Continued ETH Gate Saga: Lubin’s ‘Piece Of Paper

Continued ETH Gate Saga: Lubin's 'Piece Of Paper

The ETH Gate Saga: Unveiling the Secrets of the Blockchain Industry

The blockchain industry has been abuzz with the recent revelations made by Steven Nerayoff, a key participant in Ethereum’s Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Nerayoff claims to possess insider knowledge that sheds light on whether Ethereum was granted a “regulatory-free pass” by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These revelations have sparked intense debate and speculation within the industry.

Lubin’s Piece of Paper Emerges in ETH Gate

Under pressure from the XRP community to disclose his alleged evidence, Nerayoff shared transcripts of an email he received from Joseph Lubin, Ethereum’s co-founder, on July 21, 2014. The email was also addressed to Fry, Bertrand, Vitalik Buterin, and Jeffrey Alberts. In the email, Fry, Bertrand, possibly a single person, mentioned an “opinion letter” that would be put on letterhead and forwarded to Lubin.

This disclosure prompted further investigation into the matter, and a video clip surfaced featuring John Deaton, a pro-XRP legal expert. Deaton suggested that the “opinion paper” mentioned in the email could be the same document Lubin referred to when he mentioned having a “piece of paper” in his pocket before the ETH ICO. Deaton claimed that Nerayoff acquired this piece of paper from Lubin and emphasized the significance of this chain of events.

It is worth noting that Deaton seems to have firsthand insights into the SEC-Ethereum relationship, as he has been in communication with Nerayoff under the Attorney-Client privilege. This revelation adds weight to his claims and increases the intrigue surrounding the SEC’s involvement with Ethereum.

Furthermore, Nerayoff’s previous tweet hinted that the ETH Gate controversy goes beyond former SEC Director William Hinman’s speech, where he asserted that Ethereum was not a security. Nerayoff stated that there is more concealed information behind Hinman’s speech, suggesting that the irregularities run deeper than what meets the eye. He also used the hashtags #CryptoJudas to refer to Vitalik Buterin and #CrookedElbowJoe to refer to Joseph Lubin.

What Is Lubin’s Piece of Paper?

Attorney Bill Morgan speculated that Nerayoff was implying that Jeffrey Alberts and Fry Bertrand, co-authors of the piece “Is Bitcoin A Security?” in 2015, were the individuals behind the opinion letter mentioned in the email. This aligns with Deaton’s suggestion that the letter could be the same “piece of paper” alluded to by Lubin. Morgan insinuated that Alberts and Bertrand, both lawyers, may have authored this letter to convince the SEC that Ethereum was not a security prior to the ICO.

Nerayoff further supported this theory by retweeting a post that highlighted an excerpt from Alberts’ biography, revealing that he had “helped structure the initial public sale of ether.” This biography implied that the SEC had taken inspiration from Alberts’ legal interpretation years ago when it concluded that Bitcoin and Ether were not securities.

Interestingly, the X (formerly Twitter) user who originated the tweet also drew attention to the relationship between Alberts and Marc Berger, who is currently assisting Bill Hinman. Both Alberts and Berger previously worked together at the Manhattan US Attorney Office’s securities and commodities fraud task force. This connection adds another layer of complexity to the overall situation.

These recent revelations have sent shockwaves through the blockchain industry, leaving many stakeholders eager for further clarification and a deeper understanding of the alleged irregularities surrounding Ethereum and its interaction with the SEC.


The ongoing ETH Gate saga has injected a new wave of intrigue into the blockchain industry. Steven Nerayoff’s disclosures, including the release of Joseph Lubin’s email and the subsequent analysis by legal experts, have opened up a Pandora’s box of questions regarding the SEC’s involvement in Ethereum’s ICO. Observers and industry participants alike are anxiously awaiting additional information to shed light on the potential disparity between the SEC’s treatment of Ethereum and its regulatory approach to other blockchain projects.

As this story unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the importance of regulatory transparency and accountability within the blockchain industry. The implications of these revelations have the potential to shape future regulatory approaches to ICOs and blockchain technology as a whole. It is imperative for regulators, industry participants, and investors to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complexities within the blockchain industry, ensuring that safeguards are in place to maintain trust and integrity in this rapidly evolving ecosystem.