SEC says most crypto assets are not securities in new regulatory framework

ambcryptoPubblicato 2026-03-17Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-17

Introduzione

The U.S. SEC, in coordination with the CFTC, issued new guidance on March 17, 2026, clarifying that most crypto assets are not securities. The framework introduces a taxonomy classifying digital assets into five categories: digital commodities, collectibles, tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. It emphasizes that a crypto asset itself may not be a security, even if involved in an investment contract, and that its regulatory status can change over time. The guidance also addresses staking, airdrops, mining, and asset wrapping, reducing uncertainty for market participants. This move signals improved regulatory alignment between the SEC and CFTC, providing clearer rules for builders, issuers, and investors.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a sweeping new interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets, stating that most crypto assets are not themselves securities.

Announced on 17 March 2026, the guidance marks one of the most significant regulatory developments in the U.S. crypto market in over a decade.

The move was issued in coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, signaling a more unified approach to overseeing digital assets.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said the interpretation aims to “draw clear lines in clear terms,” while acknowledging that earlier regulatory approaches had failed to provide sufficient clarity for market participants.

SEC introduces crypto asset taxonomy

At the center of the new framework is a formal classification system for digital assets. The SEC outlined five broad categories:

  • Digital commodities
  • Digital collectibles
  • Digital tools
  • Stablecoins
  • Digital securities

The taxonomy is designed to help market participants better understand how different types of crypto assets are treated under U.S. law, addressing a long-standing lack of consistent definitions across the industry.

Investment contracts can evolve—and end

A key element of the interpretation is the clarification that a crypto asset itself may not be a security, even if it is involved in an investment contract at some stage.

The SEC stated that a “non-security crypto asset” can become subject to securities laws through an investment contract, but that such arrangements can also cease over time.

This distinction introduces a more dynamic view of regulation, where an asset’s legal status may change depending on how it is offered, marketed, and used.

Clarity on staking, airdrops, and mining

The guidance also addresses several core crypto activities that have previously existed in regulatory grey areas.

These include:

  • Airdrops
  • Protocol mining
  • Protocol staking
  • The wrapping of non-security crypto assets

By outlining how securities laws apply to these activities, the SEC is attempting to reduce uncertainty for developers, platforms, and users operating across decentralized networks.

SEC and CFTC align on oversight

The joint nature of the interpretation highlights growing coordination between the SEC and the CFTC, which have historically taken different approaches to crypto regulation.

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said the guidance reflects a shared commitment to creating “workable, harmonized regulations” for the industry.

The alignment is expected to clarify jurisdictional boundaries, particularly between assets treated as commodities and those subject to securities laws.

Market implications

The interpretation is likely to have wide-ranging implications for the crypto industry.

For builders and issuers, the framework provides clearer guidance on structuring projects and token distributions. For investors, it offers greater transparency around how assets may be classified and regulated.

The SEC said the interpretation also serves as a bridge as Congress continues its efforts to establish a comprehensive framework for the crypto market through legislation.


Final Summary

  • The SEC has clarified that most crypto assets are not securities, introducing a formal taxonomy and addressing long-standing regulatory uncertainty.
  • The joint guidance with the CFTC signals a more coordinated and flexible approach to crypto oversight in the United States.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main clarification provided by the SEC regarding crypto assets in the new framework?

AThe SEC clarified that most crypto assets are not themselves securities.

QOn what date was this significant regulatory guidance announced?

AThe guidance was announced on 17 March 2026.

QWhat are the five broad categories in the SEC's new classification system for digital assets?

AThe five categories are: Digital commodities, Digital collectibles, Digital tools, Stablecoins, and Digital securities.

QAccording to the guidance, can a crypto asset's legal status change over time?

AYes, the guidance states that an asset's legal status may change depending on how it is offered, marketed, and used, and that an investment contract arrangement can cease over time.

QWhich other U.S. regulatory agency did the SEC coordinate with to issue this joint interpretation?

AThe SEC issued the guidance in coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Letture associate

The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking

The article "The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking" discusses how traditional finance relies on settlement—not just transactions—to determine ownership of funds. While transactions are instantaneous, settlement requires time, counterparties, and system confirmation, during which users do not fully control their funds. In contrast, early DeFi (decentralized finance) focused on trading and liquidity while avoiding the fundamental question of who defines settlement in the absence of banks. B18, built on Coinbase’s on-chain infrastructure and operating on Base, aims to address this gap by transforming blockchain into a system that handles time, accounting, clearing order, and finality—functions traditionally managed by banks. B18 is not a typical DeFi protocol but an attempt to decouple banking from institutions and encode it into executable rules. Its capital structure reflects this ambition, with support from Paradigm and Wintermute Ventures at the protocol level, GSR Capital for market liquidity, FuturePay for real-world payment integration, and Base Ecosystem Fund builders who design the rules for fund recording, profit recognition, and liquidation conditions. Together, these layers form a new on-chain financial order where code, not institutions, governs settlement—shifting the power dynamics of finance. B18 represents the starting point of this migration. (Note: This is a submitted article and does not represent the views of ChainCatcher or constitute investment advice.)

marsbit52 min fa

The Migration of Settlement Power: B18 and the Institutional Starting Point of On-Chain Banking

marsbit52 min fa

From Tencent and Circle: Looking at the Easy and Hard Questions of Investment

The article contrasts the investment prospects of Tencent and Circle in the AI era, framing the decision as a choice between "easy" and "hard" problems, inspired by Charlie Munger's philosophy. Tencent's stock has declined despite strong earnings, as the market shifted from fearing insufficient AI investment to worrying about excessive spending. The author argues this pessimism is overdone. WeChat's nascent AI agent, Yuanbao, is seen as a prototype for a future, more powerful system-native agent. Crucially, this agent would have system-level permissions to seamlessly interact with the massive Mini Program ecosystem (housing apps like Meituan, Didi, etc.), making it a practical, usable product for billions. The author believes the high-probability success of this inevitable development makes investing in Tencent an "easy" decision that the market is currently overlooking. Conversely, Circle's recent rise is fueled by the AI narrative, specifically the belief that AI agents will require blockchain-based stablecoins for settlement, with USDC as the leading compliant option. The author deconstructs this bullish thesis, identifying high uncertainties in its core assumptions: whether AI transactions will *necessarily* use stablecoins (vs. other protocols like Google's UCP), USDC's ability to maintain its lead against competitors like Tether or PayPal, and whether stablecoins even possess strong network effects in an agent-dominated world where cost and friction are paramount. The compounding uncertainty makes investing in Circle a "hard" problem, riskier than market sentiment suggests. In summary, the author posits that Tencent presents a clear, high-probability opportunity (easy), while Circle's future is built on a chain of speculative assumptions (hard).

marsbit54 min fa

From Tencent and Circle: Looking at the Easy and Hard Questions of Investment

marsbit54 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片