‘Wrong approach’ – Crypto lobby rejects Wall Street’s tighter DeFi rules for tokenized securities

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-04-08Last updated on 2026-04-08

Abstract

The Blockchain Association (BA) has strongly opposed a proposal from Citadel Securities and traditional finance (SIFMA) calling for stricter regulation of DeFi protocols that handle tokenized securities. In a letter to the SEC, the BA argued that applying existing securities laws, which are designed for intermediaries, to neutral decentralized infrastructure is the "wrong approach." While affirming that tokenized securities are still securities, the BA emphasized that the SEC should consider how modern blockchain technology works before regulating, rather than automatically classifying DeFi infrastructure as exchanges or brokers. This pushback aligns with earlier criticism from the DeFi Education Fund (DEF). Citadel and SIFMA, however, maintain that all platforms handling tokenized securities must be under regulatory oversight to ensure a level playing field and investor protection, regardless of whether they are custodial or decentralized. The outcome hinges on the SEC's decision, which could potentially be challenged in court if it is not codified by the CLARITY Act.

The DeFi sector is doubling down on its pushback against the Citadel-led call for barring decentralized protocols from blanket regulatory exemption.

In a letter to the U.S SEC on Monday, the Blockchain Association (BA) termed Citadel’s proposed regulation of DeFi protocols handling tokenized assets as a “wrong approach.”

The BA is an advocacy and an umbrella group with key industry members, including Coinbase. In the letter, the BA rebutted,

Securities laws regulate intermediaries. They do not automatically turn neutral infrastructure into an exchange, broker, or dealer simply because that infrastructure is part of a tokenized market.

The lobby group added that the DeFi sector is not after a “free pass.” However, it asked the SEC to consider how the underlying tech works before regulating any DeFi protocol.

The digital asset industry is not asking for a free pass. Tokenized securities are still securities. The question is whether the SEC will apply the law in a way that reflects how modern infrastructure actually works.

Tokenized securities are an on-chain version of traditional securities, but traded via blockchain rails.

Citadel wants everyone to play by the rules

Intriguingly, the BA’s request for the SEC to consider how “modern blockchain infrastructure design” works is what Citadel and SIFMA (broader TradFi group) are against. For the TradFi players, the SEC must ensure a level playing field through a “neutral technology” framework.

For them, the issue is not whether a DeFi venue is custodial (controlled by the developer) or not. What’s crucial, they added, is that every platform handling tokenized securities must be under oversight just like traditional intermediaries.

According to critics of the proposed innovation exemption, investor protections in the DeFi world, which is full of scams and rug pulls, can only be ensured by regulations.

Last week, another crypto lobby, the DeFi Education Fund (DEF), castigated SIFMA and Citadel’s call for regulation of AMMs (automated market makers), which are deemed decentralized platforms by experts.

It remains to be seen which route the SEC will take and whether the disgruntled side will sue the agency for its decision on the innovation exemption.

Even so, if the agency’s rulemaking or guidelines related to DeFi exemptions aren’t codified via the CLARITY Act, then they could still be disputed in court. For instance, Roman Storm, the developer behind Tornado Cash with no control over the crypto mixer, is still facing a retrial.

Final Summary

  • Blockchain Association has joined DeFi Education Fund to fend off Citadel and Wall Street’s push for regulations of decentralized protocols.
  • The DeFi lobby groups pleaded with the SEC to consider the neutral nature of decentralized protocols before attempting to regulate them.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main argument of the Blockchain Association (BA) against Citadel's proposed DeFi regulations?

AThe Blockchain Association argues that Citadel's proposed regulation is a 'wrong approach,' stating that securities laws regulate intermediaries and should not automatically turn neutral infrastructure into an exchange, broker, or dealer simply because it is part of a tokenized market.

QAccording to the article, what do Citadel and SIFMA believe is crucial for platforms handling tokenized securities?

ACitadel and SIFMA believe that every platform handling tokenized securities must be under regulatory oversight, just like traditional intermediaries, to ensure a level playing field through a 'neutral technology' framework.

QWhat specific request did the Blockchain Association make to the SEC regarding DeFi regulation?

AThe Blockchain Association asked the SEC to consider how the underlying technology of 'modern blockchain infrastructure design' works before regulating any DeFi protocol, rather than granting a blanket exemption or applying rules without understanding the tech.

QWhich other crypto lobby group has also opposed Citadel and SIFMA's call for DeFi regulation?

AThe DeFi Education Fund (DEF) has also opposed Citadel and SIFMA's call for regulation, specifically criticizing their push to regulate automated market makers (AMMs).

QWhat potential legal outcome is mentioned if the SEC's rulemaking on DeFi exemptions isn't codified via the CLARITY Act?

AIf the SEC's rulemaking or guidelines related to DeFi exemptions aren't codified via the CLARITY Act, they could still be disputed in court, as seen in the case of Roman Storm, the developer behind Tornado Cash, who is facing a retrial.

Related Reads

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit1h ago

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit1h ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit1h ago

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit1h ago

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

A critical vulnerability in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, discovered by researcher Taylor Hornby on May 29, 2026, could have allowed an attacker to create an unlimited amount of undetectable counterfeit ZEC. The flaw, involving an under-constrained element in the Orchard circuit, existed from the pool's 2022 activation until an emergency fix was deployed by June 2, 2026. Hornby identified the bug using AI-assisted auditing tools and confirmed its exploitability in a test environment. Due to Orchard's privacy features, which hide transaction amounts and history, there is no cryptographic way to prove whether the vulnerability was exploited before the fix. While Shielded Labs assesses prior exploitation as unlikely, this uncertainty has sparked a debate on proving supply integrity in privacy-preserving systems. In response, Shielded Labs and other developers are exploring a network upgrade, potentially involving a new shielded pool and formal verification of the circuit rules to prevent future vulnerabilities and allow verification of the ZEC supply's integrity. ZEC's price fell nearly 45% following the disclosure.

bitcoinist1h ago

Zcash Bug Could Have Minted Unlimited ZEC Undetected

bitcoinist1h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit3h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit3h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit3h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片