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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-03-19Востаннє оновлено о 2026-03-19

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Title: The Shifting Landscape of Crypto Venture Capital The era of dedicated crypto venture capital funds is undergoing a significant transformation. Once essential for navigating the sector's complexity and high risk, these specialized funds are now facing an identity crisis as the market matures. This shift mirrors historical patterns in other specialized investment classes like cleantech and SPACs, where initial information advantages dissipate as technologies become mainstream and integrated into existing industry frameworks. The article argues that crypto is reaching a critical inflection point, transitioning from a "building phase" to an "integration phase." Major players like Stripe, BlackRock, and Visa now engage with crypto not for its novel mechanics but as a foundational financial infrastructure. Their needs—regulatory compliance, banking partnerships, distribution channels—align with traditional fintech, a domain easily understood by large, generalist funds like Sequoia and Founders Fund. This evolution creates a "barbell effect" within the VC landscape. On one end are massive, diversified platforms that can incorporate crypto as one vertical among many. On the other are small, nimble funds focused on niche, experimental projects. The middle ground—medium-sized dedicated crypto funds—is being squeezed out. Their typical fund size makes it impossible to generate sufficient returns solely from early-stage crypto bets, yet they cannot compete with giants for later-stage deals. Consequently, leading crypto-native firms like Paradigm and Framework Ventures are expanding into AI, robotics, and other sectors, driven partly by LP pressure for better returns amid a broader VC DPI crisis. Others, like Dragonfly and a16z, have narrowed their crypto focus predominantly to financial infrastructure like stablecoins, reframing the sector's core narrative. For crypto entrepreneurs, this consolidation presents challenges. While generalist funds offer larger checks and broader resources, crypto projects now compete fiercely with AI for attention and capital within these firms. Furthermore, the long-term, non-commercial foundational work that built the ecosystem—funded by dedicated crypto VCs—is less likely to attract generalist capital focused on direct returns. The conclusion is that "crypto investor" as a standalone category is becoming obsolete, akin to "internet investor." Crypto is becoming a baseline infrastructure layer. The future will see a barbell structure: large-scale growth financing handled by generalist funds, while pioneering, speculative projects are funded by small, specialized vehicles. The dedicated crypto funds of the 2017-2021 boom, which incubated core infrastructure, are giving way to this new, bifurcated reality.

Foresight News2 хв тому

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Foresight News2 хв тому

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit30 хв тому

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit30 хв тому

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

Foresight News, July 21 – Pump.fun has launched its new "BOOST" mode as the standard launch mechanism for new tokens. The core of BOOST is to address the issue of "dead liquidity." Historically, when a token migrates from its bonding curve to a liquidity pool, roughly 20% of its liquidity becomes permanently locked and unusable, a problem the platform estimates costs over $100 million annually. The new mechanism redirects this 20% of funds, which would have been locked, to instead be used for a 5-minute Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) buyback of the token immediately after migration. The purchased tokens are then permanently burned. For example, this means reserving 17.6 SOL for SOL pairs or about $2516 for USDC pairs at migration. This creates a short-term buying pressure and reduces the token's supply. The goal is to improve the immediate post-launch performance of memecoins, potentially increasing trader retention and transaction volume on the platform. However, critics warn this could lower the bar for token launches, encouraging low-quality projects, and that the brief 5-minute buy pressure might lead to sharper price crashes once it ends if followed by large sell-offs.

Foresight News39 хв тому

Unlocking $100 Million in Liquidity? Pump.fun's New Policy Tests the 5-Minute Pump Technique

Foresight News39 хв тому

What Signals Can Be Read from the Trading Data of India's Largest Asset Manager SBI's IPO?

India's largest asset manager, SBI Funds Management, successfully listed on July 21 with a nearly $10 billion IPO, attracting approximately 42 times subscription. However, the first-day closing price rose only about 6.3%, falling short of the 16% premium anticipated in the grey market. This signals robust demand for core Indian financial assets but also disciplined pricing, indicating the IPO market is selectively open for strong brands with clear growth narratives. The low reported underwriting fees, which led some global banks to reduce participation, highlight a shift in pricing power towards powerful issuers like SBI. Its strong brand, banking parent, and stable cash flows reduced reliance on traditional investment banking sales channels, with local brokers playing a larger role. This fee dynamic may not be replicable for weaker issuers. SBI's performance is seen as a key test for India's IPO pipeline, including potential future large listings like Reliance Jio and NSE. Its success with tempered gains sets a new price anchor: high-quality assets can launch, but excessive valuation premiums are constrained. The true measure of a sustained market reopening will be whether subsequent major offerings can proceed smoothly at reasonable valuations.

marsbit57 хв тому

What Signals Can Be Read from the Trading Data of India's Largest Asset Manager SBI's IPO?

marsbit57 хв тому

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

Japan's cabinet has introduced the 2026 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform, shifting its primary fiscal target. The new framework moves away from the traditional annual primary balance goal and instead prioritizes a stable reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio. This change is tied to a strategy of increased "responsible proactive fiscal" spending, aiming to boost long-term growth through investments in strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, energy, and robotics. The government estimates total public and private investment in 62 key technologies could exceed 370 trillion yen by 2040. The market reaction has been mixed and cautious. While equity markets may respond to policy signals, bond markets are focused on fiscal credibility. Concerns center on whether the weakening of the clear primary balance anchor could lead to looser fiscal discipline. If investors doubt that these strategic investments will generate sufficient productivity gains, tax revenue, and nominal growth to outpace rising interest costs, they may demand higher yields on Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Recent volatility in the yen and JGB yields, with the 10-year yield briefly reaching 2.9%, reflects this skepticism. The success of this new framework hinges on two factors: whether Japan can achieve a nominal growth rate consistently higher than its long-term interest rates, and whether future budgets demonstrate disciplined control over bond issuance. The government's narrative is that strategic investment is essential to break Japan's cycle of low growth, aging, and labor shortages. However, the bond market will continuously assess the credibility of this plan, pricing the risk that it may represent fiscal expansion rather than a viable growth strategy.

marsbit1 год тому

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот