Ripple's Chief Legal Officer, Stuart Alderoty, has shed light on the ambiguities in the SEC's recent decision regarding Ethereum transactions and related services. The SEC's move to close its investigation into Ethereum 2.0 has sparked debates about the agency's regulatory consistency, particularly in contrast to its aggressive pursuit of Ripple.

Alderoty's comments highlight the lack of clarity in the SEC's decision, which seems to contradict its previous assertions that digital assets and ecosystems should be classified as securities. This inconsistency has raised concerns within the cryptocurrency community about the SEC's regulatory framework and its application to various blockchain technologies.

The SEC's decision to end its Ethereum 2.0 probe came after a letter from Consensys, the company behind MetaMask, requesting confirmation that the SEC's approval of Ethereum-based ETFs meant Ethereum would be considered a commodity. This move has led to criticism and calls for more transparent and consistent regulatory guidelines.

Bill Morgan, a member of the XRP community, has also criticized the SEC for what he sees as unequal treatment between Ethereum and Ripple. He argues that Ethereum has received favorable treatment since the Hinman speech, which declared it a non-security, while Ripple has faced a more aggressive approach from the regulator.

The lack of clarity in the SEC's decision-making process and the perceived inconsistencies in its treatment of different blockchain technologies have fueled concerns about the agency's approach to crypto regulation. As the industry continues to evolve, there is a growing demand for a more transparent and consistent regulatory framework that can provide clarity and certainty for market participants.