Chair of the U.S. SEC: From OmniVision testing to new token classification — a comprehensive guide to innovation exemptions, clear legislation, and tokenized stocks

Summary: Golden Finance

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul Atkins stated 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 clear regulatory frameworks to the U.S. cryptocurrency market.

In a conversation with Digital Chamber founder and CEO Perianne Boring, Paul Atkins described the SEC’s previous attitude toward digital assets as a failure. He said, “The SEC will abandon the past ‘ostrich policy’ and ‘enforcement-style regulation,’ and instead embrace digital asset innovation, strengthen collaboration with the CFTC, and clarify regulatory boundaries” to retain relevant domestic businesses; he also interpreted the core of the securities definition (focusing on project commitments rather than tokens themselves), mentioned progress on token classification guidelines, on-chain experiments, and related exemption rules, “highlighted the importance of the Market Structure Act for stable policy,” and looked forward to developments in blockchain real-time settlement and tokenized stocks, “with the core goal of positioning the U.S. as a global leader in digital assets.”

Below is the full transcript of the conversation, organized by Golden Finance.

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

Paul Atkins: My pleasure. Glad to be here.

Host: I believe this is your first— I think it’s the first time the 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. Anyway, thank you very much.

Host: The relationship between the Bitcoin community and the SEC has always been quite interesting. You succeeded Gary Gensler. He’s not very open or receptive to digital assets. He has indeed tried his best to slow down this innovation. You joined the commission as part of the Trump administration. He was the first president to support Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and you are at the forefront of implementing this policy at the SEC. Before we go into details, could you briefly share your guiding principles as SEC Chair and how you view digital assets?

Paul Atkins: Sure. I think I can put it this way: it’s a new day at the SEC. I believe that if you look at the past decade or so, the SEC’s approach was like an ostrich burying its head in the sand, thinking maybe it would all just disappear on its own. Then came the enforcement phase, where the SEC said “Come talk to us,” which I think was a bit insincere. You know, we have a simple form on our website called S-1. But it’s not an easy form to fill out. It requires many lawyers and accountants to complete. It’s actually designed for IPOs, very suitable for that scenario, but for digital assets, especially tokens, it’s very ill-fitting. So, we’re taking a new approach. We embrace innovation and genuinely want to help relevant businesses stay in the U.S. We are responding to the challenge posed by the President—that digital assets should be developed and used within the U.S., utilizing American technology. So we are really working toward that goal. You just saw Michael Selig from the CFTC, a great guy. He was previously in my office, and I’m very pleased that the President appointed him as Chairman of the CFTC. He’s doing an excellent job, and we are working closely together.

So, in fact, believe it or not, in Washington, the CFTC and SEC have never really collaborated before. I prefer to think of them as two fortresses with a no-man’s land in between, where crossfire destroyed all those new products that could have been promoted 40 years ago. So, we are now changing that. We need to truly collaborate, set new standards for the country, and 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 in this industry. In my view, the SEC and CFTC have historically competed, both vying for jurisdiction—one claiming it’s within their scope, the other claiming the same—and the private sector would wonder, who is the regulator? Who should we turn to? This created huge uncertainty and risk for companies, leading many to shut down or leave, and those lucky enough not to be prosecuted could only accept that. That was the strategy back then.

Paul Atkins: Exactly right. So, the real issue is that the definition of securities is very technical and lacks clear guidance. The breakthrough we’re trying to push is largely based on an old case from 1946 called “SEC v. Howey.” Mr. Howey owned an orange grove in Florida, and many wanted to buy a small stake in it. Basically, securities law mentions various things like stocks and bonds, but it introduces the concept of an “investment contract” without bothering to define it. So, that case was essentially the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempt to define it. When applying it to digital assets, we found that in the Howey case, an investment contract isn’t the orange itself—in this analogy, the token, Bitcoin, or anything else—but rather the promises made by Mr. Howey to his investors and the entire ecosystem’s expectations. So, we are now applying this to the digital asset space, and through collaboration with the CFTC, we issued a joint statement explaining which tokens are securities. That was a major breakthrough. We released this statement earlier this year, and now we’re pushing forward with other exciting initiatives, such as truly allowing companies to conduct on-chain experiments, build their tokenized securities, and trade them on-chain within the U.S.—we plan to release innovative exemption rules in the coming weeks. Additionally, we are enabling fundraising through on-chain token sales. We call it “Reg GG Crypto.” These are in the pipeline and will be launched soon. But we also know that just minutes ago, a regulation was discussed here—the so-called “Clear Law” currently under review in Congress. We do need Congress to set rules for this space. We are ready and willing to interpret their regulations and turn them into rules that people can rely on and pursue their innovative ideas. Again, it’s about staying domestic, so they don’t have to go overseas. That’s the core principle here.

Host: Yes, there’s a lot to unpack. So, it’s not just about providing regulatory clarity, helping companies understand when the SEC’s jurisdiction begins and ends, and where the CFTC’s jurisdiction lies. That has always been one of the most complex and challenging issues. But we want to take a few steps forward in regulatory clarity and also bring more financial applications on-chain. There’s a lot to discuss. Maybe we can start with the token classification guidelines, to help clarify which agency has jurisdiction over different types of tokens—digital securities, digital commodities, digital collectibles, etc. Regarding digital commodities, in the token classification guidelines you released—actually, just a few weeks ago at my Washington Blockchain Summit—you announced this. Thank you. It’s a very exciting statement, and it’s something we’ve talked about for a long time—building a classification system. The SEC has already listed some tokens as digital commodities. We see the market reacting, with trading prices of these tokens now trading at premiums, especially in Asian markets. So, this raises other questions: what if the token I’m interested in isn’t on that list, but we believe it meets all other criteria and is therefore still a digital commodity—what should we do? What comments do you have on how market participants can gain more clarity and how they should view this list?

Paul Atkins: Yes. That’s a very important question. So, in developing this interpretive guidance, we provided many examples—these are just illustrative. It doesn’t mean it’s a fixed list. But we discussed the principles behind it, tracing back to the Howey test, which isn’t about the orange itself—it’s about the promises surrounding it. So, what really matters is that these things can start from those promises, within that framework, but then those promises can also be fulfilled or disappear and become unfulfillable. That’s the core of our approach to the essence of securities. So, what we’re trying to do is exclude these digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles, and of course, stablecoins. These are clearly not securities. Stablecoins, because Congress has already passed and the President signed the “Genius Act,” which is a big step forward. The U.S. has officially recognized an entire class of digital assets and provided a framework for their trading and other activities. So, that’s very important. Therefore, we focus on tokenized securities. We try to define them as not falling into 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 guidance makes things clearer. Of course, there’s always room for improvement and further explanation.

Host: Okay. Let’s talk about the Market Structure Act. Senator Cynthia Lummis just mentioned here the timetable for the bill’s passage; she expects progress in May, the Senate may vote in June, and hopes to send it to the President’s desk shortly after the House passes it. I mean, a lot has to happen. I used to be a congressional staffer, I understand the legislative process—many things need to be coordinated to make it happen. Of course, we hope it will, but it’s not a done deal. So, if the Market Structure Act doesn’t pass, I know many people are worried—especially those who have gone through several cycles—what happens after the Trump administration? If a new administration, like Biden’s, becomes very hostile to crypto, and we have a new SEC Chair like Gensler who wants to shut it down—this is why many believe the Market Structure Act is so important for ensuring that 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? How should people react if it doesn’t pass?

Paul Atkins: Good question. I think everyone should realize that elections do have consequences—and potentially huge ones. I mean, who would have thought ten years ago that the U.S. government—including us, the CFTC, banking regulators, and Congress—would do a complete 180-degree turn? So, that’s quite remarkable. The SEC has considerable flexibility under existing regulations, and we can adapt, but we are constrained by current authorities, which, although amended over the years, are fundamentally rooted in the 1930s framework. That’s why having a statute like this is so important—it can safeguard 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 further develop on that basis. But again, nothing beats codified law for future certainty, especially when supported by good court opinions and mechanisms through the entire judicial system that enshrine statutory provisions in stone. So, all of this is very important, but we are focused on streamlining processes, increasing efficiency, and helping innovators innovate—so they can do so confidently without being stifled by those who jealously guard the status quo. But we must ensure we stay at the forefront of American innovation.

Host: Speaking of being at the forefront of innovation, one area in your market that’s very suitable for benefiting from blockchain technology is the tokenized stocks you mentioned earlier. The commission is in a very important position to facilitate this innovation. I see a challenge: tokenized stocks involve many stakeholders, many participants, with many steps from trade execution to settlement, with intermediaries charging fees. Can you discuss all the stakeholders involved? Can we achieve the full benefits of blockchain—namely real-time settlement—while also managing all these different participants, some of whom must be involved, or whose business models might change or be eliminated as a result?

Paul Atkins: Yes. That’s a very good question. I know we might be wrapping up soon.

Host: Yes, time flies.

Paul Atkins: For me, blockchain—distributed ledger technology—is the most exciting part of all this. I hesitate to say this at a Bitcoin conference, but you know, I’m essentially agnostic about the specific tokens themselves. Let the market decide what’s best. But the ability to achieve what we call T+0, real-time settlement of many tools—perhaps not all—delivering immediate delivery against payment, and receipt against payment, I think is the most exciting because it reduces risk in our financial system. Every second between trade and settlement is a risk borne by investors and counterparties. In short, we are working hard to promote and realize this in the U.S. There are many existing participants, including current exchanges, but we also want to open this up to others. It’s also a way for them to reduce their own market risk. Plus, there are many ideas from other groups—native crypto, native blockchain communities. We want all these different flowers to bloom, which will solidify the U.S. as a hub of thought and financial innovation—better for the world, consumers, investors, and our overall economy. I believe that’s what we need to do.

Host: I think that’s a great way to end. Chairman Atkins, thank you very much.

Paul Atkins: Thank you for the conversation.

Host: It’s great to see you again.

Paul Atkins: Thank you, everyone.