An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock
()
or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
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.
The letter argues that Citadel’s attempt to classify all entities and technologies involved in DeFi transactions as SEC-registered intermediaries is legally flawed, as autonomous software and developers without custody or control over user assets do not meet the statutory definitions of “broker” or “dealer.”
The signatories assert that expanding the definitions of “exchange” and “broker-dealer” to include DeFi protocols exceeds the SEC’s statutory authority and risks misclassifying non-intermediary software infrastructure, undermining innovation and regulatory clarity.
The letter supports notice-and-comment rulemaking for tokenized equities but urges the SEC to adopt frameworks—such as safe harbors—that distinguish between centralized and decentralized systems, ensuring that only entities posing traditional risks are subject to registration.
The framework proposes that Solana-based ETP issuers provide periodic public disclosures detailing validator allocations, concentration policies, and incidents, enabling the SEC to monitor systemic risks without prescribing protocol-level changes.
The SEC is urged to formally acknowledge that stake concentration in Solana ETPs poses material investor protection risks, including transaction censorship, governance capture, and network halts, thereby falling squarely within its jurisdiction.
Validators receiving ETP stake must disclose governance voting intentions and maintain independence from issuers and custodians to prevent proxy-advisory style influence and ensure fair market access.
GUARDD urges the SEC to use its exemptive authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act to formally recognize "Qualified Disclosure Publishers" (QDPs), enabling compliant secondary trading of exempt and tokenized securities without requiring full Exchange Act reporting.
The proposal includes a request for federal preemption of inconsistent state Manual Exemption provisions, aiming to streamline secondary trading across jurisdictions while preserving states’ anti-fraud enforcement powers.
GUARDD recommends that QDPs be required to publish token-specific data (e.g., contract address, blockchain network, transfer restrictions, audit status) alongside Rule 15c2-11(b) disclosures to support on-chain secondary trading on regulated venues.
The document proposes IP Bonds and IP CDOs as structured financial instruments backed by intellectual property, enabling their use as collateral in debt markets and aligning with international financial standards such as IAS 38/IFRS.
It calls for formal recognition of IP Bonds within existing financial frameworks (e.g., ISDA, ICMA, SIFMA), including their eligibility for repo markets, post-trade transparency, and ESG classification under ICMA principles.
The Eurasian Standard of IP Valuation is positioned as a global benchmark, with requests for WIPO endorsement, interagency working groups, and amendments to IFRS to support on-chain IP valuation and prevent regulatory fragmentation.
The SEC should not grant broad exemptive relief from the statutory definitions of “exchange” and “broker-dealer” for DeFi trading protocols, as doing so would undermine investor protections and create a dual regulatory regime for the same securities.
Many DeFi trading protocols and associated participants (e.g., developers, wallet providers, AMMs) meet the legal definitions of “exchange” or “broker-dealer” and should be regulated accordingly under existing securities laws.
The SEC should pursue a notice-and-comment rulemaking process to evaluate tokenization initiatives, ensuring that any regulatory changes preserve core investor protections and apply equally to tokenized and traditional equities.
The proposal distinguishes between Participation Tokens (classified as high-risk securities under Regulation D), IP-NFTs (treated as securities representing intellectual property rights), and Utility Tokens (potentially non-securities if used solely for governance and protocol functions).
The Knowledge Provenance Protocol (KPP) seeks inclusion in the SEC’s innovation exemption sandbox, proposing tailored disclosure requirements, DAO registration pathways, and investor protection mechanisms for scientific funding models.
The protocol incorporates GENIUS Act-compliant stablecoins for royalty payments, aligning with the federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins and ensuring compatibility with U.S. digital asset compliance standards.
Crypto Lending, Custody, Safe Harbor, Security Status
DeFi credit protocols that are non-custodial, over-collateralized, governed by open-source code, and not used for capital raising do not constitute investment contracts under Howey or notes under Reves, and thus fall outside federal securities laws.
DeFi lending transactions lack the essential hallmarks of securities: there is no common enterprise, no reliance on managerial efforts of others, and the transaction is a loan with expectation of interest, not profits.
DeFi lending protocols operate as automated, non-custodial systems facilitating credit intermediation, not capital formation, and forcing them into securities regulation would be a category error with negative consequences for innovation.
The letter urges the SEC to disclaim or clarify its BarnBridge DAO conclusions, arguing that smart‑contract pools—being software rather than legal persons—cannot “issue,” “sell,” or manage assets as required to qualify as investment companies under the Investment Company Act.
It requests clarification of what, if any, “securities” existed in BarnBridge, noting the order’s lack of analysis identifying which assets in the pools—including stablecoins and third‑party LP tokens—could lawfully be treated as “investment securities.”
It asks the SEC to confirm that EtherDelta is limited to its facts, emphasizing that its conclusions depended on Coburn’s unilateral control and do not apply to decentralized protocols lacking centralized custody, discretion, or governance authority.
Charlie Uchill, CERES Coin, LLC - CERES Whitepaper Sep 2025
The GENIUS Act (signed July 18, 2025) provides a statutory definition of "payment stablecoins" and explicitly excludes securities issued by SEC-registered investment companies under Section 8(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, allowing CERES Coin to operate as a compliant security and not as a payment stablecoin.
CERES Coin is SEC-registered and patent-protected, enabling unrestricted peer-to-peer transfers and yield generation, while remaining outside the scope of securities laws applicable to non-yield-bearing, 1:1 USD-backed stablecoins, as clarified by the SEC’s April 4, 2025 Statement on Stablecoins.
CERES Coin’s structure and SDVOSB certification (Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business) enhance eligibility for federal and state set-aside contracts, aligning with government-focused missions and compliance with federal procurement regulations.
Charlie Uchill, CERES Coin, LLC - Ceres Coin Yield Stripping
The yield-stripped derivative securities (SNAP Yield-Stripped Shares) are structured as a separate class of shares in a registered money market fund (MMF), qualifying as securities under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and explicitly excluded from the payment stablecoin definition under the GENIUS Act.
The structure leverages SEC Rule 18f-3 for multi-class funds and Rule 18f-4 for derivatives, ensuring compliance by allocating income via class-specific fees that absorb yield, maintaining $1 NAV stability and avoiding classification as a payment stablecoin or triggering OCC/PPSI requirements.
Implementation requires amending MMF registration, SEC filings, and board-approved allocation methods, with ongoing legal review and potential SEC no-action relief to justify class-specific fees as bona fide for services such as blockchain administration and fraud detection.
