In the ongoing clash between Binance and the SEC, new revelations in the United States v. Eisenberg lawsuit could shake up the regulator's stance on stablecoins like BUSD and USDC.

Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng "CZ" Zhao, presented fresh evidence to the court, contesting the SEC's claim that stablecoins are securities. They highlighted a crucial detail from the Eisenberg case, where the US Department of Justice (DOJ) disputed the notion of USDC being classified as a security.

According to the DOJ filing, the jury's decision in the Mango Markets fraud case cast doubt on the SEC's argument. The filing stated that the USDC stablecoin did not meet the criteria of a security under the Howey test, as holders did not anticipate profits from the efforts of others.

The US prosecutors emphasized that there was no factual basis to consider USDC a security, as holders did not expect profits. Additionally, they argued against instructing the jury to determine USDC's security status, even if its dollar peg was maintained or lost.

Circle, the issuer of USDC, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that stablecoins like BUSD and USDC should not be deemed securities because users do not anticipate profits from buying them independently. They argued that payment stablecoins fell outside the SEC's jurisdiction.

In a significant development, a federal jury convicted Avraham Eisenberg of commodities fraud and manipulation, rather than securities law violations as charged by the SEC. This outcome underscores the distinction between securities and other types of assets.

Binance stands to benefit from this legal debate, potentially gaining clarity and securing a favorable ruling regarding BUSD's status as a security. Resolving disputes with the SEC marks a significant step forward for Binance, BinanceUS, and Changpeng "CZ" Zhao in navigating regulatory challenges.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal battle between Binance and the SEC sheds light on the complex classification of stablecoins. As both sides present their arguments, the outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of digital assets.