Regulators are signaling a shift in digital-asset oversight as the SEC outlines an interpretive framework for applying securities laws to crypto. SEC Chair Paul Atkins, in prepared remarks at the Practising Law Institute, said the agency intends to move away from a broad enforcement-first stance toward a more principled, interpretive approach. The remarks follow the agency’s interpretive notice on crypto regulation and a memorandum of understanding with the CFTC signed last week.

“While the interpretation provides long-needed clarity, I should like to assure this audience that it amounts to a beginning, not an end,” Atkins told attendees, underscoring the framework is intended to evolve alongside market developments.

The interpretive notice, released earlier in the week, frames how federal securities laws may apply to crypto assets. It suggests that most cryptocurrencies are unlikely to be securities under federal law, with a narrow exception: traditional securities that are tokenized. Atkins later clarified that digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles including non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and stablecoins are typically not within the SEC’s purview.

Key takeaways

• The SEC signals a shift from enforcement-by-press release toward a interpretive, rules-based approach to crypto regulation after a new interpretive notice and a memorandum with the CFTC.
• Under the framework, most crypto assets are unlikely securities; only tokenized traditional securities would fall under federal securities laws.
• Assets like digital commodities, digital tools, NFTs, and stablecoins are generally not considered securities by the agency’s current interpretation.
• Regulatory progress intersects with Congress and the White House, as lawmakers push a market-structure bill (the CLARITY Act) and seek consensus on stablecoin regulation and crypto-asset provisions.
• Watch for how the evolving framework interacts with legislative efforts, potential CFTC authority expansion, and ongoing industry pilots and experiments.

Regulatory posture shifts amid a mixed legislative backdrop

The SEC’s interpretive stance arrives as part of a broader recalibration of how crypto regulation will be enforced and applied. The agency had long faced criticism for a perceived “enforcement-by-crisis” approach, especially for startups and projects navigating an evolving market. By contrast, the latest framework emphasizes clarity and consistency, aiming to reduce guesswork for issuers, exchanges, and investors while preserving robust investor protections.

The interpretive notice explicitly clarifies that, for many digital assets, existing securities laws may not apply in the same way as for traditional stocks or bonds. The acknowledgment that most crypto assets are not securities could lower some regulatory friction for many projects—though it also places a clear boundary around assets that would still be subject to securities regulation.

Atkins connected the interpretation to ongoing SEC coordination with the CFTC, noting the memorandum signed last week. The agreement signals an intent to harmonize approaches where possible, a relevant development given the overlapping jurisdictions in crypto markets, market infrastructure, and derivatives. The result could be a more predictable regulatory environment for token issuers and market participants, even as questions about enforcement and future rulemaking linger.

Contextual backdrop: market structure, stablecoins, and the legislative path

Beyond the SEC’s interpretive framework, lawmakers are actively shaping the arc of crypto regulation through legislation and hearings. A market-structure bill, known in industry circles as the CLARITY Act, advanced in the House in mid-2025 but has faced a slower path in the Senate. As of the latest briefing, it had not yet been scheduled for a markup in the Senate Banking Committee, leaving a critical regulatory hinge unresolved.

In parallel, the White House has engaged with lawmakers behind closed doors to advance the same package. A spokesperson for Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis confirmed that Republican senators met with White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt to discuss advancing the market-structure bill. Lummis’ team described the session as very productive and positive, with negotiators “99% of the way there on stablecoin yield” and ongoing, productive talks on the digital-asset provisions of the bill.

Stablecoins remain a focal point of regulatory and policy debate, particularly around yield, banking implications, and consumer protections. The sense among some policymakers is that achieving a workable framework for stablecoin issuance and redemption is a prerequisite for broader bipartisan consensus on crypto regulation.

The regulatory dialogue is further colored by ongoing market experiments and pilot programs. For example, the market has seen pilots exploring tokenized trading and other asset-ization concepts under the watchful eye of multiple agencies. While these pilots illustrate a regulatory appetite for innovation, they also underscore that practical, real-world testing will continue to inform how rules evolve in practice.

As the SEC’s interpretive framework takes root, traders, issuers, and developers should prepare for a regulatory environment that favors clarity and predictability but remains nuanced. The boundary between what constitutes a security in crypto, and what does not, will likely continue to shift as new asset classes and products emerge. The interplay between the SEC, the CFTC, and Congress will shape the pace and direction of this evolution in the months ahead.

Readers should watch for updates on the CLARITY Act’s progression in the Senate, any further formal guidance from the SEC, and on-the-ground outcomes from ongoing tokenization trials and stablecoin regulatory debates. The convergence of executive and legislative activity suggests that substantial clarity—across asset classes and market infrastructure—may still be months away, even as the groundwork for a more predictable regulatory framework takes shape.

Kentucky House Bill 380, a state-level crypto regulatory bill, includes provisions that would force crypto hardware wallet manufacturers to build a “backdoor” into devices, Bitcoin (BTC) advocacy organization Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has warned. 

The provisions require crypto hardware wallet manufacturers to provide recovery options for users’ seed phrases, and were added to the bill in a “last-minute” floor amendment, BPI said. The amended Section 33 of the bill reads:

“A hardware wallet provider shall provide a mechanism for, and assist any person who owns a hardware wallet that was provided by the provider with, resetting any password, PIN, seed phrase, or other similar information that is necessary to access the contents of the hardware wallet.” 

The sponsors of the legislation are state Representatives Aaron Thompson and Tom Smith.

The bill also proposes identity verification checks for users requesting a password, seed phrase, or PIN reset from a hardware wallet manufacturer. 

“The mandate is technologically impossible for non-custodial wallets. Hardware wallets are specifically designed so that no one, including the manufacturer, can access or recover a user’s seed phrase,” BPI said in response.

The provisions threaten the self-custody of private keys, which is a foundational feature of cryptocurrencies, according to BPI, which added that requirements like this push users toward centralized custodians that are susceptible to hacks and business failures.

Related: BPI targets August for BTC tax relief, but warns time is running out

SEC officials defend the right to self-custody

US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins said he is “in favor” of market participants having self-custody options, especially in cases where intermediaries would impose a financial or operational burden on the user.

In November 2025, Hester Peirce, an SEC commissioner and head of the regulator’s Crypto Task Force, reaffirmed the right to self-custody and financial privacy, saying that both were foundational to freedom.

Peirce asked the hosts of the Rollup podcast in November 2025: “Why should I have to be forced to go through someone else to hold my assets? 

“It baffles me that in this country, which is so premised on freedom, that would even be an issue — of course, people can hold their own assets,” she said. 

Magazine: Bitcoin’s long-term security budget problem: Impending crisis or FUD?