SEC Chair: Embrace digital asset innovation and end enforcement-driven regulation

Compiled by: Jinse Finance

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins said on Monday at the 2026 Las Vegas Bitcoin Conference that the SEC is committed to embracing digital asset innovation, ending an enforcement-oriented regulatory model, and working together with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to bring the U.S. cryptocurrency market a clear regulatory framework.

In a conversation with Perianne Boring, founder and CEO of Digital Chamber, Paul Atkins described the SEC’s previous stance toward digital assets as a failure. He said that the SEC will abandon the past “ostrich policy” and “enforcement-style regulation” and pivot to embracing digital asset innovation, striving to strengthen collaboration with the CFTC and clarify regulatory boundaries, with the goal of retaining relevant domestic U.S. businesses; he also discussed the core of the securities definition (focusing on the project sponsor’s commitments rather than the token itself), and mentioned progress on the token classification guidance, on-chain experiments, and related exemption provisions. He emphasized the importance of the Market Structure Act to stable policy, and looked ahead to developments in blockchain instant settlement and tokenized stocks—with the core goal of promoting the U.S.’s global leadership in the digital-asset space.

The full transcript of the dialogue is below, compiled by Jinse Finance (AI-assisted).

Host: Chairman Atkins, thank you very much for coming to speak with us in Las Vegas.

Paul Atkins: It’s my pleasure. Great to see everyone.

Host: I think this is your first time—well, I believe it’s the first time a Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has spoken at a Bitcoin conference. At least that’s what people say. Yes, we’re honored to have you.

Paul Atkins: Yes. In any case, thank you very much.

Host: The relationship between the Bitcoin community and the SEC has always been quite interesting. You’ve succeeded—what should we call him? The role of Gary Gensler. He wasn’t particularly open or receptive to digital assets. He really did his best to slow down the development of this innovation. You joined the commission as part of the Trump administration. This is the first president to support Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and you are truly at the forefront of implementing this policy at the SEC. Before we get into details, could you briefly share your guiding principles as SEC Chair and how you view digital assets?

Paul Atkins: Sure. I think it’s appropriate to put it this way: this is a new day at the SEC. I think that if you look back over roughly the past ten years, the SEC’s approach was like an ostrich with its head in the sand—hoping maybe all of this would go away on its own. Then there was the phase of regulating through enforcement, and I think the SEC’s “Oh, come talk to us” approach was a bit insincere. You know, we have a simple form on our website called S-1. But that’s not an easy form to fill out—it requires a lot of lawyers and accountants. It’s actually designed for initial public offerings, which is very suitable for that kind of scenario, but for the digital-asset space, especially for tokens, it just doesn’t fit very well. So we’re taking a new approach. We embrace innovation, and we sincerely want to help relevant businesses stay in the U.S. We’re responding to the challenge raised by the President—he wants digital assets to be developed and used within the U.S. using American technology. So we’re really working toward that goal. You just saw Michael Selig from the CFTC—he’s a great person. He previously worked in my office, and I was very pleased when the President appointed him as Chairman of the CFTC. He’s doing an excellent job, and we’re working closely together.

So, in fact, believe it or not, in Washington, the CFTC and the SEC have historically not really collaborated. I’d rather think of it as two fortresses, with a no-man’s-land in between—crossfire between the fortresses destroyed all those products that could have been promoted 40 years ago. So we need to change that now. We need to collaborate for real—to set new benchmarks for the country—and to genuinely embrace change.

Host: Yes, you said it well. Collaboration with the CFTC, and how important that is for regulatory clarity, innovation, market structure, and the U.S.’s leadership position in this industry. In my view, in the past there really was competition between the SEC and the CFTC—fighting over jurisdiction. One institution said it falls under its jurisdiction, and the other said it falls under its own. Then the private sector would think, who is the regulator? Who should we go to? This created massive uncertainty and risk for businesses. As a result, many businesses either shut down or left, and those that were lucky enough not to be targeted by enforcement could only do that as well. That was the strategy back then.

Paul Atkins: Exactly right. So the real problem is that the definition of securities is a very technical issue, and there isn’t much guidance. So the breakthrough we’re trying to drive largely comes from an old case from 1946 called “SEC v. Howey.” Mr. Howey had an orange grove in Florida, and many people wanted to participate, owning a small portion of the interests. Basically, securities law mentions all kinds of things—stocks, bonds, and so on—but it introduces a concept called “investment contract” without bothering to define it. So this case was essentially the U.S. Supreme Court trying to define it. When we applied it to digital assets, we found that in Mr. Howey’s case, an investment contract isn’t the orange itself—here, the token, Bitcoin, or anything else—but rather the commitments Mr. Howey made to his investors and the expectations of the entire ecosystem surrounding it. So we’ve now applied this across the entire digital-asset space. And by collaborating with the CFTC, we issued a joint statement explaining what tokenized securities are. That was a major breakthrough. Earlier this year, we published that statement, and now we’re continuing to push forward with other exciting initiatives—like truly allowing companies to conduct on-chain experiments, build their tokenized securities, and trade them on-chain in the U.S. We plan to release innovative exemption rules in the coming weeks. In addition, fundraising is also enabled through the sale of tokens on-chain. These things are being prepared and will be rolled out soon. But we also know that just minutes ago, a regulation was discussed here—the so-called “Clear Law,” the bill currently under review in Congress. We really do need Congress to set rules for this area. We are ready, willing, and able to interpret their regulations and turn them into rules that people can rely on and build on in pursuit of their innovative ideas. Again, the key point is that it’s in the U.S. domestically—no one has to go overseas. That’s the core idea that truly matters here.

Host: Yes, there’s a lot to unpack. So this isn’t just about providing regulatory clarity—helping businesses understand when the SEC’s jurisdiction starts and ends, and where the CFTC’s jurisdiction lies. This has always been one of the most complicated and challenging issues for everyone. But we also need to be able to bring more financial applications onto the chain. There’s a lot to cover. Perhaps we can start with the token classification guidance—to help clarify which agency has jurisdiction over different types of tokens—digital securities, digital commodities, digital collectibles, and so on. Regarding digital commodities—in the token classification guidance you published—actually, you announced this a few weeks ago at my Washington Blockchain Summit. Thank you. That was a very exciting statement, and it’s something we’ve been talking about for a long time—building a classification system. The SEC has clearly listed some tokens that are considered digital commodities. We’ve seen the market respond: the trading prices of those tokens now trade at a premium, especially in Asian markets. So that raises other questions. What if the token I’m interested in isn’t on that list, but we believe it meets all the other conditions and is therefore still a digital commodity? How should market participants gain more clarity about the list and view it? Do you have any comments?

Paul Atkins: Yes. That’s a very important question. So in drafting this explanatory document, we gave a lot of examples, and they’re illustrative. That doesn’t mean it’s a fixed and unchanging list. But we talked about the principles behind it, tracing back to the Howey test—not about the orange itself, but about the commitments around it. So what truly matters is that things can start from those commitments and be within that framework; but then those commitments can also be fulfilled, or they can disappear and become unfulfillable. That’s the core of what we’re doing regarding the nature of securities, and that’s the approach we’re taking. So we’re trying to exclude digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles, and of course stablecoins. Those are clearly not securities. Stablecoins—because Congress has already passed it and the President has signed the “Genius Act”—was a big step forward. The U.S. has for the first time recognized an entire category of digital assets and provided a framework for them to be tradable, among other things. So that’s very important. Therefore, we focus on tokenized securities. We try to define them as not belonging to the other four categories—that’s the key. It’s a principles-based approach. So if people have questions, we welcome them to seek clarification, but we hope this document makes things clear. Obviously, things can always be improved and further explained.

Host: All right. Let’s talk about the Market Structure Act. Senator Cynthia Lummis is here and just walked us through the bill’s timeline—she expects progress in May, the Senate may vote in June, and hopes it will go to the President’s desk shortly after passage in the House. I mean, a lot has to happen. I used to work as a staffer in Congress, so I understand the legislative pathway. A lot of things have to be coordinated for it to happen. Of course, we hope it will. But it’s not a sure thing. So what if the Market Structure Act doesn’t pass? I know many people are worried—especially those who have gone through a few cycles—about what happens after the Trump administration. What if a new administration is as hostile to crypto as the Biden administration, and we have a new SEC Chair like Gary Gensler who wants to shut it down? That’s why many people think the Market Structure Act is so important for making sure all the work of this administration can withstand future changes. Can you talk about these concerns? If the bill doesn’t pass, what are you doing to mitigate that? And how much reaction would be reasonable for people to have if the bill doesn’t go through?

Paul Atkins: Good question. I think you should all realize that elections do have consequences—and potentially huge ones. What I mean is, who would have thought that ten years ago, the U.S. government—this includes us, the CFTC, banking regulators, and Congress—would make a complete about-face, nearly 180 degrees? That’s remarkable. Under its regulations, the SEC has considerable flexibility. We can adapt, but we are constrained by existing authorities—authorities that, although they’ve been amended over the years, still fundamentally follow a 1930s framework. That’s why a statute like this is so important—it can protect future developments from adverse impacts, and then we can leverage new authorities and the flexibility provided by the bill. We can work with the CFTC to coordinate and clarify definitions, and build on that. But again, nothing provides more certainty for the future than enacted statutory law—especially when combined with good court opinions and the mechanisms across the entire court system that engrave the provisions of the statute into stone. So all of this is important, but we are focused on simplifying processes, improving efficiency, and helping innovators innovate—so they can proceed with confidence rather than being knocked out by those who protect the current ways of doing things out of jealousy. But we also have to ensure we’re at the forefront of American innovation.

Host: Speaking of being at the forefront of innovation, one area in our market that is very well suited to benefit from blockchain technology is the tokenized stocks you mentioned earlier. The commission is in a very important position to help make this innovation happen. One challenge I see is that tokenized stocks involve many stakeholders—many participants. There are many steps from trade execution to trade settlement, and intermediaries charge fees along the way. Could you talk about all the stakeholders involved in this process? Can we realize the full benefits of blockchain—namely instant settlement—while also handling all these different participants, whether they must be involved or their business models might change or be eliminated as a result?

Paul Atkins: Yes. That’s a great question. I know we might be reaching the end soon.

Host: Yes, time flies.

Paul Atkins: For me, blockchain—distributed ledger technology—is the most exciting part of all of this. I’m a bit hesitant to say this at a Bitcoin conference, but you know, I’m basically agnostic about the specific tokens themselves. Let the market decide what’s best. But being able to achieve what we call T+0—instant settlement for many instruments—may not apply to everything, but being able to achieve immediacy of delivery against payment and receipt against payment—I think that’s the most exciting. It reduces risk in our financial system, because every second between trading and clearing and settlement is risk borne by investors and counterparties. In short, we’re working to promote and implement this within the U.S. There are many existing participants, including current exchanges, but we also want to open it up to them as well. That also gives them a way to reduce their own market risk. In addition, many good ideas come from all sorts of other groups—native crypto and native blockchain communities. We want all these different “flowers” to bloom, because that will strengthen the U.S.’s position as a hub for thought and financial innovation—which is better for the world, for consumers, for investors, and for our overall economy. I think that’s what we’re trying to do.

Host: I think that’s a great closing remark. Chairman Atkins, thank you very much.

Paul Atkins: Thank you for speaking with me.

Host: Great to see you again.

Paul Atkins: Thank you, everyone.