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
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.
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.
John A. Zecca, Nasdaq, Inc.

Re: Nasdaq’s Crypto ETP Response to the February 21, 2025 Statement by Commissioner Hester Peirce Entitled “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here” 		Crypto ETPs, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Trading
  • Nasdaq supports a balanced framework that enables innovative crypto ETP offerings while maintaining regulatory safeguards to protect investors and market integrity.
  • Nasdaq urges the SEC to modernize its approach and support the development of the digital asset ecosystem on national securities exchanges along more consistent lines.
  • Nasdaq recommends that the SEC work with national securities exchanges and market participants to establish clear and consistent standards for evaluating crypto ETP proposals.
Jump Crypto

Re: Application of the Federal Securities Laws to the Digital Asset Market 		RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Trading
  • The SEC should clarify that most digital assets and digital-asset transactions are not investment contracts under current law.
  • The SEC should use its exemptive authority to make clear that digital assets and transactions without forward-looking contractual obligations are not subject to federal securities laws.
  • If a safe harbor is established, it should be based on the concept of "control" rather than ownership to determine the applicability of securities laws.
James Wigginton, Coalition for Cooperative Blockchain Organizations

Coalition for Cooperative Blockchain Organizations - Proposed Rulemaking - Non-Fungible Membership Interests 		Safe Harbor
  • A growing number of decentralized autonomous organizations use cooperatives or similar legal entities as a wrapper (e.g., Coinage Media, Collab.Land, Opolis, SporkDAO).
  • For decades, the Securities and Exchange Commission has treated non-transferable cooperative memberships and similar interests as non-securities (e.g., Green Bay Packers stock), but SEC regulations do not provide an explicit “safe harbor” for such membership interests, which means DAOs that issue non-fungible, non-transferable membership tokens must either obtain an SEC no-action letter with respect to the membership tokens or issue membership tokens subject to the risk of SEC enforcement.
  • The SEC rulemaking proposed herein would provide a “safe harbor” for non-transferable memberships that meet certain criteria.
CCI's Proof of Stake Alliance (POSA)

Re: Law and Policy Considerations Relevant to Staking Services 		Custody, RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Trading
  • Staking and Staking Services do not constitute securities transactions under federal securities laws, as they do not meet the criteria for investment contracts or notes.
  • The provision of Staking Services involves technical activities that secure blockchain networks and are compensated through protocol-defined rewards, not managerial efforts.
  • Regulatory clarity is requested to confirm that staking activities do not constitute the offer and sale of securities, which would help the industry flourish with U.S. participants.
     
Etherealize

Modernizing Transfer Agent Rules for U.S. Leadership in Tokenized Securities 		Custody, RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Tokenization
  • The memo urges the SEC to issue interpretive guidance clarifying that ancillary actors in decentralized blockchain systems are not considered transfer agents.
  • It recommends using the SEC's exemptive authority to create blockchain-based exemptions to existing transfer agent registration mandates.
  • The memo suggests exploring smart contract equivalency to fulfill specific transfer agent functions and establishing standards for blockchain record-keeping systems.
John A. Zecca, Nasdaq, Inc.

Re: What’s in a Name? A Stock by Any Other Name ... Nasdaq Inc.’s Response to “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here” 		Custody, Public Offerings, Regulatory Sandbox, RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Tokenization, Trading
  • The document emphasizes the need for a clear and predictable taxonomy for digital assets to ensure consistent regulation and avoid market distortions.
  • It advocates for a regulatory framework that balances innovation with investor protection, suggesting a light-touch regime for digital assets posing lower risks.
  • The document proposes the establishment of a temporary safe harbor for digital assets not yet clearly classified, allowing them to go to market quickly while pending definitive regulatory classification.
Lilya Tessler, Sidley Austin LLP on behalf of Ava Labs, Inc. and Owl Explains

RE: Asset-Based Classification; Decentralization; Regulatory Status of Technology Functions; Treatment of Infrastructure Providers 		RFI Responses, Safe Harbor, Security Status, Tokenization
  • The document proposes a high-level framework for token classification based on the nature of the asset, advocating for an asset-based approach to evaluating tokens under federal securities laws.
  • It explains why technology functions inherent to the operation of blockchains do not constitute or result in securities and why infrastructure providers on blockchain networks are not securities intermediaries.
  • The submission discusses the importance of regulatory clarity and consistency across different technologies and regulatory agencies, emphasizing that the nature of the asset should determine its legal and regulatory treatment.