DeFi vs. SEC: Should ‘non-custodial platforms’ be treated like exchanges?

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-04-02Última atualização em 2026-04-02

Resumo

DeFi Education Fund (DEF) argues that non-custodial DeFi protocols, AMMs, and their developers should not be regulated as exchanges or intermediaries, as they don’t perform exchange functions or control user assets. They oppose SIFMA’s push for SEC regulation based on function rather than decentralization. SIFMA and Citadel Securities advocate for regulating DeFi platforms handling tokenized securities to ensure investor protection, citing risks and scams. DEF suggests Wall Street’s stance may be motivated by business interests, as DeFi disrupts traditional intermediaries. The SEC faces the challenge of balancing innovation and regulation in its upcoming framework.

DeFi regulation is back in the headlines as the crypto industry and Wall Street disagree on the proposed ‘innovation exemption’ for tokenized assets.

On the 1st of April, a DeFi advocacy group, the DeFi Education Fund (DEF), wrote to the SEC arguing that decentralized protocols should not be ‘misclassified as intermediaries’ like centralized traditional exchanges.

Ayan Dow, legal officer at DEF, added,

DeFi tools that provide liquidity or run autonomously aren’t performing exchange functions, and neither the tech nor its devs should be regulated as exchanges.

Source: X

According to the advocacy group, any non-custodial application does not fall within the legal definition of an intermediary or exchange. Additionally, classifying developers as intermediaries, yet they don’t control the ‘non-custodial platforms’ they’ve built, would place an overwhelming regulatory burden on them.

As such, the advocacy group pressed that any suggested DeFi regulation scope should exclude disintermediated software, automated market makers (AMMs), smart contracts, and non-controlling developers.

Wall Street opposes DeFi legal exemption

The DEF letter was also a response to SIFMA (Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association). The TradFi umbrella group recently argued that the SEC should regulate AMMs, citing risk to investor protections.

According to SIFMA, the SEC should regulate AMMs and DeFi platforms based on their functions in supporting tokenized securities trading. And not based on whether they’re decentralized, as DeFi supporters propose.

SIFMA believes the Commission should maintain technology neutrality by regulating AMMs based on their market function rather than protocol architecture.

Source: SEC

SIFMA’s stance echoed Citadel Securities’ position. Last year, Citadel called for a strict regulation of DeFi platforms that handle tokenized securities.

SIFMA and Citadel’s opposition to unregulated DeFi could be genuine concerns, given the scams and blowouts seen in the past across the sector. For Wall Street, compliance should apply to everyone handling tokenized securities.

However, Citadel gets most of its revenue from being a centralized intermediary, especially for retail platforms like Robinhood. As a result, DEF views the Wall Street opposition as motivated by the potential disruption of DeFi tech (removing intermediaries) to its business interests.

It remains to be seen how the SEC will address these competing interests while still supporting innovation in the upcoming ‘exemption’ framework for tokenized securities.


Final Summary

  • Advocacy group DeFi Education Fund (DEF) has opposed SIFMA’s push to regulate AMMs and other non-custodial DeFi platforms
  • However, SIFMA claims most ‘decentralized’ platforms pose investor protection risks.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main argument made by the DeFi Education Fund (DEF) in their letter to the SEC?

AThe DEF argues that decentralized protocols should not be misclassified as intermediaries like centralized exchanges. They state that DeFi tools providing liquidity or running autonomously are not performing exchange functions, and neither the technology nor its developers should be regulated as exchanges.

QWhy does the DEF believe that regulating developers as intermediaries would be problematic?

AThe DEF believes that classifying developers as intermediaries when they do not control the 'non-custodial platforms' they built would place an overwhelming and inappropriate regulatory burden on them.

QWhat is SIFMA's position on the regulation of Automated Market Makers (AMMs) and DeFi platforms?

ASIFMA argues that the SEC should regulate AMMs and DeFi platforms based on their function in supporting tokenized securities trading, not on whether they are decentralized. They believe regulation should be technology-neutral and based on market function.

QWhat potential conflict of interest does the DEF suggest motivates Wall Street's opposition to DeFi exemptions?

AThe DEF suggests that Wall Street firms, like Citadel Securities which earns most of its revenue as a centralized intermediary, are motivated by the potential disruption that DeFi technology (which removes intermediaries) poses to their business interests.

QWhat is the core issue that the SEC must address regarding the proposed 'innovation exemption' for tokenized assets?

AThe SEC must address the competing interests between the crypto industry, which seeks exemptions for non-custodial DeFi platforms, and traditional finance (Wall Street), which argues for function-based regulation, all while still trying to support innovation.

Leituras Relacionadas

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

Anthropic has published an article titled "When AI builds itself," discussing the emerging concept of "recursive self-improvement," where AI begins to actively participate in designing, training, testing, and optimizing its own subsequent versions. The company presents internal data showing that by May 2026, over 80% of code merged into its codebase was written by Claude, its AI model. Claude's capabilities have expanded to handling complex, open-ended engineering tasks, achieving a 76% success rate in such areas, and even contributing to research processes, such as optimizing code performance and conducting AI safety experiments. Anthropic outlines an evolution from human-driven development to AI-assisted workflows, culminating in the current stage where AI agents can autonomously write, run, and delegate code. The company cautions that the path toward a "closed loop," where AI continuously improves itself, is becoming visible. It calls for coordinated global mechanisms to potentially slow or pause frontier AI development to allow safety research and societal structures to catch up. However, the timing of this warning coincides with Anthropic's preparations for an IPO, framing the narrative not just as a safety concern but also as a demonstration of Claude's advanced capabilities and its integral role in accelerating Anthropic's own R&D—creating a potential "flywheel" effect for competitive advantage. This contrasts with OpenAI's recent, more policy-oriented discussion of the same risks, highlighting the competitive dynamics in the AI industry as companies position themselves in both the technological and regulatory landscape.

marsbitHá 22m

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

marsbitHá 22m

BIT Research: ETF Purchases Have Slowed, Strategy (MicroStrategy) Has Slowed, What Else Can Drive Bitcoin's Rise?

Market Refocus on Inflation and Rate Expectations Weighs on Bitcoin Currently, the market is in a phase of macro-repricing dominated by inflation and interest rate expectations. Bitcoin, which previously benefited from easy liquidity and low inflation, is seeing its core bullish drivers weaken. These drivers were market expectations for interest rate cuts and strong inflows from Bitcoin ETFs and institutions like MicroStrategy (referred to as "Strategy" in the text). The logic has shifted. Recent high inflation data (e.g., CPI hitting 3.8% in a May 2026 report) has caused the market to sharply reduce its rate cut expectations for 2025 and even price in potential hikes. This is a key constraint for Bitcoin, as it lacks cash flows and is highly sensitive to rate expectations. Concurrently, institutional capital flows have slowed significantly. Following the hot CPI data, Bitcoin ETFs saw accelerated outflows, with around $4.3 billion leaving over a period. MicroStrategy's ability to keep adding substantial Bitcoin to its balance sheet is also diminishing. Together, ETF and MicroStrategy holdings total roughly $110 billion, but their momentum as growth engines is cooling. In summary, Bitcoin's current pressure stems not from its own fundamentals but from a changing macro environment. As long as inflation stays elevated, Bitcoin is likely to remain in a consolidating phase. However, historically, inflation eventually peaks. Once it recedes and rate cut expectations rebuild, institutional capital could return, potentially fueling a new and more robust recovery phase for Bitcoin.

marsbitHá 29m

BIT Research: ETF Purchases Have Slowed, Strategy (MicroStrategy) Has Slowed, What Else Can Drive Bitcoin's Rise?

marsbitHá 29m

Earning 1000 Trillion in Half a Year, 'Pocketing' 20 Million per Capita: This Round of Wealth Creation in the Korean Stock Market is Unprecedented in Scale

The South Korean stock market is experiencing an unprecedented wealth surge in 2026, with household equity and fund asset values soaring by over 1,000 trillion KRW (~$730bn) year-to-date. This translates to an average per capita wealth increase of roughly 20 million KRW, fueled by a historic 109% rally in the KOSPI index. The boom is driven by three converging forces: an AI-driven semiconductor supercycle boosting giants like Samsung and SK Hynix; the government's "Value-Up" market reforms addressing long-standing corporate governance issues; and aggressive real estate regulations that have locked capital within financial markets, preventing profits from flowing back into property. This has triggered a wealth effect, boosting high-end consumption significantly. However, the gains are highly concentrated. The two semiconductor behemoths account for over half the index's value, but retail investors own relatively low stakes in them, systematically missing the biggest rallies. Wealth and consumption benefits are skewed towards luxury goods and imported cars, bypassing mainstream retail. Further risks stem from excessive leverage, with high trading volume in leveraged ETFs, and a market sentiment heavily reliant on the AI sector's fortunes and speculative rumors. While this cycle marks a potential shift from real estate to equities as a primary wealth generator for Koreans, its sustainability, amid structural imbalances and leverage, remains a critical test.

marsbitHá 35m

Earning 1000 Trillion in Half a Year, 'Pocketing' 20 Million per Capita: This Round of Wealth Creation in the Korean Stock Market is Unprecedented in Scale

marsbitHá 35m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片