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

marsbitPublicado em 2026-03-19Última atualização em 2026-03-19

Resumo

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.

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbitHá 36m

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbitHá 36m

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Elon Musk's much-anticipated "WeChat-like" app, XChat, has officially launched after multiple delays. The initial review reveals a product that falls short of expectations, offering an experience largely similar to X Platform's (formerly Twitter) direct messages, despite being marketed as an encrypted communication tool. Key observations from the first-day test include: 1. The app's promoted "end-to-end encryption" and its claimed relation to Bitcoin's architecture were criticized by experts as a superficial attempt to capitalize on crypto buzz, with no real technical connection. 2. Musk's vision of an ad-free "secure communication system" is technically met, but only because the app is currently extremely basic, featuring only a single chat interface. 3. A promised anti-screenshot feature appears inconsistent; it works in X Platform group chats but fails within the XChat app itself, where screenshots still capture avatars. 4. The app supports 45 languages and has a 16+ age rating, indicating a broader tolerance for content compared to WeChat's 13+ rating. 5. A puzzling login process requires users to verify the email associated with their X account. 6. The touted encryption" feels minimal in practice, with its presence only indicated by a simple "Encrypted - Yes" label on messages. 7. Disappearing message timers for groups can be set from 5 minutes to 4 weeks, with the timer starting upon being read by a user. 8. Group invite links are shared with X Platform groups. 9. Group size limits are planned to be increased, aiming for 1000 members, a move that has drawn user criticism. 10. The app offers 8 different colored icons, and its chat bubbles are notably similar to WeChat's. Message deletion options mimic Telegram's. Crucially, many pre-announced features like importing X contacts, integrating Grok AI, X Money payments, and Cashtags are not yet available. The initial release is seen as a bare-bones and underwhelming first step.

Odaily星球日报Há 1h

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Odaily星球日报Há 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片