SEC Chair Atkins Outlines Digital Asset Jurisdiction Framework

Steven Lofchie Commentary by Steven Lofchie
"In light of last week’s interpretation, I am reminded of the Churchillian refrain that 'this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.' Because while the clarity that we have delivered is essential, it is scarcely sufficient."
Paul Atkins, SEC Chair
"In light of last week’s interpretation, I am reminded of the Churchillian refrain that 'this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.' Because while the clarity that we have delivered is essential, it is scarcely sufficient."
Paul Atkins, SEC Chair

SEC Chair Paul Atkins provided some insight as to the SEC's recent interpretive release intended to clarify digital asset regulation through the use of a token taxonomy and the issuance of updated Howey test guidance.

Mr. Atkins explained that the interpretive release distinguishes between five categories of digital assets, four of which the SEC generally does not consider securities, and clarifies the contours of an investment contract under the Howey test. He also reported that the agency has begun outlining a compliance pathway for entrepreneurs seeking to determine when a crypto asset fundraise "implicates the federal securities laws." He framed these actions as a return to the SEC’s core statutory mission of protecting investors in securities transactions.

Mr. Atkins cautioned that the release does not resolve the broader regulatory questions surrounding digital assets, describing it instead as "the end of the beginning" and emphasizing that the framework is a foundation rather than a final outcome. He stressed that durable, future-proof regulation will ultimately require congressional action through comprehensive market structure legislation. In the interim, he indicated that the SEC will continue working within existing law to clarify the proper boundaries of its jurisdiction.

Commentary

One of the fundamental problems with former SEC Chair Gensler's approach to the regulation of digital assets is that he essentially assumed that any asset that was purchased with the hope of profit was per se a security. But that just isn't so. Many assets are purchased in the hope of profit rather than use—for example, real estate, art, tickets to see Taylor Swift—are not securities. Unfortunately, Mr. Gensler refused to undertake the exercise of explaining which assets that are purchased for profit are securities, and which are not.  

Email me about this

Tags