Author: imToken
Over the past few years, the most fundamental controversy in U.S. cryptocurrency regulation has always revolved around a foundational question: Are tokens securities?
Now, the answer has finally been settled.
Recently, from the SEC's introduction of the 'Token Safe Harbor' framework to the joint definition of 'digital commodities' with the CFTC, and further to the acceptance of crypto assets by traditional financial infrastructures such as the CFTC and the New York Stock Exchange, all signs indicate that U.S. regulators are systematically rewriting the rules of the game.
The most significant development came on March 17, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance on crypto assets, clarifying that digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment-type stablecoins (as defined by the GENIUS Act) are not securities. Only tokenized forms of traditional securities, referred to as digital securities, will be explicitly included under regulatory oversight.
This marks the end of the era of 'enforcement-based regulation' initiated by Gary Gensler, replaced by a clear institutional framework. It also means that the assets we hold are accelerating from the 'gray area' into the mainstream financial system.
1. Clarification of Identity: Tokens Are No Longer Presumed to Be 'Securities'
Objectively speaking, the 'Token Safe Harbor' framework recently issued by the SEC is highly consistent with the consistent statements made since the appointment of the new chairman, Paul Atkins.
With the SEC and CFTC clearly defining Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and 13 other mainstream tokens as 'digital commodities,' these assets will primarily fall under the jurisdiction of the CFTC rather than being governed by securities laws. This also marks the first time that the regulatory jurisdictions of the CFTC and SEC have been clearly delineated, removing the question of whether tokens are securities from the ambiguous gray area.
In the future, tokens and digital securities are likely to diverge into two completely different industry trajectories, with the SEC’s regulatory focus concentrating on 'tokenized forms of traditional securities.'
This effectively ends the gray area, eliminating the need for ambiguous Howey Tests to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a token qualifies as a security. Regulatory jurisdiction has now achieved a clear demarcation for the first time.
At the same time, the SEC raised an interesting point: investment contracts can be terminated as long as the project party fulfills its core obligations. Tokens may then no longer possess security attributes, indicating that in the future, being a security will no longer be a static label but rather something that evolves with the development stage of the project.
In short, projects may transition from being securities to non-securities or vice versa, moving between the regulatory scopes of the SEC and CFTC at different stages.
If defining identity is akin to confirming legal status, then the new initiatives by the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the CFTC represent tangible financial benefits.
On one hand, the NYSE has eliminated position limits for BTC/ETH ETF options, removing the cap of 25,000 contracts. On the other hand, the CFTC now permits BTC/ETH and stablecoins to be used as margin, with BTC/ETH valued at 80% of their market value and stablecoins at 98%.
Although this collateralization rate still falls short of the 90%-95% offered by exchanges (e.g., Binance’s BTC collateralization rate is 0.95, and stablecoins are generally 1:1), it marks a significant starting point. Traditional financial institutions and institutional players can now use crypto assets as margin for leverage and portfolio trading, facilitating their inclusion in asset allocation strategies.
The simultaneous occurrence of these two developments also indicates that Crypto is accelerating its integration into the traditional financial risk management system, expanding beyond being solely a trading asset to encompass additional functions such as collateral.
II. Acceleration of Global Stablecoin Regulation: Positioning as Payment Tools, Separating Yield Attributes
As the attributes of crypto assets become increasingly clear, regulators’ stance on stablecoins is becoming more precise.
Over the past two years, the narrative around stablecoins has continued to gain momentum, largely because they are no longer merely a medium of exchange but increasingly resemble on-chain dollar interfaces, settlement tools, and even, in some cases, quasi-savings or yield-generating accounts. This has heightened tensions between stablecoins and the traditional banking system.
Earlier this month, Reuters reported that discussions around amendments to the CLARITY Act in the United States had once again reached an impasse. One of the core contentious issues was whether users should be prohibited from earning returns simply by holding stablecoins. According to disclosed discussion content, the draft bill bans interest payments to consumers, but some versions still allow rewards or incentive arrangements tied to specific activities like payments or loyalty programs.
Precisely because this distinction still exists, the banking sector continues to exert pressure, arguing that even if it is a 'reward' rather than 'interest,' it could still materially draw funds away from deposits.
Against this backdrop, on March 24, Circle plummeted by about 20% during trading, while Coinbase also fell nearly 10%. From this perspective, the recent market reaction to the stock prices of stablecoin-related companies is not difficult to understand.
This should also be related to USDC’s strategy. Over the past period, USDC expanded rapidly, with a key approach being to compete for distribution channels among exchanges, platforms, and users through subsidies, profit-sharing, and incentives. If the path of earning returns through static holding is now blocked, those returns are unlikely to disappear but will likely shift to more complex structures, such as activity-based incentives, DeFi, RWA, or trading scenarios.
This is why, on the surface, restricting stablecoin returns may appear to be tightening, but from a deeper structural perspective, it may actually be reshaping the direction of the next round of return allocation. In the future, the truly competitive stablecoins may not necessarily be those offering the highest returns but could instead be the ones with the deepest liquidity, the broadest access, the strongest use cases, and the highest settlement efficiency.
In this sense, this regulatory change does not inherently disadvantage USDT, as its core competitiveness has long been rooted not in capturing market share by offering users deposit-like returns but rather in leveraging global liquidity, first-mover network effects, and extensive coverage capabilities.
On the contrary, if the model of earning returns simply by static holding is further squeezed in the future, then stablecoins that rely more heavily on subsidies and incentives to drive distribution will face greater adjustment pressures. Reuters also noted that banks are concerned that stablecoins could lead to deposit outflows, with some research predicting that the U.S. banking system could lose hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits by 2028. This precisely explains why regulators remain highly vigilant about yield-bearing stablecoins.
After all, what the U.S. currently desires in stablecoins is not an 'on-chain high-yield account' but rather an 'on-chain dollar interface'—one that can integrate into payments, clearing, cross-border flows, and financial infrastructure without directly becoming an alternative liability tool for the traditional banking system.
Third, the compliance of prediction markets: The cost of becoming a 'truth machine.'
While token classification and stablecoin regulation address issues of asset attributes, changes in prediction markets reflect regulators beginning to redefine the relationship between crypto and highly sensitive real-world events.
Over the past year, prediction market platforms like Polymarket have frequently gained attention during U.S. elections, macroeconomic data releases, and geopolitical events, leading more people to realize that prediction markets are not just on-chain entertainment akin to 'guessing games' but could represent a highly market-driven mechanism for aggregating information.
Michael Selig, Chairman of the U.S. CFTC, recently stated in a public speech that he hopes to combine prediction markets with blockchain technology to create a force against misinformation, distorted narratives, and financial exclusion. This statement has also been summarized by many as the idea that prediction markets can become a "truth machine."
However, the CFTC is in fact accelerating the inclusion of prediction markets and event contracts into key regulatory agendas. Once prediction markets begin to deeply intertwine with highly sensitive real-world events such as politics, sports, entertainment, warfare, and public policy, they cease to be merely pure information markets and quickly encounter issues like manipulation, insider trading, gambling boundaries, and misaligned incentives.
Precisely because of this, recent developments in this area have almost universally exhibited a common characteristic: acknowledging their value in information aggregation while accelerating the separation from scenarios most prone to problems.
For instance, Kalshi has publicly announced that it will prohibit political candidates from trading in markets related to their own campaigns and will also prevent athletes, coaches, referees, and other relevant individuals in professional and collegiate sports events from participating in trades related to their own events. Similarly, Polymarket updated its market integrity rules in March, explicitly prohibiting trading based on stolen information, illegally obtained data, or other improper information sources, while strengthening constraints against market manipulation and information abuse.
Objectively speaking, the logic behind these actions is becoming increasingly clear. If the betting volumes for a particular game, election, or policy outcome are sufficiently large, then theoretically, insiders, related parties, interest groups, and those with informational advantages will have stronger incentives to influence the outcome itself or engage in preemptive trading using undisclosed information.
The reason why sports and entertainment are particularly sensitive lies in their high frequency, mass appeal, emotion-driven nature, and the direct influence participants often have over outcomes. As a result, regulators are more likely to view them as "disguised gambling" rather than serious information markets.
Overall, the recent changes at the U.S. regulatory level are no longer simply about suppression or laissez-faire but represent a more systematic, layered, and structured rule reshaping:
The SEC no longer automatically considers Tokens as securities;
The CFTC and SEC have begun advancing clearer division of responsibilities and coordination;
BTC, ETH, and stablecoins are gradually being incorporated into options, margin, and risk management systems.
Stablecoins and prediction markets are being pushed towards two distinct paths: 'payment tools' and 'restricted information markets,' respectively.
In other words, Crypto is no longer treated as an ambiguous whole but is beginning to be broken down into different asset classes, functional interfaces, and real-world scenarios, each incorporated into their corresponding regulatory frameworks.
For users, this means a more predictable environment is taking shape; for the industry, it implies that the next phase of competition will no longer solely revolve around who tells a better story, but increasingly focus on who can better adapt to new institutional boundaries and integrate blockchain innovation into the traditional financial system.
The year 2026 may not mark the complete liberation of Crypto from regulation, but it is likely to become the year when it truly enters a phase of rule differentiation, value reassessment, and institutional alignment.
Editor/Rocky