded publicly to Adams’ recent claims, and there is no independent confirmation of the conversation. Still, the disclosure has triggered anxiety inside crypto circles because it revives a long-running fear: that regulation in the U.S. isn’t only about clarity — it might also be a battle over who gets to control the industry.
