The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed its first major transfer-agent rule overhaul in more than four decades as blockchain recordkeeping, tokenized securities and automated systems enter regulated U.S. markets.

The SEC, in a proposed rule, said most of its transfer-agent requirements date from the late 1970s and early 1980s, when investors commonly held paper certificates and firms processed ownership changes manually.

Transfer agents maintain an issuer’s official ownership records, register securities transfers and monitor whether a company issues more securities than authorized. Many also process dividends, interest payments, fund redemptions, and other corporate actions.

Under the proposal, the commission would update rules covering transfer-agent registration, reporting, recordkeeping, processing times, and the protection of securities and client funds. The package also introduces requirements for restrictive legends, paying-agent activity, and the oversight of third-party service providers.

“Market participants are actively seeking to bring blockchain-native, or ‘onchain,’ transfer agents into the U.S. market,” the SEC said.

According to the regulator, firms are developing systems for blockchain-based ownership records, tokenized fund administration and cross-chain interoperability. Such models may require transfer agents to store shareholder information on distributed ledgers and manage processes run through smart contracts.

SEC transfer agent rules would cover digital records

As securities records move away from paper, the SEC said its existing requirements do not fully address information security, cybersecurity, disaster recovery or the operational risks created by connected systems.

Proposed amendments to Rule 17ad-7 would require transfer agents using electronic recordkeeping systems to install controls protecting the integrity, availability, reproducibility, redundancy, and continuity of their records. Firms could continue using current technology if their systems meet the proposed standards.

Records would need protection against unauthorized alteration, deletion, or destruction. Transfer agents would also have to maintain an audit trail identifying who accessed, changed, or deleted a record, along with the date and time of each action or attempted action.

For regulatory examinations, firms would need systems capable of immediately producing records in both human-readable and reasonably usable electronic formats. Recovery controls would also be required for information that becomes damaged, altered, or lost.

Although the proposal would apply to blockchain systems, the SEC described its approach as technology-neutral. The rules would not prescribe one type of database or require transfer agents to adopt distributed ledgers.

Recent registrations show why the distinction matters. In August, Injective Institutional Services secured transfer-agent registration, allowing the company to perform regulated functions connected to maintaining and changing securities ownership records.

The same report noted that Superstate registered its blockchain-based transfer agent in March 2025 to support tokenized funds, including its Short Duration U.S. Government Securities Fund and Crypto Carry Fund. Such registrations do not exempt the firms or their products from federal securities laws.

Safeguarding standards would include cyber risks

Proposed changes to Rule 17ad-12 would replace requirements centered on physical certificates with a risk-management framework covering paper and uncertificated securities.

Registered transfer agents would have to adopt written policies designed to protect securities and funds from theft, loss, misuse, damage, destruction, and unauthorized access. The framework would also require firms to identify, monitor, and reduce material custody, operational, and cybersecurity risks tied to their services.

Client and issuer funds held by a transfer agent would need to remain in a separate bank account designated as a “for the benefit of” account. Under the SEC plan, separating such funds from the transfer agent’s operating money would reduce commingling and help keep customer assets outside the firm’s general estate during insolvency.

Business continuity plans form another part of the proposal. Each transfer agent would need written procedures for events that could disrupt operations, including steps for restoring records and resuming its responsibilities. Firms would have to test, review, and update their plans periodically.

Data included in the proposal show the scale of the regulated activity. Of 253 transfer agents that submitted Form TA-2 for the 2025 reporting year, 152 acted as recordkeeping transfer agents, and 126 provided paying-agent services. Together, transfer agents distributed about $5 trillion in dividends and interest payments during the year.

Reliance on outside companies has also become common. SEC data show that 44% of transfer agents either used a service company for at least part of their work or provided services to another transfer agent in 2025.

Under the proposed framework, using an outside technology or processing company would not remove the registered transfer agent’s regulatory duties. New reporting and oversight requirements would give the SEC more information about the services performed by third parties and the risks created by those arrangements.

Tokenized securities put ownership records in focus

For U.S. investors, a token’s presence on a blockchain does not by itself determine who legally owns the underlying security. Transfer agents remain responsible for the official shareholder register, including changes arising from purchases, sales and corporate actions.

Ownership records can affect voting rights, dividend payments, stock splits, tender offers, and claims during insolvency. Two transfer-agent groups warned the SEC in July that tokens created without an issuer’s approval may not provide the same ownership rights as issuer-backed shares.

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company and the Securities Transfer Association asked the regulator to distinguish securities tokenized by an issuer from products created by unrelated platforms. According to the groups, an unaffiliated token may track a stock price or provide an indirect interest in shares without making its buyer a registered shareholder.

Restrictive legends present another recordkeeping issue addressed by the SEC proposal. Such legends identify limits on whether a security can be resold, but the commission’s current rules do not specify a transfer agent’s obligations when investors or issuers request their removal.

The proposed standards would require written policies for handling legend-removal requests and related documentation. Processing controls are intended to reduce delays while preventing restricted securities from entering the public market without a valid legal basis.

U.S. tokenization projects need regulated infrastructure

Traditional market operators are building systems that depend on the same transfer-agent functions covered by the proposal. Intercontinental Exchange agreed in August to invest in tZERO and use its blockchain patents while developing infrastructure for an NYSE-affiliated tokenized securities platform.

Under the arrangement, tZERO will help design digital transfer-agent and broker-dealer systems for issuing, trading, and settling public securities onchain. As crypto.news reported on Sept. 1, the planned platform still needs regulatory approvals before it can begin round-the-clock trading and immediate blockchain settlement.

The commission is separately considering a regulatory route that could let qualified platforms test tokenized U.S. securities under defined conditions. Its 24/7 trading plan could allow eligible products to trade outside regular exchange hours, although the SEC has not announced final eligibility rules or an implementation date.

Transfer-agent oversight forms only one part of the agency’s current rulemaking program. On Aug. 25, the SEC sent proposed custody-rule changes for investment advisers and investment companies to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Full requirements covering qualified custodians and crypto assets will not become public until the review ends and commissioners vote on whether to release the proposal.

In May, the regulator also proposed allowing domestic public companies to replace three quarterly Form 10-Q reports with one semiannual Form 10-S. Separate amendments would simplify filer classifications and allow more companies to use streamlined registration procedures for securities offerings.

None of the transfer-agent amendments is final. Interested parties will have 60 days from the proposal’s publication in the Federal Register to submit comments, after which SEC staff may revise the text before placing a final rule before the commission for another vote.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed a significant rewrite of the rules that govern transfer agents—firms responsible for maintaining key records and processing securities transfers. The agency says the overhaul is needed as blockchain-based recordkeeping and tokenized securities move closer to mainstream use in U.S. markets.

In a proposal published by the SEC, the agency outlines updated requirements covering registration, recordkeeping, safeguarding, and securities transfer procedures, while also introducing new controls for risks tied to “digital and automated” market infrastructure. The SEC noted that some market participants are actively looking to use blockchain-native, or “onchain,” transfer-agent models in the U.S.

Key takeaways

• The SEC’s proposal would modernize transfer-agent obligations for registration, recordkeeping, safeguarding, and transfer processing as tokenized securities expand.
• New compliance expectations would address risks the SEC says are not sufficiently covered under rules last updated in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
• The SEC calls out cybersecurity, operational resilience, and safeguarding of investor records as central concerns for digital recordkeeping.
• Transfer agents would face expanded reporting and new standards tied to restrictive legends and third-party service provider use.

Why the SEC is targeting transfer agents

Transfer agents play a critical role in the lifecycle of securities—handling ownership records, processing transactions, and managing investor-facing documentation requirements. The SEC argues that its existing framework has not been substantively updated since the era when paper certificates and manual recordkeeping dominated the market.

In the filing, the SEC points to emerging approaches that rely on blockchain-based recordkeeping and digital administration systems, including models used for tokenized fund administration and interoperability across networks. According to the SEC, the current rules do not adequately reflect these developments, particularly with respect to maintaining secure, reliable, and tamper-resistant investor records.

The SEC also frames the proposal as a response to broader changes in how markets are built and operated, emphasizing that digital and automated infrastructure can introduce new failure modes. In its view, compliance systems must evolve accordingly—especially in areas like cybersecurity and operational resilience, where a technical breakdown can affect investor protections.

What the proposal would change

The SEC’s proposed changes would update multiple layers of transfer-agent regulation. The agency highlights that the proposal covers requirements related to registration, recordkeeping practices, safeguarding responsibilities, and the handling of securities transfers. It also proposes additional standards that would apply as transfer agents incorporate or rely on more automated and digital processes.

Among the specific compliance areas the SEC flags are new or expanded requirements tied to:

• Expanded reporting: the agency is seeking additional disclosures and compliance reporting that better match the realities of digital systems.
• Restrictive legends: updated rules would govern how restrictive legends are handled for securities.
• Third-party service providers: the proposal introduces standards relating to the use of outside vendors or service providers in transfer-agent operations.

While the proposal is designed to accommodate modernization, the SEC’s emphasis is on controlling risk. The agency specifically calls out investor record safeguarding, operational durability, and cybersecurity as areas where the existing rules are described as insufficient for the modern stack—particularly when records are maintained electronically and potentially integrated with broader onchain workflows.

Onchain transfer agents: potential benefits and regulatory friction

The SEC directly acknowledges momentum toward blockchain-native transfer-agent models. In its proposal, the regulator says market participants are seeking ways to bring onchain transfer agents into the U.S., referencing blockchain-native recordkeeping and tokenized-administration approaches.

That acknowledgment is important for two reasons. First, it signals that the SEC is at least formally engaging with the possibility of onchain transfer-agent architectures rather than treating them solely as outside the regulatory perimeter. Second, it clarifies that “onchain” does not remove transfer agents from traditional investor-protection duties; instead, the SEC wants the rulebook to specify how those duties should be met when the underlying infrastructure shifts.

For investors and issuers, this matters because transfer-agent reliability affects the integrity of ownership records and the execution of securities transfers. If modern systems are adopted, market participants will likely need to align their implementations—especially around security controls, system uptime expectations, and how safeguards are enforced and audited.

SEC’s broader push to modernize securities regulation

This transfer-agent proposal sits within a wider pattern of SEC rulemaking aimed at revising outdated frameworks. According to an analysis by law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, the SEC has described its ongoing agenda as a mission to simplify its rules.

Earlier in the year, the SEC proposed three major changes to public-company reporting rules. Those steps would allow companies to opt for semiannual reporting, simplify the existing filer classification system, and expand access to streamlined registered securities offerings.

The SEC has also been moving in parallel on custody-related standards for investment advisers and investment companies. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the SEC sent a proposed overhaul of custody rules to the White House for review, with potential changes related to how firms custody crypto assets while complying with federal securities rules.

Read together, these initiatives suggest the SEC is trying to reduce friction across multiple points in the securities value chain—from reporting and offerings to custody practices and transfer-agent operations. While each proposal addresses a different function, the common theme is updating rules to better reflect how modern market participants operate and where regulators believe existing requirements no longer map cleanly onto current technology.

What happens next for the transfer-agent rulemaking

The SEC is seeking public comment on the proposed transfer-agent changes. The agency states that comments are due 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

Market participants considering blockchain-native transfer-agent systems—and issuers evaluating tokenized structures—should watch the comment process closely. The SEC’s focus on cybersecurity, operational resilience, and safeguarding investor records indicates that technical design choices will likely need to be paired with demonstrable compliance controls as the rulemaking moves forward.

Reference: SEC proposed Transfer Agent Rules (proposal document): https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/34-106246.pdf

Justin Sun has once again stooped to the lowest level imaginable to sling more accusations against his ex-girlfriend, Jing Tian, despite three days ago telling Changpeng Zhao (the founder of Binance) that he was done airing his personal dirty laundry online and attacking his ex-girlfriend publicly.

This time, Sun is reaching out to one of the most important writers in China, Hu Xijin – who The Guardian labeled as China’s “troll king” – to complain about the betrothal gifts that he is suing to get back from Jing Tian.

Hu Xijin addresses the Sun-Jing drama

The Sun-Jing drama has become front-page news across the mainland; Hu wrote an article to address it. Hu states his conclusion very bluntly: “If someone tries to wash away his evil and hypocrisy by writing short essays, they will certainly not gain widespread sympathy.”

Justin Sun did not like this article.

Shortly after reading the article, Sun hastily took to X. In a post, Sun brings up all the problems he’s been having with Jing and claims the issue is shared by “200 million Chinese men” who he claims face deep, troubling questions about paying a “bride price,” paying “a childbearing price,” and whether “a man should satisfy every demand a woman makes.”

Read more: Justin Sun is suing a movie actress for not giving him her eggs

Hu responded to Sun’s questions in kind in a public post, which, when machine translated, reads, “It’s clear you value the Chinese public opinion arena… Let’s have a good chat when you’re in Beijing.”

Sun has been unable or unwilling to return to the Chinese Mainland for nearly a decade now.

Advertisement

The questions are those you’d expect from a middle school student who has never had a girlfriend and has zero social grace, not a 36-year-old billionaire pleading his case in front of millions of followers.

Justin Sun makes everyone question how liquid he really is

While rumors about how liquid Sun’s investments are and whether he can even access them have been swirling on Chinese social media – as people are beginning to wonder why a billionaire would need to sue his ex for as little as $4 million – he’s decided, as usual, to post about the problems on X.

Without ever getting into details, Sun actually seems to suggest that he is indeed:

1. Illiquid
2. Hyperconcentrated in crypto
3. And won’t trade in his crypto for cash or physical assets because “the people who truly held on and won never did so by ‘cashing out in time.’”

In what has become a bizarre and unexpected 2026 for Justin Sun, the personal, professional, and liquidity walls that supported his success all seem to be collapsing.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

The yield that Japan pays for a 10-year loan reached 3% on Tuesday, its most expensive rate since September 1996. 

The government’s borrowing cost has increased 2,900% in less than five years.

Originating a loan of the same duration in early 2022 cost the sovereign just 0.1%.

Japanese government bonds (JGBs) set multi-decade records across their yield curve. The country is paying a 1.81% yield to borrow for two years, 2.26% for five years, 3.8% for 20 years, and 4.18% for 30 years.

Only 40-year JGBs are below a multi-decade record, albeit only slightly: 4.28%. That duration set its recent record at 4.4% in May.

As the government pays up to bond investors, otherwise hesitant buyers are happy to continue attending auctions. Tuesday’s 10-year JGB auction attracted more than three bids per bond, keeping the rate of bidding in-line with the annual average.

Highest cost for Japan to borrow money since the 1990s

Today’s milestone for several durations of JGBs is a multi-decade record but not technically an all-time high. For example, Japanese ministry archives show JGBs offering higher yields in the 1990s.

Sensationally, market data vendor Barchart declared the 30-year print the highest in history, exclaiming: “Dear God!” 

Technically, however, 30-year JGBs traded a couple basis points higher in May 2026, not to mention that its formal history runs only back to 1999 when investors would use other durations to construct de facto 30-year hold period.

In any case, JGB yields are certainly higher than it has paid over recent years.

Debt servicing costs skyrocket in Japan

Japan stayed under the radar of bond traders for many years with a high level of domestic credit ownership, foreign exchange rate intervention, mandated bond purchases, and strong employment. For years, JGBs and the yen remained calm and seemingly under control.

Suddenly, however, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) raised its policy rate to 1% in June, the highest in 31 years. Worse, markets now expect a hike to an even more expensive 1.25% cost of borrowing this month.

In addition, inflation fears are rising among normally complacent yen currency traders. The bank’s own July outlook projects core consumer prices rising sharply above its target, pointing to catalysts like expensive crude oil. “The consumer price index is likely to accelerate to a level clearly above 2% from the second half of fiscal 2026,” BOJ guided.

Advertisement

On July 31, with the yen near a 40 year low relative to the US dollar, US and Japan’s governments bought yen together for the first time since 1998. Scott Bessent’s US Treasury paid with euros from its Exchange Stabilization Fund. Japan, the largest foreign holder of US debt, said it would tap a Federal Reserve facility to borrow dollars against its $1.1 trillion US Treasury stockpile.

Tokyo’s finance ministry said, “This joint action countered excessive volatility and disorderly movements in the Japanese yen in recent months.” Bessent hailed the “coordinated foreign exchange actions” against “disorderly yen movements.”

Despite the historic intervention, the yen did not hold the line, and Japanese borrowing costs continued to rise. Eleven days later, the yen was fading again relative to the dollar, and this week it traded back near 160 per dollar. 

Debt servicing is set to cost the Japanese government a record 36.6 trillion yen ($230 billion) next year, up 17% in one year.

Advertisement

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Blockchain enterprise solutions provider Ripple has partnered with digital asset infrastructure company SettleMint to offer financial institutions solutions for custody, issuance and management of tokenized assets across their full lifecycle.

The strategic partnership will integrate Ripple’s institutional digital asset custody infrastructure, Ripple Custody, and SettleMint’s Digital Asset Lifecycle Platform (DALP) to offer institutions a less complex way to secure digital assets, Ripple announced on Tuesday.

A day earlier, digital asset service provider Coincheck Group partnered with wallet infrastructure provider DFNS to build digital asset wallet technology and custody services in Japan.

DFNS’s wallet-as-a-service offers institutions full transaction lifecycle management, including workflow orchestration and governance controls, under a single platform that supports more than 100 blockchain networks.

Both partnerships are seeking to build more institutional digital asset services to address the infrastructure gap hindering the entry of regulated financial institutions.

The Asia-Pacific region ranked as the fastest-growing area for onchain crypto activity and experienced a 69% year-over-year increase in value received, according to Chainalysis’ 2025 global adoption index.

Many countries in the region are developing their own cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks. In July, Japan’s parliament passed revisions that classify crypto assets as financial assets under Japan’s Financial Instruments and Exchange Act.

Japanese Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama signaled the intent to bring crypto under the same umbrella as traditional finance assets in January, to ensure that citizens will “benefit from digital and blockchain-based assets.” 

Related: Hyperliquid added to Singapore’s Investor Alert List

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Prediction market platform Kalshi announced action against US House of Representatives candidate Laurie Buckhout and ousted Republican lawmaker George Santos over using insider information for trading on event contracts, in one of the first lifetime bans the company has imposed since its launch in 2021. 

In separate notices of settlement of disciplinary action announced on Friday, Kalshi’s compliance department said it had permanently suspended Santos from trading on the prediction markets platform and imposed a $71,356 penalty. Buckhout received a three-year suspension and a $2,590 penalty.

Both restrictions by Kalshi were made in response to investigations into Santos and Buckhout trading using event contracts that could be manipulated by their own actions. According to the platform, Buckhout, running in North Carolina’s 1st congressional district, “announced her candidacy for public office and was added as a market option for a contract on a North Carolina Congressional election,” while Santos “engaged in trading activity in certain markets related to his attendance at the State of the Union address” in February 2026.

“If a Trader is a decision maker, either directly or indirectly, or has any influence, directly or indirectly, no matter the scale and importance of the influence, on the outcome of the Underlying event of any Contract, that Trader is prohibited from attempting to enter into any trade, either directly or indirectly, on the market in such Contracts,” state Kalshi’s rules.

The actions by the company represented a significant crackdown at a time when prediction market platforms are under scrutiny by state and federal lawmakers over claims that many of the event contracts are susceptible to manipulation. President Donald Trump’s teleprompter operator, Gabriel Perez, was fined $172,000 by federal regulators after trading event contracts on Kalshi related to Trump’s speeches. 

While Kalshi’s compliance department reported that Buckhout “cooperated with the inquiry” and agreed to the three-year trading ban and penalty, the platform made no such statement in Santos’ case suggesting that the former US lawmaker had cooperated with its investigation.

Related: Trump teleprompter operator made $100K betting on Kalshi markets tied to speeches: ABC

Buckhout remains the Republican candidate for North Carolina’s 1st congressional district in the 2026 midterm elections, while Santos, formerly a representative for New York’s 3rd congressional district, was expelled from Congress in December 2023 amid fraud allegations.

In response to the settlement, Santos said in a Monday X post that Kalshi was an “unserious company.” Buckhout reportedly called her actions betting on her own congressional race a “dumb mistake.”

As of Tuesday, Kalshi still listed event contracts related to the outcome of Buckhout’s North Carolina race, giving Democratic incumbent Don Davis a 63% chance over the Republican’s 41%.

Event contract for Laurie Buckhout in North Carolina House race. Source: Kalshi

CFTC taps emergency authority in fed-state prediction markets legal battle

Kalshi and other prediction market platforms like Polymarket face several lawsuits filed by individual US state gaming authorities over allegations the companies are facilitating illegal bets on sporting events. At the same time, the sole commissioner and chair of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Michael Selig, claims that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and vowed to take legal action against any state authority challenging this position.

Last month, the CFTC, in a rare move, invoked emergency authority opposing the state of New York attempting to bar Kalshi from offering contracts tied to sports, elections and other events.

Magazine: Does the Bitcoin rally mean we haven’t wasted our lives in crypto?