SEC Chairman Explains Why NFTs Are Not Securities: 'Like Buying Trading Cards'

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-19Last updated on 2026-03-19

Abstract

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs are generally not considered securities, comparing them to collectibles like baseball cards. The SEC recently issued guidance identifying four categories of digital assets not classified as securities: digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins. Atkins emphasized that NFTs are typically "bought and held" assets rather than investment contracts, which are central to the definition of a security. He noted that each asset is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances, but digital collectibles are generally viewed as immutable purchases not intended for trading like traditional securities. This reflects a broader shift in the SEC’s approach under Atkins’ leadership, moving away from enforcement-driven regulation toward clearer guidance and a more predictable framework. The change aligns with the Trump administration's crypto-friendly stance, with Atkins criticizing past regulatory missteps that he believes set the U.S. back in crypto innovation.

Author: Sam Bourgi

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: SEC Chairman Paul Atkins further explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs generally do not constitute securities. The SEC recently released an interpretive document listing four categories of digital assets that are not securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins.

Atkins compared NFTs to baseball cards, emphasizing that such assets are "bought and held" and do not involve investment contracts. This is the latest move by the SEC under Atkins' leadership to shift from "enforcement-driven" to "guidance-driven" regulation.

Full text as follows:

After the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listed four major categories of digital assets not subject to securities laws, Chairman Paul Atkins further explained why non-fungible tokens (NFTs) generally do not meet the definition of securities.

In a CNBC interview on Wednesday, Atkins reiterated the four categories of digital assets identified in the SEC's recent interpretive document that are typically not considered securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles like NFTs, and stablecoins.

During the interview, host Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed the issue of digital collectibles, noting that depending on their structure, they could more easily be classified as securities.

Atkins responded, "That's true of anything." He emphasized that the SEC's analysis still depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each asset, particularly whether it involves an investment contract under long-standing legal precedent.

Atkins stated that digital collectibles are generally viewed as items to be bought and held, similar to physical collectibles, rather than investment contracts. Investment contracts are a core defining feature of securities.

He said, "These collectibles, like baseball cards, memes, memecoins, NFTs, are things someone buys. It's an immutable purchase...unlike other assets that people trade."

Caption: Paul Atkins interviewed on CNBC. Source: CNBC

SEC Continues to Move Away from "Enforcement-Driven" Crypto Policy

Under Atkins' leadership, the SEC's approach to regulating digital assets has undergone a noticeable adjustment. This shift coincides with the Trump administration, which is more crypto-friendly and took office in early 2025.

Atkins said in the CNBC interview, "We are breaking with the past." He described the SEC's efforts to promote clearer guidance and a more predictable regulatory framework.

Last year, Atkins criticized the SEC's previous reliance on "regulation by enforcement" and promised to move away from this approach. He also noted that tokenization is a key innovation that regulators should support rather than restrict.

Since then, he has repeatedly stated that past regulatory missteps have set the U.S. back by as much as a decade in crypto development and vowed to reverse this situation.

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

Japan's cabinet has introduced the 2026 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform, shifting its primary fiscal target. The new framework moves away from the traditional annual primary balance goal and instead prioritizes a stable reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio. This change is tied to a strategy of increased "responsible proactive fiscal" spending, aiming to boost long-term growth through investments in strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, energy, and robotics. The government estimates total public and private investment in 62 key technologies could exceed 370 trillion yen by 2040. The market reaction has been mixed and cautious. While equity markets may respond to policy signals, bond markets are focused on fiscal credibility. Concerns center on whether the weakening of the clear primary balance anchor could lead to looser fiscal discipline. If investors doubt that these strategic investments will generate sufficient productivity gains, tax revenue, and nominal growth to outpace rising interest costs, they may demand higher yields on Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Recent volatility in the yen and JGB yields, with the 10-year yield briefly reaching 2.9%, reflects this skepticism. The success of this new framework hinges on two factors: whether Japan can achieve a nominal growth rate consistently higher than its long-term interest rates, and whether future budgets demonstrate disciplined control over bond issuance. The government's narrative is that strategic investment is essential to break Japan's cycle of low growth, aging, and labor shortages. However, the bond market will continuously assess the credibility of this plan, pricing the risk that it may represent fiscal expansion rather than a viable growth strategy.

marsbit3m ago

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

marsbit3m ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit34m ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit34m ago

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

A zero-knowledge proof tool can help modern Bitcoin wallets migrate assets before quantum attacks in milliseconds. However, approximately 1.1 million bitcoins mined by Satoshi Nakamoto before 2012 are fundamentally unprotected by such solutions, as they reside in older P2PK addresses lacking the hierarchical structure required for this cryptographic rescue. This exposes a critical divide: post-2012 HD wallets can potentially "upgrade" signatures using tools like Project Eleven's, while early coins are cryptographically isolated. The community faces a political, not technical, dilemma with four contentious options: 1) Let quantum attackers seize the coins, risking market instability; 2) Hard fork to freeze vulnerable addresses, seen as violating property rights; 3) Implement extreme spending limits to slow any attack; 4) Redistribute "orphaned" coins, breaking immutability. Each solution threatens a core Bitcoin tenet. The market is already pricing in this governance risk, as evidenced by institutional divestment citing uncertainty. The true crisis isn't the arrival of quantum computing, but the community's inability to reconcile its foundational principles with an existential technological shift.

marsbit42m ago

Quantum Computers Haven't Arrived Yet, but Satoshi's 1.1 Million Bitcoin Pose the First Problem

marsbit42m ago

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Matt Hougan, Bitwise's CIO, identifies the fusion of traditional finance and on-chain finance as the core driver for the next crypto bull market. He expects this cycle, propelled by real-world utility and global finance adoption, to be the largest yet, centered on stablecoins, asset tokenization, 24/7 trading, instant settlement, and institutional DeFi growth. The article outlines two primary investment approaches tied to this trend. The first focuses on native crypto applications with strong revenues and sustainable tokenomics, exemplified by Hyperliquid (HYPE). Its Layer-1 chain is gaining significant trading volume from traditional assets like oil and equities. Its model of using 99% of revenues for token buybacks is a key strength. The second approach targets established traditional firms building at scale on crypto rails, like Robinhood. The launch of its Robinhood Chain, enabling global trading of tokenized stocks and DeFi activities, represents a major move towards this fusion. The author also notes other serious contenders like Coinbase, Figure, BlackRock, and JPMorgan. Ultimately, the thesis is that the most profound success will come when blockchain technology seamlessly integrates into finance, becoming invisible to end-users. Investors are advised to position ahead of this convergence.

Foresight News46m ago

Where Will the Next Bull Market's Main Battlefield Be? The Answer Lies in These Two Types of Assets

Foresight News46m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit53m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.