Chainlink, Cardano, other blockchain groups push SEC for clearer crypto rules

The six organizations asked the SEC to recognize digital commodities formally as non-securities in its proposed crypto rules. Their goal is to make the legal category clear inside the Regulation Crypto Assets framework. They argue that guidance alone may not give market participants enough certainty.

The group includes Chainlink Labs, the Cardano Foundation, Hedera, Aptos Labs, Ava Labs and the Stellar Development Foundation. In an Oct. 20 letter, they said the SEC already recognizes digital commodities as a distinct category. However, they said the proposed rules do not clearly reflect that distinction.

The request matters because unclear categories can leave developers and other participants unsure which securities regulations apply. The groups also asked for clarity about secondary-market transactions, staking and other activities on decentralized networks. Their letter came as the SEC’s public consultation closed after roughly 140 comments over 60 days.

The article does not define digital commodity. In general usage, it means a digital asset whose main role is access, exchange or use within a blockchain network. It is commonly contrasted with a security, which is an investment instrument or arrangement that can give holders rights connected to an issuer or expected profits.

For example, a token used to pay network fees or help operate a blockchain may be treated as a digital commodity. A token sold mainly as an investment in a project’s future success could instead raise securities questions. The legal outcome depends on the asset’s design, sale and surrounding facts.

The six organizations say the SEC already recognizes digital commodities as a separate category. They want that distinction stated directly in the proposed framework. The article says the current proposal leaves uncertainty about which securities rules apply, including for developers and other market participants.

The SEC received roughly 140 public comments on its proposed crypto framework. The consultation lasted 60 days and closed Tuesday, according to the article. That response gives the agency a substantial range of views to consider before deciding how to develop the proposal.

The comments came from industry participants and legal scholars. They offered competing positions on proposed exemptions for crypto offerings and on a conditional safe harbor for certain tokens. These topics show that the consultation covered both market access and possible protections for some digital assets.

The number of comments does not itself determine the SEC’s final approach. It shows the breadth of participation during the public process. The article does not state what the SEC will do next, but the agency now has feedback alongside the blockchain groups’ request for clearer treatment of digital commodities, secondary trading and staking.

The blockchain groups argue that formal classification would reduce uncertainty by making the legal boundary explicit. They say the SEC’s interpretation already recognizes digital commodities as distinct from securities. But they believe the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets rules do not clearly carry that distinction into the regulatory text.

Their concern is practical. If the framework does not identify digital commodities clearly, developers and other market participants may not know whether securities regulations apply to their activities. The organizations therefore want the classification incorporated into the framework instead of relying only on interpretive guidance.

The issue remains part of a broader regulatory debate. The SEC received roughly 140 comments during its 60-day consultation, including competing views about crypto-offering exemptions and a conditional safe harbor for certain tokens. The groups also requested clarity on secondary-market transactions and staking.

The article identifies several crypto activities that could be affected by the SEC’s rules. These include secondary-market transactions involving digital assets, staking and other activities associated with decentralized blockchain networks. The groups say participants need clearer explanations of how securities laws apply in these settings.

Secondary-market transactions are trades that occur after an asset’s initial distribution, such as later buying and selling. Staking generally involves committing tokens to support or participate in a blockchain network. The article does not provide a detailed legal test for either activity, so their exact treatment remains unclear from the source.

The six organizations included these issues in their Oct. 20 letter. Their request came as the SEC’s public consultation ended after roughly 140 comments over 60 days. The proposed framework also includes debate over crypto-offering exemptions and a conditional safe harbor for certain tokens.

Whether crypto activity falls under securities laws matters because that choice determines which regulatory requirements govern the asset or transaction. Securities laws can impose rules around offerings, trading and market conduct. A different legal framework may use different definitions and obligations. The article does not detail those requirements, but it emphasizes the uncertainty created by unclear classification.

For example, a developer may need to know whether creating or distributing a token triggers securities regulations. An exchange or trader may need clarity about a secondary-market transaction. A network participant may also need to understand whether staking is covered. The groups say the proposed framework does not answer these questions clearly enough.

That uncertainty is why the organizations want digital commodities formally classified as non-securities. They argue that direct language in the framework would give market participants a clearer basis for planning. The SEC’s consultation drew roughly 140 comments, showing continued disagreement over the proposed approach.

The SEC is the US government agency responsible for administering and enforcing federal securities laws and overseeing securities markets. The article presents it as the agency developing the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework. Its classifications matter because they help determine whether securities rules apply to particular digital assets or activities.

For developers, classification can affect how tokens or blockchain projects are structured and offered. For exchanges, it can influence how digital assets and secondary-market trading are handled. For investors, it can shape the legal protections and information available around an asset. These practical effects are general regulatory context; the article itself focuses on uncertainty rather than listing specific duties.

The six organizations say digital commodities should be formally identified as non-securities. They argue that the SEC’s current proposal does not clearly reflect its existing distinction. The agency received roughly 140 comments over 60 days, including competing views on exemptions and a conditional safe harbor.