#SEC发布加密代币分类FAQ Clearer regulatory boundaries will reduce compliance uncertainty overall, but the pressure will be unevenly distributed. Tokens with clearly defined functions and mature networks will truly benefit; tokens with centralized governance whose prices are driven by team promises are more likely to have their risks exposed.

Which tokens will be most affected
· Native tokens of mature public blockchains: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and others have relatively clear classifications and practical uses, so compliance expectations are relatively stable.
· Tokens with strong utility: Tokens used to pay gas fees, access services, or participate in protocol functions will have a clearer regulatory path, as long as their returns do not depend on the project operator’s business activities.
· Wrapped tokens and staking receipts: When the underlying asset is not a security, these tokens can generally be treated as receipts or instruments, directly benefiting liquid staking projects.
· Tokens from projects that rely on centralized fundraising: These face the highest risk. If a project operator controls upgrades, access, the treasury, or trading rules, and continues to promote profit expectations, the token may still be deemed an investment contract.
· Fractionalized NFTs and yield-bearing stablecoins: Splitting collectibles into units for sale while promising returns, or offering stablecoins returns similar to deposit interest, could bring them within the scope of securities regulation.
The Q&A added on November 2 further focuses on “who actually controls the network.” Organizational structures such as foundations, DAOs, or DUNAs cannot by themselves prove decentralization; the key question remains which party controls operations, economics, and voting.

The role and status of the CLARITY Act
The CLARITY Act mainly aims to resolve three issues: which regulator oversees a token, which agency trading platforms must register with, and when early fundraising relationships end. It has not yet become law; a procedural vote on September 15 failed to advance the bill to further consideration, with 49 votes in favor and 50 against.
As a result, the market is still operating on two tracks: the SEC is refining its approach to determining what constitutes a security through interpretive documents and Q&As, while Congress continues to determine the market’s long-term structure through legislation. Administrative guidance can shift regulatory priorities, but it is difficult for it alone to redraw exchange jurisdiction and spot market authorization.

Have compliance risks fallen or risen?
For most projects, the net effect is lower risk. Previously, many teams could only respond to regulation with silence; now they can design for compliance around token functionality, control, marketing language, and buyback arrangements.
But greater transparency will also narrow the scope for regulatory arbitrage. The following projects may face increased pressure:
· White papers repeatedly emphasize future price gains;
· Core developers and foundations control major decisions;
· Token value depends heavily on the team’s ongoing operations;
· Buybacks are promoted as a way to increase holder returns;
· Platforms simultaneously take on issuance, management, and trading functions.

So, this change is more like a “litmus test”: compliance costs for good projects may fall, while projects with opaque governance and fundraising-heavy models will face greater legal, listing, and funding pressure.$ETH