SEC Crypto Task Force Receives New Submissions on Self-Custody and DeFi Rules

TheNewsCryptoPublicado a 2026-01-21Actualizado a 2026-01-21

Resumen

The U.S. SEC Crypto Task Force has received two new public submissions addressing key regulatory issues in digital assets, including self-custody rights and DeFi oversight. One submission, referencing Louisiana’s HB 488 law, advocates for federal crypto market regulations that include registration requirements, transparency, and anti-fraud measures, while cautioning against overly broad exemptions. Another, from the Blockchain Association, requests SEC guidance on whether entities involved in tokenized equity and DeFi trading should be classified as dealers under the Securities Exchange Act, suggesting adaptations to traditional broker-dealer frameworks for smart contract-based trading. These inputs come amid ongoing congressional negotiations on the CLARITY Act, which seeks to clarify digital asset regulations, with industry stakeholders actively engaging in the debate around investor protection and innovation.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Crypto Task Force has received two new written submissions to its public input page, which have once again highlighted important issues in digital asset regulation, such as self-custody rights and the regulatory status of decentralised finance (DeFi).

One of the proposals, from a Louisiana resident named DK Willard, references the Louisiana HB 488 law, which protects the state’s residents’ right to control their own digital assets. The proposal states that the upcoming federal law on the structure of the crypto market should contain proper registration requirements, transparency, and robust anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions. The proposal warns that too wide-reaching exemptions at the federal level could permit developers or platforms to circumvent investor protections.

The second observation is from the Blockchain Association Trading Firm Working Group, which urges the SEC to issue guidance on whether firms engaging in tokenized equity and DeFi trading on their own behalf should or should not be considered dealers subject to registration under the Securities Exchange Act. The comment suggests that the conventional broker-dealer framework applicable in traditional markets may need to be adapted to accommodate smart contract settlement and trading without necessarily requiring dealer registration.

These comments were posted on the SEC’s “Written Input” page for the Crypto Task Force, which is intended to allow stakeholders to share their views that may help shape the federal approach to digital assets.

Context Within Ongoing Regulatory Debate

The timing of these new filings is as Congress is in the middle of negotiations on the federal crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, which aims to provide clarity on the regulatory framework and update investor protection regulations for digital assets. There have been debates among industry participants and regulators on matters such as stablecoin regulation, DeFi liquidity, and innovation vs. regulation.

A senior crypto advisor to the White House, Patrick Witt, has urged a compromise in order to move the CLARITY Act in a period of time in which the Republican Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and in which the Trump administration is still in power. Industry leaders, such as Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, have been part of the process.

The recent filings with the SEC Crypto Task Force indicate the ongoing interest of the industry in federal regulation of digital assets, in particular with respect to self-custody rights and the nature of DeFi trading activity. As federal legislative development progresses and various parties make their voices heard, these perspectives may inform how regulatory frameworks balance investor protection and innovation.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Galaxy Digital Bets on Balanced Strategy With New $100M Crypto-Linked Hedge Fund

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the two main issues highlighted in the new submissions to the SEC Crypto Task Force?

AThe two main issues highlighted are self-custody rights and the regulatory status of decentralized finance (DeFi).

QWhich state law was referenced in the proposal from DK Willard, and what right does it protect?

AThe proposal referenced Louisiana HB 488 law, which protects the state's residents' right to control their own digital assets.

QWhat does the Blockchain Association Trading Firm Working Group urge the SEC to provide guidance on?

AIt urges the SEC to issue guidance on whether firms engaging in tokenized equity and DeFi trading on their own behalf should be considered dealers subject to registration under the Securities Exchange Act.

QWhat is the name of the federal crypto market structure bill currently being negotiated in Congress?

AThe federal crypto market structure bill is called the CLARITY Act.

QAccording to the article, what is the White House senior crypto advisor Patrick Witt urging to help move the CLARITY Act forward?

APatrick Witt is urging a compromise to move the CLARITY Act forward during a period of Republican control of both the House and Senate and while the Trump administration is still in power.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

**Title: Has the "Digital Gold" Narrative for Bitcoin Failed?** The article argues that Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative remains valid despite a recent sharp price decline (from a peak near $126k in Oct 2025 to briefly under $61k in Feb 2026). It presents a long-term investment framework based on three core points: **1. Viewing Bitcoin as an Asset:** Bitcoin is presented as a superior potential store of value compared to gold. Key arguments are its absolute scarcity (21 million cap), superior portability, and transparent auditability via its public ledger. While acknowledging its current use in early, volatile stages (~3-4% global adoption), the author draws parallels to the early, disruptive phases of the internet and e-commerce. **2. Understanding the Recent Downturn:** The current ~50% correction is framed as a predictable, consensus-driven cycle following its post-halving peak (the 2024 halving preceded the Oct 2025 high). A crucial factor is a historic "changing of hands": the influx of new institutional buyers via ETFs allowed early, low-cost holders (miners, OG believers) to take profits. The author notes that while severe, Bitcoin's historical drawdowns (e.g., 93% in 2011, 77% in 2021-22) have been progressively smaller, suggesting maturing holder structure and decreasing volatility over time. **3. The Long-Term Perspective:** The long-term thesis hinges on Bitcoin capturing a portion of gold's market value. With Bitcoin's market cap at ~$1.4 trillion (at $70k) versus gold's ~$20 trillion, significant upside potential exists if the "digital gold" narrative is partially realized. However, the author strongly cautions that short-term risks remain, the bottom is unpredictable, and high volatility is inherent. The real risk is not Bitcoin failing but poor personal position management (over-leverage, wrong capital) and a lack of deep understanding, which can force investors out during severe downturns. The conclusion uses Amazon's 95% crash post-2000 dot-com bubble and subsequent 42x recovery as an analogy. The ultimate question is not if Bitcoin's price will rise, but if an investor's strategy and conviction can withstand the volatility to see the long-term play out. The recent divergence (gold up, Bitcoin down) is posed not as a narrative failure, but as potential evidence of this ongoing, painful transition from a speculative asset to a mainstream allocation.

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

The article discusses Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, its recent price drop, and long-term outlook through the perspective of "Jason". It argues the narrative is not a failure but that Bitcoin represents a superior, new asset class due to its fixed supply (21 million), portability, and auditability. The piece compares its current ~3-4% global adoption rate to early internet/e-commerce, suggesting significant growth potential. Regarding the 2025-2026 price decline (from ~$126k to briefly under $61k), the author views it as a predictable, consensus-driven sell-off within Bitcoin's ~4-year cycle post-halving, exacerbated by a major "handover" from early, low-cost holders to new institutional buyers via ETFs. A key observation is that historical peak-to-trough drawdowns have lessened over time (e.g., 93% in 2011 to ~50% in 2026), indicating maturing volatility as holder structure changes. For the long term, the author uses a simple framework: Bitcoin's total market cap (~$1.4T at $70k) is only about 7% of gold's (~$20T). Even capturing 30-50% of gold's value would imply substantial upside. However, the article strongly cautions against viewing this as investment advice, emphasizing extreme volatility and the critical importance of risk management, position sizing, and deep fundamental understanding to survive severe drawdowns. It concludes by drawing a parallel to Amazon's 95% crash in 2000 and subsequent 42x recovery, stressing that the key is surviving market cycles to realize long-term potential.

链捕手Hace 31 min(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

链捕手Hace 31 min(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

"From Code to Cognition: The Evolution of Robot Brains" The journey of robotic intelligence has shifted dramatically from manually coded systems to AI-driven brains. For decades, robots relied on layered software stacks—perception, state estimation, planning, control—each handcrafted. While predictable, they lacked adaptability. The 2010s saw deep learning revolutionize perception (e.g., object detection) and control (via reinforcement learning), but learned skills remained narrow. The arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) marked a turning point. LLMs acted as high-level planners, interpreting natural language instructions and generating sequences of actions for traditional robotic systems to execute. However, true integration came with Visual-Language-Action (VLA) models, which fused vision, language, and motion prediction into a single network. Pioneered by models like RT-2 and open-source projects like OpenVLA, VLAs enable robots to reason and act directly from visual input and commands. The most advanced humanoid robots now employ a "dual-brain" architecture: a slow-thinking, large VLA (System 2) for reasoning and planning, and a fast-reacting, small network (System 1) for high-frequency motion control, sometimes with an even lower-level System 0 for balance. This split balances cognition with the physics of real-time movement. Computation is split between onboard hardware (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson) for safety-critical control loops and cloud/edge servers for non-critical tasks like learning and interfaces. A crucial driver is the open-source ecosystem—models like GR00T and OpenVLA allow startups to build upon pre-trained brains and fine-tune them with their own data, accelerating development. Despite progress, current systems struggle with recovery from errors, sample inefficiency, and long-horizon tasks. This has spurred the rise of **World Models**—neural networks that predict the consequences of actions. By simulating possible futures before acting (like NVIDIA Cosmos or Meta V-JEPA), robots can plan, recover, and generalize better. This represents the next frontier: shifting intelligence from learned reactions to an internal model of physics and cause-and-effect. The field is rapidly evolving. While not yet at its "ChatGPT moment," the convergence of cheaper hardware, scalable simulation, and world models points toward robots that are increasingly capable, adaptive, and useful. The question is shifting from "what can robots do?" to "what *should* they do?"

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

AI Bubble Is Bursting

The AI Bubble is Bursting: A Necessary Purge on the Path to Ubiquitous Intelligence Market volatility has reignited debates about an AI bubble, with figures like Ray Dalio pointing to high valuations. However, this parallels the dot-com bubble, which, despite its crash, laid the physical infrastructure for today's internet era. The current AI investment frenzy, with tech giants planning trillions in infrastructure spending far outstripping current AI application revenues, appears similarly imbalanced. This 'bubble' is seen as an inevitable phase for a disruptive technology, paying the "innovation tax." Critically, AI inference costs have plummeted over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence nearly free at the margin. This hasn't reduced spending but has instead unlocked massive new demand, as seen in enterprise AI cloud expenditure tripling. This follows the Jevons Paradox: efficiency gains lead to greater total consumption. The market is now entering a cleansing phase, weeding out speculative ventures lacking real moats. The deeper shift is a move from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to value creation in operational expenditure (OpEx) through AI applications that solve real industry problems. While infrastructure valuations are high, rapid earnings growth from widespread AI adoption across sectors—from manufacturing and finance to law and healthcare—may digest these valuations over time. Ultimately, this creative destruction will leave behind robust infrastructure and optimized models, cheaply powering an AI-augmented future for all industries, much as the internet became indispensable after its own bubble burst. The core productive potential remains undiminished.

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

The AI Bubble is Bursting

The article argues that while a bubble in the AI sector is real and is currently showing signs of deflation, this is a typical, even necessary, phase for a transformative technology. It draws parallels to the dot-com bubble, where speculative excess was followed by the consolidation of internet infrastructure, enabling the digital age. Similarly, today's massive investments in AI infrastructure (data centers, power, cooling) far outpace current application-layer revenue, creating a valuation imbalance. However, the author contends this apparent bubble is not a sign of failure but of a transition. Key drivers include the plummeting cost of AI inference (over 99.7% in two years), which, per Jevons Paradox, has unleashed massive new demand as AI moves from simple tasks to complex agentic workflows across all industries. The market is now cleansing itself of shallow, speculative ventures, shifting value from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to operational expenditure (OpEx) on transformative AI applications. The conclusion is that the underlying productive force of AI is undeniable. The current financial correction will eliminate weak players, leaving behind robust infrastructure and efficient models. This will ultimately fuel an "AI+" era where intelligence becomes as ubiquitous and essential as the internet, embedding itself into every sector of the economy.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros