Crypto Regulation Could Shift This Month as SEC Moves Ahead With Safe Harbor Proposal

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-07-08Actualizado a 2026-07-08

Resumen

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may release a key crypto rulemaking proposal, known as Regulation Crypto, as early as July. This marks a significant policy shift under Chair Paul Atkins, moving from enforcement actions toward formal rulemaking to provide regulatory clarity. The proposal is expected to create safe harbors and exemptions for certain activities like DeFi and tokenized securities, potentially benefiting startups valued under $5 million and allowing fundraising up to $75 million. It also outlines conditions for when a token would no longer be treated as a security. Concurrently, the fate of the broader CLARITY Act legislation remains uncertain; if it fails to pass by August 2026, the SEC's own rules could become the primary framework for the U.S. crypto market.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has put the industry on notice. The agency updated its 2026 regulatory agenda, revealing plans to release its long-awaited crypto rulemaking proposal as early as this month. It’s a move that would set the stage for one of the most significant shifts in U.S. digital asset policy in years.

The proposal, internally referred to as Regulation Crypto, has been in the works for months. When SEC Chair Paul Atkins first addressed this coming regulation in mid-March, he said it would be proposed in the coming weeks, but it did not arrive. Nearly four months later, the updated agenda places it firmly in July.

The SEC’s Approach Is Shifting

The latest initiative marks one of the first concrete regulatory proposals under Atkins’ leadership and signals a clear shift away from the SEC’s previous reliance on enforcement actions toward a formal rulemaking process aimed at providing greater regulatory clarity for the digital asset industry.

Under the previous administration, the agency filed dozens of cases against crypto firms, often without issuing workable guidance on what compliance actually looked like. That approach drew consistent criticism from the industry. This time, the SEC appears to be building a framework instead of a legal track record.

On the other hand, the Regulation Crypto proposal would establish safe harbours and exemptions for certain on-chain activities, including DeFi and tokenised securities. Eligible startups could be those valued under $5 million in their first four years, while entrepreneurs may raise up to $75 million through qualifying crypto investment contracts.

Once developers are no longer the driving force behind a crypto project, the token would no longer be treated as a security. Once a project’s developers have finished all work promised to investors, the token itself should step outside the SEC’s securities rules.

The CLARITY Act Factor

Supporters of the CLARITY Act argue that agency rulemaking alone cannot provide the long-term certainty the industry requires. Moreover, Senator Cynthia Lummis argued that the legislation represents a much broader decision about America’s role in the future financial system.

If the Clarity Act does not pass by August 2026, it is unlikely to become law in 2026 due to approaching midterm elections, which would leave the SEC’s own rulemaking as the primary framework governing U.S. crypto markets.

Crypto Market Highlights

Bitcoin (BTC) Tests a Critical Zone: Will Buyers Target $64K or Lose Ground to $60K?

TagsClarity ACTCrypto RegulationsSEC

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the SEC planning to release this month according to its updated regulatory agenda?

AThe SEC is planning to release its long-awaited crypto rulemaking proposal, internally referred to as Regulation Crypto, as early as this month.

QHow does the article describe the shift in the SEC's regulatory approach under Chair Paul Atkins?

AThe article describes a clear shift away from the SEC's previous reliance on enforcement actions toward a formal rulemaking process aimed at providing greater regulatory clarity for the digital asset industry.

QWhat are some potential exemptions or safe harbors included in the Regulation Crypto proposal?

AThe proposal would establish safe harbours and exemptions for certain on-chain activities, including DeFi and tokenised securities. Eligible startups could be those valued under $5 million in their first four years, and entrepreneurs may raise up to $75 million through qualifying crypto investment contracts.

QWhen does the article suggest a crypto token might no longer be treated as a security under the proposed rules?

AAccording to the article, once developers are no longer the driving force behind a crypto project, the token would no longer be treated as a security. Additionally, once a project's developers have finished all work promised to investors, the token should step outside the SEC's securities rules.

QWhat is the potential consequence if the CLARITY Act does not pass by August 2026?

AIf the CLARITY Act does not pass by August 2026, it is unlikely to become law in 2026 due to approaching midterm elections, which would leave the SEC's own rulemaking as the primary framework governing U.S. crypto markets.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

A user lost over 1,010 ETH (worth millions) due to a phishing attack via an expired official domain of the Tornado Cash protocol. As reported on August 20, 2026, the domain `tornado.cash` was not renewed by the original developers amid U.S. OFAC sanctions and was subsequently registered by malicious actors. They deployed a fake frontend mimicking the legitimate Tornado Cash interface. Through this site, the attackers gained access to the user's deposit notes—the data required to withdraw funds from the protocol's pools—and drained the ETH within 12 hours. On-chain data shows the stolen funds (e.g., wallet 0xd8B356...) were withdrawn from Tornado Cash pools. However, on-chain analyst Specter cast doubt on the victim's story. He suggested the individual might be involved in illicit activity, noting that a large sum of BTC was received from a coin-mixing service (Whirlpool) and converted to ETH before being sent to the fake Tornado Cash site. The victim's explanation of urgently moving funds due to a compromised hardware wallet was questioned, as the fund trail indicated deliberate obfuscation. Specter speculated this might be a conflict between malicious actors rather than a simple phishing case. The incident highlights the danger of expired domains for major protocols, where old bookmarks can lead to compromised sites. WHOIS records show the domain was registered in March 2025. Broader analysis notes that in 2025, over $1.8 billion was lost to scams and exploits, largely through social engineering like phishing via familiar but hijacked links. This case underscores the persistent risk when a domain's legal status changes but user trust and search engine reputation remain.

cryptonews.ruHace 40 min(s)

The Danger of Old Bookmarks: How an Expired Tornado Cash Domain Cost a User 1,000 ETH

cryptonews.ruHace 40 min(s)

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ruHace 6 hora(s)

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ruHace 6 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片