Menu
MCAP $2.88T ▲+2.61%
BTC $84,955 ▲+5.57%
ETH $2,739 ▲+6.05%
BNB $784.35 ▲+4.32%
XRP $1.480 ▲+6.77%
SOL $116.30 ▲+7.23%
DOGE $0.0939 ▲+10.22%
ADA $0.240 ▲+8.69%
TRX $0.3447 ▲+0.88%
LINK $13.06 ▲+8.34%
AVAX $11.25 ▲+14.43%
HYPE $95.60 ▲+4.88%
DOT $1.180 ▲+7.38%

DeFi Regulation

SEC Chair Atkins pushes new framework for onchain markets

SEC Chair Atkins pushes new framework for onchain markets

, , , , , , , , ,

UncategorizedMay 8, 2026·6 min read

SEC Chair Paul Atkins has signaled the agency will pursue formal rulemaking to clarify how traditional securities definitions apply to decentralized finance platforms and blockchain-based trading systems, marking a potential departure from years of enforcement-first regulation. The shift could reshape how U.S. and global regulators treat on-chain markets, with immediate implications for institutional investors assessing the stability and legal standing of DeFi protocols.

  • SEC Chair Atkins called for notice-and-comment rulemaking to redefine “exchange,” “broker,” and “clearing agency” for blockchain systems
  • Atkins identified crypto vaults earning passive yield as requiring additional regulatory clarity from the SEC
  • The SEC signaled willingness to use exemptive authority where necessary, departing from Gensler-era enforcement focus
  • Formal rulemaking Process Atkins proposed versus Gensler’s enforcement-first regulatory approach
  • Three categories of legal definitions the SEC plans to revisit through structured process
  • Global standard SEC guidance effect, even for protocols headquartered outside the United States

SEC Chair Paul Atkins used remarks delivered Friday at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo in Washington to announce that the Securities and Exchange Commission intends to undertake formal notice-and-comment rulemaking aimed at clarifying how existing securities law applies to decentralized finance platforms and blockchain-based trading infrastructure.

The move represents a significant tactical shift from the enforcement-focused posture that dominated the SEC under former Chair Gary Gensler, whose tenure from 2021 through 2024 generated a series of high-profile cases against crypto exchanges, token issuers, and DeFi projects without necessarily advancing formal regulatory definitions.

Atkins’ comments suggest the SEC now views the legal ambiguity surrounding on-chain markets not as a gap that existing rules already cover, but as a genuine policy gap requiring new or updated regulatory treatment.

Atkins Argues Existing Securities Rules Cannot Cleanly Map to On-Chain Market Infrastructure

In his Friday remarks, Atkins made a technical argument that cuts to the core of why crypto regulation has been contentious: traditional securities definitions were built for centralized financial intermediaries, not software protocols that execute multiple market functions simultaneously through code.

The SEC chair noted that modern on-chain systems can combine trading execution, settlement, liquidity routing, and collateral management in ways that do not organize themselves “neatly along” the categorical lines of broker, exchange, or clearing agency that exist in U.S. securities law.

Software applications today do not always organize themselves neatly along these categorical lines.

Paul Atkins, SEC Chair

This framing matters because it implicitly accepts a critique the crypto industry and some legal scholars have raised for years: that applying 1930s-era definitions to 2024 software infrastructure produces legal outcomes that neither market participants nor regulators find workable.

Under Gensler, the SEC largely took the position that existing rules already applied to most crypto activity without modification, which led to case outcomes in which platforms and protocols were found to have violated securities laws despite not obviously fitting the structural definition of a broker or exchange.

Atkins appears to be signaling openness to the idea that some on-chain activities warrant new regulatory categories or exemptions rather than forced application of legacy legal definitions.

The three specific legal categories Atkins identified for rulemaking are “exchange,” “broker,” and “clearing agency.” Each carries distinct regulatory obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and related rules. An exchange must register with the SEC, maintain surveillance systems, and follow detailed operational rules.

A broker must maintain net capital requirements, conduct suitability assessments, and comply with trade execution standards. A clearing agency must manage settlement risk, maintain capital buffers, and oversee member defaults.

How the SEC defines which on-chain functions trigger which obligations will determine whether DeFi protocols face registration requirements or whether they can operate under exemptions or alternative regulatory pathways.

Crypto Vaults and Yield Products Flagged as Needing Explicit Regulatory Guidance

Atkins also identified a second regulatory priority: on-chain applications that allow users to deposit assets and earn passive yield, often referred to as crypto vaults or yield farming platforms.

The SEC has not issued comprehensive guidance on whether such products constitute investment contracts, which would require registration under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or whether they fall outside the securities regulatory perimeter altogether. That uncertainty has left both platforms and institutional investors in a gray zone, unsure whether participation carries regulatory risk.

The mention of crypto vaults signals that Atkins intends to broaden the rulemaking scope beyond trading infrastructure to include yield generation products that have become a significant component of DeFi by total assets.

This is material for institutional allocators because yield products often target large capital bases seeking modest but consistent returns; clarity on whether they require fund registration or other compliance measures will affect both the supply of such products and the ability of large institutions to participate without regulatory friction.

The SEC Chair also stated the agency should consider using its exemptive authority “where necessary and prudent,” which opens the door to tailored relief for specific on-chain market structures rather than forcing all DeFi into a single regulatory mold.

The explicit mention of exemptive authority represents a tangible tool that was de-emphasized during the Gensler years, when the SEC rarely granted relief specific to crypto products.

Rulemaking Timeline and Global Regulatory Synchronization in Motion

The SEC has not yet announced a timeline for initiating notice-and-comment rulemaking, but Atkins’ remarks have been viewed across the industry as a signal that such a process is imminent rather than speculative.

The notice-and-comment framework itself typically requires 60 to 90 days for the public to submit written input, followed by SEC review and drafting of final rules, a process that can extend from 12 to 24 months depending on complexity and political attention.

For institutional investors, this timeline matters because regulatory clarity often precedes large allocations to emerging market segments; funds managing multi-billion-dollar portfolios typically avoid concentrated exposure to assets or protocols operating in regulatory limbo.

The SEC’s move toward formal rulemaking also coincides with a broader global trend toward structured cryptocurrency oversight. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation, or MiCA, which took effect in December 2023, established a multi-tiered classification system for digital assets and imposed licensing requirements on crypto service providers.

Singapore’s Monetary Authority and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Dubai have both launched licensing regimes for crypto exchanges, custody providers, and token issuers. These jurisdictions have not waited for the United States to move first; instead, they have established frameworks independently, creating a fragmented global regulatory landscape.

However, institutional market participants acknowledge that SEC guidance carries outsized weight in global crypto markets because of the centrality of U.S. dollar liquidity, American institutional capital, and banking infrastructure to the crypto ecosystem.

Large exchanges and DeFi protocols that generate substantial revenue from U.S. users or maintain banking relationships tied to American financial institutions typically align their compliance posture with SEC expectations even if they are not directly subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

As a result, Atkins’ rulemaking initiative is likely to influence how regulators in other major financial centers approach the same questions, either by adopting similar definitions or by explicitly harmonizing their frameworks with U.S. outcomes.

Earlier this year, the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission jointly published a digital asset classification framework grouping assets into categories including digital commodities, stablecoins, digital collectibles, and digital securities.

Institutional Investors Awaiting Clarity on Compliance Pathways for DeFi Exposure

For institutional allocators, the Atkins framework opens a critical question: which DeFi protocols or on-chain market structures will emerge as SEC-compliant after formal rulemaking completes, and which will face registration requirements that make them operationally impractical or economically unviable?

Protocols that currently operate in legal gray zones, such as decentralized exchanges that do not custody assets but route liquidity algorithmically, or yield platforms that distribute returns algorithmically without human discretion, face the prospect of either formal compliance obligations or explicit exemptions.

The gap between those two outcomes determines whether institutional capital will flow into those markets at scale.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Trump Will Sign the CLARITY Act ‘Immediately’ But There’s a Catch

Trump Will Sign the CLARITY Act ‘Immediately’ But There’s a Catch

, , , , , ,

Legal & CrimeApril 26, 2026·5 min read

President Trump pledged to sign the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act immediately upon passage, but the bill remains stalled in the Senate Banking Committee nearly nine months after House approval, with fundamental disagreements over stablecoin regulation blocking forward momentum. For institutional investors, the delay extends a critical period of regulatory uncertainty that has already reshaped trading strategy and compliance planning across the sector.

  • Trump committed to signing the CLARITY Act immediately, but the bill has stalled in Senate Banking Committee for nine months post-House passage.
  • The act splits digital asset regulation between CFTC (commodities) and SEC (securities), while establishing centralized intermediary oversight instead of protocol regulation.
  • Stablecoin regulation remains the primary blocking point, with industry and regulatory factions at odds over yield frameworks and issuer requirements.
  • 9 months Time elapsed since House passage with no Senate Banking Committee resolution.
  • 2 Regulators (CFTC and SEC) whose jurisdictional split the bill formalizes.
  • June 2024 Introduction date of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act framework.

President Donald Trump delivered a 45-minute speech at a Mar-a-Lago cryptocurrency event where he publicly committed to signing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 “immediately” upon its arrival at his desk. The declaration came as the bill languishes in the Senate Banking Committee, blocked by unresolved disputes over stablecoin regulation despite winning House passage months earlier.

Trump’s pledge signals administration pressure to move the legislation, yet the continued stalemate reflects deeper structural disagreements among lawmakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders that executive intent alone cannot resolve.

House Passes Jurisdictional Framework, but Stablecoins Become Dealbreaker in Senate

The CLARITY Act, introduced jointly by the House Committees on Financial Services and Agriculture in June 2024, establishes a bifurcated regulatory model dividing digital asset oversight between two agencies.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would regulate tokens classified as digital commodities, while the Securities and Exchange Commission would govern assets sold as investment contracts through securities offerings.

This jurisdictional split aims to end the regulatory ambiguity that has defined the sector for nearly a decade, creating clear on-ramps for compliance-focused firms and removing the threat of retroactive enforcement actions.

The bill’s approach to decentralized finance diverges sharply from earlier regulatory proposals by targeting centralized intermediaries rather than software developers or decentralized protocols themselves. This distinction proved attractive to core developer communities and many DeFi platforms, which had feared direct regulatory exposure to underlying code.

However, the most contentious provision covers stablecoin issuance and yield generation, where fundamental disagreements about who may issue tokens, what capital requirements should apply, and how yield mechanisms should be treated have deadlocked negotiations.

Industry participants have split sharply on the stablecoin language. Some institutional crypto firms and exchanges have criticized the framework as overly restrictive, potentially limiting the utility and competitiveness of U.S.-based stablecoin projects.

Others, including traditional finance stakeholders, have pushed back against provisions they view as insufficiently protective of consumer deposits and payment system stability. These competing visions have prevented Senate Banking Committee consensus, keeping the bill in limbo despite Trump’s explicit backing.

Trump Administration Pressure Clashes with Nine-Month Legislative Stall

Trump has signaled that digital asset regulation ranks among his administration’s legislative priorities, stating previously that the CLARITY Act “has to pass as soon as possible” and criticizing parties he believed were blocking its progress.

His Mar-a-Lago pledge to sign immediately represents an unusually direct executive commitment to a specific legislative text, effectively foreclosing the possibility of major presidential amendments or conditions that might otherwise delay implementation.

Yet administrative enthusiasm has failed to break the legislative bottleneck. Since House passage months ago, the Senate Banking Committee has issued multiple deadline extensions without advancing the bill to a committee vote.

The repeated delays suggest that pressure from Trump’s office, while politically significant, does not override the substantive policy disagreements that committee members and their staffs have flagged.

With midterm elections approaching and Democrats expected to gain seats, the political calculus for Senate Republicans may shift toward protecting certain amendments or negotiating leverage that could slip away in a new Congress.

Institutional investors monitoring regulatory risk have increasingly based trading and hedging decisions on the assumption that comprehensive CLARITY Act passage may not occur in the current Congressional session.

Stablecoin Yield Rules and Capital Requirements Divide Lawmakers and Issuers

The stablecoin dispute centers on three interconnected issues: who holds the authority to issue U.S. dollar-backed tokens, what minimum capital and reserve requirements should apply, and whether protocols can offer yield without triggering securities law.

Lawmakers from states with significant financial centers have advocated for provisions that preserve state banking charters, while others prefer a federal-only licensing regime.

Industry figures representing different market segments have lobbied intensely in conflicting directions, with some exchange operators and asset managers seeking permissive yield frameworks and others backing stricter protocols to minimize moral hazard.

These disagreements carry practical consequences for the competitive positioning of major stablecoin issuers and for the infrastructure firms that integrate stablecoins into payment rails and trading systems.

A restrictive final bill could favor existing incumbents such as USDC and Tether by making new entrants prohibitively expensive to launch, while a permissive framework could unlock innovation but potentially expose retail and institutional counterparties to issuer risk if capital requirements remain loose.

The Senate Banking Committee’s hesitation suggests members are waiting for technical analysis and stakeholder input to crystallize around a specific compromise, rather than rushing to a vote that satisfies no major faction.

Regulatory Clarity Remains Hostage to Year-End Congressional Schedule

The timeline for CLARITY Act passage has compressed sharply as the calendar advances. Senate Banking Committee members have historically balked at advancing digital asset legislation during periods of market volatility, citing a need to monitor real-world outcomes before codifying new frameworks.

The committee’s deliberative pace, while frustrating to industry participants, reflects institutional caution about embedding rules into statute law that may require amendment if market structure or threat vectors evolve.

Trump’s “immediately sign” pledge constrains future presidential flexibility but does not alter the fundamental Senate arithmetic.

For the bill to reach his desk before the current Congress adjourns, the Banking Committee must vote, floor consideration must proceed, and reconciliation with any House amendments must conclude, a sequence that typically requires six to twelve weeks at minimum, and which cannot begin until internal committee disputes resolve.

Sources close to negotiations have indicated that staff-level talks continue, but no breakthrough date has been publicly announced.

Institutional investors should monitor the Senate Banking Committee calendar for any scheduled markup session on the CLARITY Act as the proximate catalyst; absent a formal markup announcement within the next two weeks, the probability of passage before adjournment falls materially, potentially deferring the bill to a new Congress where Trump’s commitment to immediate signature will carry less legislative force.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe