Dogecoin And Shiba Inu May Be Gearing Up For Another Rally After This Happened

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-03-20Actualizado a 2026-03-20

Resumen

US financial regulators (SEC and CFTC) have jointly issued guidance classifying digital assets, explicitly naming Dogecoin and Shiba Inu as digital commodities — the same category as Bitcoin and Ethereum. This removes them from being considered securities, providing regulatory clarity. The classification means DOGE and SHIB are now viewed as assets deriving value from blockchain ecosystems and market dynamics, not as investment contracts. While the immediate market reaction was muted, this status could pave the way for potential Spot ETFs, similar to Bitcoin. Grayscale has already indicated SHIB qualifies for a spot ETF under current standards.

US financial regulators have issued a clarification on how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, and Dogecoin and Shiba Inu are among the direct beneficiaries. The joint guidance, which was published by the SEC and CFTC, formally established five categories for digital assets and explicitly named both meme coins as digital commodities, placing them in the same regulatory class as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP.

Dogecoin And Shiba Inu Officially Classified As Digital Commodities

An interesting decision from US regulators is now setting the stage for a possible turnaround in the price of meme coins like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu. For the first time ever, this clarification directly names the leading names of meme cryptocurrencies (Dogecoin and Shiba Inu) as digital commodities, removing them from the security debate that has weighed on the crypto industry for years.

The joint interpretive release by the SEC and the CFTC finally ended more than a decade of jurisdictional dispute between the two US regulators over how to classify digital assets. According to the release, crypto assets are now divided into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities.

The first four carry no securities designation by default, while digital securities, which are essentially tokenized versions of traditional financial instruments such as stocks and bonds, are still subject to federal securities laws.

On the other hand, digital commodities are assets whose value derives from a functioning blockchain ecosystem and supply-and-demand dynamics, with decentralization also an important criterion. Both Dogecoin and Shiba Inu were placed in this category alongside Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Cardano, among others.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins stated that the guidance was designed to provide regulatory clarity “in clear terms” and confirmed that blockchain network activities such as mining, on-chain staking, and protocol airdrops do not automatically qualify as securities offerings.

What The Classification Means For DOGE And SHIB Specifically

The market’s reaction so far has been somewhat muted. Price data show that crypto prices did not surge immediately even after the guidance was released. However, the importance of being classified as a commodity cannot be overstated for Dogecoin and Shiba Inu, considering the fact that these two started as a meme. A February 2025 clarification from the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance had indicated that meme coins were not securities, but that guidance stopped short of a formal classification.

Both Dogecoin and Shiba Inu have spent recent months moving sideways or struggling to break above resistance levels in terms of price action. However, this might change very soon. Commodity status equates Dogecoin and Shiba Inu with the same regulations backing Bitcoin and Ethereum Spot ETFs in the United States. Spot Dogecoin ETFs are already live and Shiba Inu might be next. Interestingly, Grayscale Investments has already indicated that SHIB qualifies for a spot ETF under the SEC’s Generic Listing Standards framework.

DOGE price stages another recovery attempt | Source: DOGEUSDT on Tradingview.com

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the five categories of digital assets established by the joint guidance from the SEC and CFTC?

AThe five categories are digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities.

QWhich meme coins were explicitly named as digital commodities in the regulatory clarification?

ADogecoin and Shiba Inu were explicitly named as digital commodities.

QWhat is the significance of being classified as a digital commodity for assets like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu?

ABeing classified as a digital commodity removes them from the securities debate, places them in the same regulatory class as Bitcoin and Ethereum, and opens the door for potential products like spot ETFs.

QAccording to the guidance, do activities like mining and airdrops automatically qualify as securities offerings?

ANo, the guidance confirms that blockchain network activities such as mining, on-chain staking, and protocol airdrops do not automatically qualify as securities offerings.

QWhich investment firm has indicated that Shiba Inu qualifies for a spot ETF under the SEC's framework?

AGrayscale Investments has indicated that SHIB qualifies for a spot ETF under the SEC’s Generic Listing Standards framework.

Lecturas Relacionadas

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

**From Survival to Accelerated Growth: Zcash Founder Details the 3-Year Rise** Three years ago, Zcash (ZEC) was a struggling pioneer in privacy technology, with a price near $30, low shielded supply (11%), and a community mired in governance disputes. Today, ZEC trades around $600, with over 31% of its supply (~$3B) in user-controlled shielded pools. This transformation resulted from breaking key constraints. First, **governance shackles were removed**. The old model guaranteed funding to two entities (ECC and ZF) regardless of performance, creating a monopoly. In 2024, ECC rejected further direct funding, forcing a change. The NU6 upgrade ended direct funding, allocating 8% to community grants and 12% to a protocol-controlled treasury for retroactive rewards, expiring in 2028 unless renewed by overwhelming consensus. The entities also relinquished their trademark-based veto power, freeing community governance. Second, the **product focus shifted** from pure cryptography to user growth. Previously, engineering excelled at privacy tech but failed to attract users. In early 2024, the team (later ZODL) pivoted to building products users wanted, like the Zodl wallet (default privacy, hardware support, cross-asset swaps). This drove shielded supply to grow over 400% in ZEC terms, with 86.5% of recent transactions being shielded, representing real user adoption. Third, the **narrative evolved** from the limiting "privacy coin" label to "unstoppable private money." This clarified Zcash's value proposition: a Bitcoin-like monetary policy with verifiable private payments via advanced cryptography. This structural narrative—protocol (Zcash), asset (ZEC), gateway (Zodl)—enabled broader exchange listings, institutional interest, and ETF filings. Finally, **organizational constraints were broken**. In early 2026, the ECC team left its non-profit structure after disputes over control, forming Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL). ZODL raised $25M from top VCs (Paradigm, a16z, etc.), gaining the capital and agility of a startup to scale consumer products. Current metrics show strong momentum: social discussion volume for ZEC surged 15,245% in a year, with 81% positive sentiment. The focus is now on enhancing user experience (Zodl wallet), scalability (Tachyon project targeting Visa-level throughput with 25-second blocks), and post-quantum security (quantum-recoverable wallets coming soon). Zcash is positioned to become faster, more usable, scalable, and quantum-resistant.

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

From Survival to Accelerated Growth: The Journey of Zcash's Three-Year Rise as Told by the Founder of ZODL

marsbitHace 2 min(s)

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片