SEC Chairman Explains Why NFTs Are Not Securities: 'Like Buying Trading Cards'

marsbitPubblicato 2026-03-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-19

Introduzione

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs are generally not considered securities, comparing them to collectibles like baseball cards. The SEC recently issued guidance identifying four categories of digital assets not classified as securities: digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins. Atkins emphasized that NFTs are typically "bought and held" assets rather than investment contracts, which are central to the definition of a security. He noted that each asset is evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances, but digital collectibles are generally viewed as immutable purchases not intended for trading like traditional securities. This reflects a broader shift in the SEC’s approach under Atkins’ leadership, moving away from enforcement-driven regulation toward clearer guidance and a more predictable framework. The change aligns with the Trump administration's crypto-friendly stance, with Atkins criticizing past regulatory missteps that he believes set the U.S. back in crypto innovation.

Author: Sam Bourgi

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: SEC Chairman Paul Atkins further explained in a CNBC interview why NFTs generally do not constitute securities. The SEC recently released an interpretive document listing four categories of digital assets that are not securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins.

Atkins compared NFTs to baseball cards, emphasizing that such assets are "bought and held" and do not involve investment contracts. This is the latest move by the SEC under Atkins' leadership to shift from "enforcement-driven" to "guidance-driven" regulation.

Full text as follows:

After the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) listed four major categories of digital assets not subject to securities laws, Chairman Paul Atkins further explained why non-fungible tokens (NFTs) generally do not meet the definition of securities.

In a CNBC interview on Wednesday, Atkins reiterated the four categories of digital assets identified in the SEC's recent interpretive document that are typically not considered securities: digital commodities, digital instruments, digital collectibles like NFTs, and stablecoins.

During the interview, host Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed the issue of digital collectibles, noting that depending on their structure, they could more easily be classified as securities.

Atkins responded, "That's true of anything." He emphasized that the SEC's analysis still depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each asset, particularly whether it involves an investment contract under long-standing legal precedent.

Atkins stated that digital collectibles are generally viewed as items to be bought and held, similar to physical collectibles, rather than investment contracts. Investment contracts are a core defining feature of securities.

He said, "These collectibles, like baseball cards, memes, memecoins, NFTs, are things someone buys. It's an immutable purchase...unlike other assets that people trade."

Caption: Paul Atkins interviewed on CNBC. Source: CNBC

SEC Continues to Move Away from "Enforcement-Driven" Crypto Policy

Under Atkins' leadership, the SEC's approach to regulating digital assets has undergone a noticeable adjustment. This shift coincides with the Trump administration, which is more crypto-friendly and took office in early 2025.

Atkins said in the CNBC interview, "We are breaking with the past." He described the SEC's efforts to promote clearer guidance and a more predictable regulatory framework.

Last year, Atkins criticized the SEC's previous reliance on "regulation by enforcement" and promised to move away from this approach. He also noted that tokenization is a key innovation that regulators should support rather than restrict.

Since then, he has repeatedly stated that past regulatory missteps have set the U.S. back by as much as a decade in crypto development and vowed to reverse this situation.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat are the four categories of digital assets that the SEC recently identified as typically not being considered securities?

AThe four categories are digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles (including NFTs), and stablecoins.

QHow did SEC Chairman Paul Atkins compare NFTs to explain why they are not securities?

AHe compared NFTs to baseball cards, stating they are 'bought and held' items, similar to physical collectibles, and do not involve investment contracts.

QWhat shift in regulatory approach has the SEC undergone under Chairman Paul Atkins' leadership?

AThe SEC has shifted from an 'enforcement-driven' approach to a 'guidance-driven' one, focusing on clearer guidance and a more predictable regulatory framework.

QAccording to the article, what did Paul Atkins say about the impact of past regulatory mistakes on the U.S. crypto industry?

AHe stated that past regulatory missteps set the U.S. back by as much as a decade in crypto development and vowed to reverse this situation.

QWhat key feature did Atkins emphasize as central to the definition of a security in the context of digital assets?

AHe emphasized that the key feature is whether the asset involves an investment contract under long-standing legal precedent.

Letture associate

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit25 min fa

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbit25 min fa

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit26 min fa

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit26 min fa

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit36 min fa

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit36 min fa

Blockchain Has Finally Started to Sail into the Mainstream After 18 Years

Blockchain Finds Its True Path After 18 Years: Becoming the Financial Backbone for AI Agents and Autonomy This analysis explores a pivotal shift in the blockchain and crypto investment landscape, driven by the dominance of AI. Major venture capital firms, including Variant, Paradigm, Haun Ventures, and YZi Labs, are moving beyond pure "crypto" investment theses. They are expanding their focus to AI, robotics, and frontier tech, signaling that blockchain is no longer seen as a standalone sector but as an underlying infrastructure layer. The core argument is that blockchain's killer application may not be user-facing apps, but rather providing the economic rails for the coming wave of AI agents, autonomous robots, and automated systems. Key capabilities like self-custody wallets, programmable stablecoins for micropayments, on-chain identity, and verifiable smart contracts are positioned as essential for a future where machines conduct economic activity. The recent $1.4 billion investment by Tether (via its venture arm) in German robotics company NEURA Robotics exemplifies this, aiming to embed Tether's wallet tools directly into robots for autonomous transactions. While many "AI + Crypto" projects remain superficial, the article concludes that true value lies where crypto is a necessary component—enabling machine-to-machine payments, agent autonomy, verifiable data provenance, and open financial settlement for the AI era. For crypto venture capital, this convergence with AI represents both an adaptation to shifting capital flows and a potential path to unlocking the large-scale, non-speculative utility the industry has long sought.

marsbit57 min fa

Blockchain Has Finally Started to Sail into the Mainstream After 18 Years

marsbit57 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片