Crypto Task Force Written Input

Please find written input submissions to the Crypto Task Force below. The written input is posted without modification. We hope sharing the submissions will help encourage productive dialogue and continued engagement. Please note that the “Key Points” and “Topics” are AI generated. AI can make mistakes, and the Key Points and Topics are not a replacement for you reading the submissions. The Crypto Task Force has not reviewed these AI-generated summaries for accuracy or completeness. If you believe a Key Point or Topic is inaccurate, please email the Crypto Task Force at crypto@sec.gov. The written input provided to the SEC and posted on this page does not necessarily reflect the views of the Crypto Task Force or others in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date Written Input Topic(s) Key Points
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)

Request for Comment on There Must Be Some Way Out of Here 		Custody, RFI Responses, Security Status, Tokenization
  • SIFMA recommends that the SEC adopt clear, consistent, and consensus-driven taxonomies and classification approaches for digital assets to provide greater clarity to market participants.
  • SIFMA urges the SEC to apply traditional regulatory principles around custody to digital assets, including the separation of financial activities, segregation of client assets, and ensuring proper control of assets.
  • SIFMA supports the SEC's efforts to provide guidance scoping-out non-securities digital assets and digital asset activities, emphasizing a technology-neutral approach.
     
Mysten Labs, Inc.

Mysten Labs’ Response to “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here”: The Paramount Importance of Utility to the Security Status of Digital Assets 		RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Tokenization, Trading
  • The utility and real-world use case of a digital asset should be a primary determining factor in whether the asset is deemed a "security" under U.S. federal securities laws.
  • Digital assets with utility and real-world use cases are more appropriately regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
  • The regulatory approach should avoid excessively complicated, multi-part legal tests and instead focus on practical, usable, and reasonable legal standards.
The Digital Chamber

Re: CTF Written Input - The Digital Chamber 		Crypto ETPs, Custody, RFI Responses, Security Status, Trading
  • The Commission should adopt clear, evidence-based standards for reviewing crypto-asset based ETPs, focusing on the size and liquidity of the underlying spot market rather than the existence of a surveillance-sharing agreement (SSA) or a regulated market.
  • Market capitalization and the number of active spot markets should be prioritized as the most significant factors in evaluating crypto assets for ETP listing.
  • The historical track records of ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act that obtain exposure to the same assets as a proposed ETP should be highly instructive to the Commission.
     
Ravi Srivastava, Chief Technology Officer, Akemona, Inc.

Subject: Recommendations for Enhancing Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) Through Blockchain Technology 		Custody, Tokenization, Trading
  • Enable secondary trading of tokenized Reg CF securities via public blockchains to enhance liquidity and reduce counterparty risk.
  • Allow CEO-certified financial statements for raises up to $500,000 to lower capital-raising costs for startups.
  • Permit smart contract-based escrow in place of qualified custodians for raises up to $1 million to reduce costs and improve efficiency.
Unit 410, LLC

Request for Regulatory Guidance – Qualified Self-Custody 		Custody, RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status
  • Proposes a Qualified Self-Custodian (QSC) framework for Registered Investment Advisers (RIAs) to self-custody digital assets when traditional Qualified Custodian (QC) options are unavailable.
  • Emphasizes the need for RIAs to document their fiduciary judgment and implement safeguarding principles to protect investors while self-custodying digital assets.
  • Requests interim regulatory guidance and potential rulemaking to address the regulatory gap and facilitate secure, legal, and practical self-custody solutions for digital assets.
Securitize, Inc.

Re: Responses to Crypto Task Force Questions related to Tokenized Securities 		Custody, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Tokenization, Trading
  • Tokenized securities should be treated as traditional securities, with permissioned assets transferable across whitelisted wallets using smart contracts to enforce lawful transfers and track ownership changes.
  • Permissionless public blockchains should be allowed for the issuance, trading, and tracking of tokenized securities, with relevant market participants responsible for evaluating the security and soundness of the infrastructure.
  • Broker-dealers should be allowed to engage in a full array of activities, including custody, trading, and settlement of tokenized securities, without the need for segregation or special licensure.
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Re: Crypto Task Force Written Input 		Custody, RFI Responses, Security Status, Trading
  • Deloitte encourages the SEC to align its work with the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets to propose a Federal regulatory framework for digital assets.
  • Deloitte emphasizes the need for a principles-based framework rooted in established laws and regulations to ensure predictability and adaptability as the digital asset market evolves.
  • Deloitte highlights the importance of coordination among regulators and standard setters to avoid regulatory fragmentation and reduce the risk of regulatory arbitrage.
Donna Redel, Ivo Entchev, Olta Andoni, and Stephen Rutenberg, Crypto Policy Working Group

Letter to the Crypto Task Force 		Custody, Security Status, Trading
  • Self-custody wallets are not considered custodians under U.S. securities law as users retain exclusive control over their private keys and assets.
  • Self-custody wallets do not meet the definition of an exchange under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as they do not match orders or facilitate securities trading among multiple participants.
  • Self-custody wallets are not brokers under the Exchange Act, as they do not solicit transactions, route orders, match trades, or hold funds in escrow on behalf of clients.
North Capital Private Securities Corporation

RE: Custody of Tokenized Securities by Clearing and Carrying Broker-Dealers 		Custody, Tokenization, Trading
  • The document emphasizes the need for the SEC to differentiate between Bearer Digital Asset Securities (BDAS) and Tokenized Securities in its regulations, as the risks associated with BDAS do not apply to Tokenized Securities.
  • It argues that Tokenized Securities should be treated like traditional securities if they incorporate key safety attributes, such as maintaining a redundant secondary record on the blockchain and not being issued in bearer form.
  • The document urges the SEC to provide new interpretive guidance or no-action relief to allow broker-dealers to use issuers or transfer agents as control locations for Tokenized Securities, facilitating scalable solutions for clearing and custody.
Plume Network Inc.

Subject: Comments on the SEC Crypto Task Force’s “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here” Request for Input Questions 		Regulatory Sandbox, RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Tokenization
  • Permissionless or open, public blockchains, including decentralized finance (DeFi), are best positioned to enable the SEC to meet its policy goals relating to capital and digital asset markets.
  • Safe harbor exemptive relief should extend to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well as the Securities Act of 1933, and incorporate specific considerations related to DeFi.
  • The SEC should implement a regulatory sandbox for securities tokenization on open blockchains to develop a new regulatory architecture leveraging open blockchains and complementary technologies.