The SEC and CFTC have joined forces to draw clear boundaries for non-securities assets.

On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly released an official interpretation of how federal securities laws and commodity exchange laws apply to crypto assets. Following this, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins delivered a speech at the Washington Blockchain Summit, his core declaration resounding: "The era in which the SEC has failed to provide clarity on this issue is over." A regulatory fog that has lasted for nearly a decade is being forcefully dispelled in Washington, D.C. by official documents. This is not an isolated policy loosening, but a series of combined actions by the two major U.S. financial regulators to systematically reshape the crypto regulatory landscape after signing a historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Its core objective is clear: to end the long-standing "regulatory turf war," to provide the market with unprecedented certainty, and to shift the regulatory focus from enforcement-driven to rule-first.

Five Asset Categories, One Red Line

The SEC's explanatory document, at its core, establishes a "coherent token taxonomy." Based on public materials and Atkins's speech, crypto assets are clearly divided into five categories:

• Digital Goods: Such as native public chain tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum. When the network is sufficiently decentralized, and the token's value no longer primarily depends on the issuer's ongoing management efforts, its commodity attributes will be confirmed.
• Digital Collectibles: Such as pure art and collectible NFTs. Unless packaged as an investment plan, they are generally not considered securities.
• Digital Utilities: Utility tokens used to access network services, pay fees, or participate in governance; they do not possess the equity or revenue rights characteristics of traditional securities.
• Stablecoins: Payment stablecoins whose primary function is as a payment or settlement tool and which comply with the GENIUS Act framework are generally not considered securities. Digital securities: "Tokenized traditional securities" that explicitly represent equity, debt, profit sharing, or other traditional securities rights remain subject to securities law regulation. Atkins stated at the summit that under this category, only one type of crypto asset remains subject to securities law—namely, "tokenized traditional securities." This almost formally overturned former chairman Gary Gensler's radical stance that "the vast majority of tokens are securities." Clarifying the Ambiguity: One of the most groundbreaking concepts in this framework is the official acknowledgment that "investment contracts can be terminated." The SEC's position is that a token, when raised early through methods such as an ICO, may constitute an "investment contract" (i.e., a security) due to meeting the Howey test of "capital investment, joint enterprise, and reliance on the efforts of others to obtain returns." However, as the network becomes decentralized, the issuer fulfills its commitments, and the token's functionality becomes practical, the original investment contract relationship may end. Afterward, the token's circulation in the secondary market will no longer be considered a security transaction, but rather as a "non-security crypto asset" (such as a digital commodity). This provides projects with a clear compliance path: by meeting specific conditions (such as full decentralization and fulfilling commitments), the token can legally transition from the "security stage" to the "commodity stage."
  For operations that have long been in a regulatory gray area, the new framework provides analytical principles based on economic substance:
  • Airdrops: The key is whether they constitute a "distribution arrangement for investment purposes," such as whether they are linked to capital investment, whether there is marketing that uses "future returns" as a selling point, and not just as a usage incentive or network launch mechanism.
  • Protocol Mining and Staking: Users receive rewards by providing computing power, liquidity, or participating in network verification, which is considered "consideration for services," not securities investment. However, if a centralized party packages it into a financial product promising fixed returns, it may be considered a security.
  • Asset Packaging: Packaging non-securities assets such as Bitcoin into products offered to the public through trusts, ETFs, etc., the "packaged product" itself may be considered a security and subject to SEC regulation.
  • These clarifications do not impose a blanket ban or relaxation, but rather provide an "analytical framework" based on principles of economic substance, information disclosure, and investor protection, leaving room for subsequent detailed rules and case discretion. Impact on Crypto Entrepreneurs For crypto startups registered in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai, the US move presents a very real challenge: If the target users and capital markets include the US, are they willing to accept from the outset that "the token issuance phase may be considered a security," and allocate compliance budgets and time for this? Are they willing to plan their product and governance roadmap around the "termination of investment contracts," as Atkins envisioned? Could the business model proactively reduce its reliance on "yield-based staking" and "high-annualized airdrops," designing tokens more as usage and governance rights rather than simply coupon tools? From a broader perspective, this US interpretation could reshape the global crypto industry's geopolitical landscape: some technology and capital originally geared towards US users will further concentrate in jurisdictions with "compliance-friendly and tax-stable" systems, such as Singapore and Hong Kong. Some crypto projects that previously hovered in a gray area will be forced to choose between full international expansion and complete localization. Meanwhile, the US itself is attempting to wrest control of the global crypto center from Europe's MiCA and Singapore's MAS by adopting a "rules first, innovation later" approach. Paving the Way for a Comprehensive Market Structure Bill The actions of the SEC and CFTC are highly synchronized with the legislative process at the congressional level. Currently, the US Senate is actively advancing a comprehensive digital asset market structure bill, aiming to ultimately establish the boundaries of authority and responsibility between the SEC and CFTC. Atkins explicitly stated that this interpretative document and his proposed regulatory framework for crypto assets aim to provide an "important bridge" and a "workable transition" for congressional legislation. It is expected that the CFTC will gain clear regulatory authority over the spot market for "digital goods" in the new bill, while the SEC's focus will narrow to true securitized products. For the crypto industry, this is a long-awaited paradigm shift. Clear classification, recognition of "terminateable investment contracts," and coordination among regulatory agencies collectively create a predictable and plannable compliance environment. This is expected to significantly reduce compliance costs and bring back innovation and capital that were previously forced to flow out of the US due to regulatory ambiguity. However, this is not the end of regulation. On the contrary, it marks a new phase of refined regulation in the US crypto market. Enforcement of truly securitized products will likely be more precise and stringent, while tolerance for innovative projects will be built on a clear disclosure and compliance framework. This profound transformation, driven by the SEC, CFTC, and Congress, is not only laying the foundation for the US crypto market but also declaring to the world that the US is reaffirming its global leadership in the next generation of digital finance with an unprecedentedly clear set of rules.