Under the leadership of Chairman Gary Gensler, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has adopted an approach to digital assets that some have described as "enforce first, make rules never." This strategy, while potentially effective in areas where clear guidance exists, has left digital asset market participants in the United States facing significant regulatory uncertainty. Without clear rules, the SEC's aggressive enforcement tactics have had the effect of stifling innovation and driving businesses overseas. This article explores the key issues in the SEC's current stance on digital assets and the need for a more thoughtful and predictable regulatory framework.
A Mismatch: Existing Rules and Digital Assets
The primary problem with the SEC's approach is that current securities laws are ill-suited to digital assets. Despite Chairman Gensler's assertion that "not liking the message is not the same as not receiving it," there is a glaring lack of clarity about how the SEC's rules apply to digital assets. This confusion has been acknowledged by industry leaders, federal regulators, and legislators alike. Yet, the SEC continues to insist that companies can simply "come in and register."
However, digital assets differ fundamentally from traditional securities, and the SEC's one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for these distinctions. For instance, determining whether a digital asset is a security under the Howey test—a standard used to define investment contracts—is far from straightforward given the decentralized and unique nature of many digital projects. The SEC's refusal to provide meaningful guidance on this issue leaves market participants in limbo, exacerbating compliance risks and deterring innovation.
Jurisdictional Uncertainty Compounds the Problem
A significant challenge for companies in the digital asset space is the uncertainty over whether their activities fall within the SEC's jurisdiction. The SEC has been inconsistent in its statements regarding the status of major cryptocurrencies, such as Ether, leaving the second-largest blockchain project without clear regulatory guidance. While Bitcoin is generally accepted as a commodity outside the SEC's jurisdiction, other digital assets, including Ether, face ambiguous regulatory treatment. This lack of clarity extends to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), decentralized finance (DeFi) projects, and other emerging technologies.
The SEC's expansive interpretation of its own jurisdiction has further complicated matters. Commissioner Hester Peirce has highlighted the SEC's troubling tendency to claim jurisdiction over virtually any item sold whose value depends on the efforts of others, a stance that could sweep in everything from art to collectibles. This broad reading of securities law creates additional risks for digital asset companies unsure of how the SEC will treat their operations.
Enforcement Without Clear Rules: A Deterrent to Innovation
The SEC's enforcement-first approach, particularly in the absence of clear regulatory guidelines, poses serious risks to the U.S. digital asset industry. Companies that attempt to comply with the law face the threat of costly investigations or litigation, even when there is no clear path to compliance. This has effectively turned enforcement actions into a de facto ban on certain digital asset activities within the United States.
The SEC has touted its record in bringing "first-of-their-kind" enforcement actions in the digital asset space, but rulemaking by enforcement leads to poor policy outcomes. As Commissioner Mark Uyeda noted, crafting rules through enforcement "fails to provide a mechanism for the Commission to consider the views of market participants," which is crucial for developing better, more tailored rules. Moreover, enforcement actions typically highlight what companies should not do but offer little guidance on what they should do to comply with the law.
Examples of this approach include the SEC's recent cases against staking services, which require platforms to register their services without providing any clear framework for how such registration could be achieved. In the case of LBRY, the SEC's actions led the company to wind down operations after it exhausted its resources fighting the agency, underscoring the high stakes of regulatory uncertainty in this space.
The SEC's Approach Creates Broader Regulatory Uncertainty
Beyond the enforcement risks, the SEC's inconsistent and shifting legal theories have heightened uncertainty for digital asset companies. This regulatory unpredictability makes it difficult for businesses to make long-term decisions or invest in innovation. Furthermore, the SEC's actions have led to an increase in litigation against the agency, as companies seek proactive relief to clarify their regulatory obligations.
In addition to the volume of enforcement actions, the SEC's conduct in pursuing these cases—such as limiting engagement with companies under investigation and issuing settlements without detailed explanations—has eroded trust in the agency. These actions raise serious questions about the fairness and transparency of the SEC's regulatory approach to digital assets.
A Path Forward: Clear and Predictable Rules
A better approach would involve the SEC leveraging its existing authority to create tailored rules for digital assets. The Commission has broad exemptive authority, which it has used in the past to develop specialized regulatory frameworks for new products and technologies. This authority could be applied to digital assets, enabling the SEC to craft regulations that are appropriate for the unique characteristics of these technologies.
In addition to formal rulemaking, the SEC could provide no-action relief, issue interpretative guidance, or engage more actively with market participants to develop a clearer regulatory framework. These tools are well within the SEC's purview and could bring much-needed clarity to the digital asset space.
Conclusion: Time for a Thoughtful Engagement
The SEC's "enforce first" strategy has created significant challenges for the digital asset industry in the United States, driving innovation abroad and fostering uncertainty. While enforcement is a critical tool for ensuring compliance, it must be accompanied by clear and predictable rules that give market participants a fair chance to operate within the law. The SEC has the authority to develop such rules, but it has so far failed to do so.
With increasing calls from Congress and industry for regulatory clarity, the time is ripe for the SEC to shift its focus from enforcement to engagement. Thoughtful rulemaking, informed by input from market participants, would help protect investors while fostering innovation in the digital asset space. The SEC's current approach not only stifles innovation but also undermines confidence in the U.S. as a hub for technological advancement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.