SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce: A New Era For Crypto In The U.S

The crypto industry stands at a historic inflection point. After years of regulatory hostility that drove innovation offshore and forced legitimate projects into legal gray zones, the Securities and Exchange Commission has executed a dramatic pivot in its approach to digital assets. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, long known as "Crypto Mom" for her dissenting views during the enforcement-heavy Gensler era, joined the Lightspeed podcast to discuss this transformation in unprecedented detail.

The conversation spans the full spectrum of regulatory challenges facing the industry: the SEC's renewed collaboration with the CFTC, the recent clarification that liquid staking tokens are not securities, the complex questions surrounding tokenized equities, and the critical window of opportunity facing builders who want to create lasting infrastructure on American soil. For Solana ecosystem participants, the implications are particularly significant given the previous regime's explicit targeting of SOL as a potential security.

Top Projects

Lulo

Score: 7,586.13

Bonk

Score: 4,806.12

Sphere

Score: 2,544.42

Moonwalk

Score: 2,026.11

The SEC's Role and Commissioner Peirce's Position

The Securities and Exchange Commission serves as the primary regulatory body overseeing American capital markets, with jurisdiction extending across stock exchanges, broker-dealers, investment advisors, mutual funds, and public company disclosures. The agency operates under a three-part mission: protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering orderly and efficient markets. These mandates have increasingly intersected with cryptocurrency as digital assets have grown from a niche technology into a significant component of global finance.

Commissioner Peirce has served at the SEC since 2018, positioning her as one of the longest-tenured voices in the ongoing debate over how securities laws should apply to digital assets. Throughout the previous administration's enforcement-heavy approach, she frequently issued dissenting opinions arguing that regulation by enforcement created uncertainty rather than clarity. Her role involves voting on all enforcement actions and rules the commission adopts, making her one of five commissioners who collectively determine the agency's direction.

"The last several years have not been particularly good for the relationship between the industry and the SEC, and so we're really trying to turn that around," Peirce explained. This acknowledgment of institutional failure represents a remarkable admission from a sitting commissioner and signals the depth of the regulatory reset currently underway.

The SEC-CFTC Relationship and Jurisdictional Clarity

The relationship between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has historically been characterized by jurisdictional tension, with overlapping mandates creating uncertainty about which regulator should oversee specific products and activities. This ambiguity has been particularly pronounced in crypto markets, where the classification of assets as securities versus commodities determines which agency has authority.

Peirce described the current collaborative environment as a deliberate effort to reproduce successful past partnerships. She pointed to her earlier work with former CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintens on security-based swaps as a model for the current approach. "We were able to work well together and try to bring our regimes into closer alignment," she noted. "I think that is the type of working relationship we're trying to reproduce here."

The announcement of a joint roundtable between the SEC and CFTC represents a tangible manifestation of this cooperative spirit. The two agencies have outlined priority questions including the regulatory treatment of perpetual futures and prediction markets—products that have become increasingly important in the Solana ecosystem and across DeFi more broadly.

"That's what the American people expect is for us to not fight over jurisdiction but to do what's best for the markets in the U.S.," Peirce stated, framing interagency cooperation as a public service obligation rather than a bureaucratic nicety.

Crypto's Evolution Beyond Peer-to-Peer Cash

When regulators first began examining cryptocurrency, the technology was primarily understood through the lens of Bitcoin's original vision: peer-to-peer electronic cash operating without centralized intermediaries. Today's crypto landscape bears little resemblance to that early conception, encompassing perpetual futures, prediction markets, lending protocols, and complex DeFi primitives that operate on globally distributed ledgers.

Solana, in particular, represents a departure from the Bitcoin model. As Peirce discussed, the Solana ecosystem explicitly aims to be the venue where "internet capital markets happen"—a vision that encompasses sophisticated financial instruments operating 24/7 across borders. This evolution creates new regulatory questions that existing frameworks struggle to address.

"As a regulator, my role is really not to say what people shouldn't buy and what products are good and not," Peirce explained when asked about these emerging product categories. "I do think it's fun to watch people innovating and developing new products that they think might be better than existing ones."

Her comments on prediction markets were particularly noteworthy: "As someone who believes strongly in this idea of dispersed knowledge across society, prediction markets are a way to pull together knowledge and put it in one place as people are weighing in on in prediction markets. And then you have some sense of where people are, right? And that can be very valuable information."

The Value of Crypto Twitter's Self-Correction

One of the more surprising revelations from the conversation was Peirce's positive assessment of crypto Twitter, the often chaotic social media ecosystem where projects promote themselves and communities engage in sometimes brutal competition. While acknowledging that the platform can devolve into unproductive hostility, she identified genuine value in the community's willingness to call out bad actors.

"One thing I do like about the crypto world is that people are willing to call each other out for those bad things," Peirce observed. "And so you do get a measure of self-correction that is in many ways more effective than regulation could be because regulation is just slower and it's maybe not as direct."

She specifically highlighted the competitive dynamics between different blockchain ecosystems as a healthy market mechanism. "There are people who like one chain versus another and they're fighting each other and they're telling each other that no, yours is too slow and yours isn't secure enough and yours is down all the time. And that's a good way of encouraging people to do a better job."

This perspective represents a notable departure from the regulatory paternalism that characterized the previous era, suggesting an openness to market-based quality assurance mechanisms alongside traditional oversight.

Peirce's Pet Peeve: Selective Government Weaponization

Beyond her observations about crypto Twitter's virtues, Peirce expressed frustration with a particular pattern she's observed in industry discourse. Many crypto participants who vocally oppose government intervention simultaneously demand regulatory action against competing projects or ecosystems they view as inferior or fraudulent.

"When it comes to whatever their particular favorite crypto asset is, but then when it comes to other crypto assets, they want the power of the government to come down and shut it down," she noted with evident exasperation. "Let's at least have the same view of everything, like either government is involved or it's not involved. It's not we're going to use government as a weapon against our opponents in the crypto world."

This observation cuts to the heart of philosophical inconsistencies that plague crypto discourse and suggests that the industry's relationship with regulation is more complicated than simple pro- or anti-government sentiment would suggest.

The Failure of Regulation by Enforcement

The previous SEC administration's approach to crypto regulation—characterized by former Chairman Gary Gensler's assertion that "the rules are clear" while simultaneously declining to provide workable compliance pathways—drew Peirce's sharpest criticism. She argued that this enforcement-first strategy systematically disadvantaged legitimate builders while failing to address actual fraud.

"What you saw in many instances happening with the prior regime is that the builders, the people trying to build good things, they're kind of out in the open right there for, for you to, to charge," Peirce explained. "And then the government comes in and brings an enforcement action to shut that project down. Whereas the one that went out there and put out a snazzy white paper and said, 'Hey, we're going to do all these great things. Give us your money.' And then they just run off with the money. They're not the ones who are getting charged."

This inversion of regulatory priorities—punishing builders while ignoring fraudsters—represented a fundamental dysfunction that Peirce argues drove innovation overseas and created perverse incentives throughout the industry.

The commissioner rejected any suggestion that the previous approach effectively protected investors through its restrictive nature. "I think it prevented more good projects than bad," she stated flatly, characterizing the enforcement-heavy era as a net negative for market integrity rather than a success story.

Enforcement Continues Against Actual Fraud

Peirce was careful to distinguish the new regulatory approach from a permissive anything-goes environment. While the SEC has dropped numerous high-profile cases against legitimate crypto companies, the agency continues to pursue enforcement actions against clear instances of fraud.

"It is not an anything goes world now," she emphasized. "While we are doing a 180 on crypto in the sense of we're not trying to use regulation, we're not trying to use enforcement to write regulations. And we're not trying to shut down people who are trying to build useful things for other people to use. We are still very much in the business of going after people who are using in the name of crypto to basically defraud other people."

The key shift involves jurisdictional precision. Under the previous administration, the SEC claimed expansive jurisdiction by characterizing nearly all crypto assets as securities. The current approach takes a more careful view, acknowledging that many fraudulent schemes involving crypto may fall outside securities law and should be referred to criminal authorities, state regulators, the CFTC, or other appropriate bodies.

"We can't go after every fraud because some of it is just not securities fraud," Peirce acknowledged. "So in that instance, we have to refer it to someone else, whether it's the criminal authorities, state authorities, or one of our fellow regulators."

The Wave of Dropped Enforcement Actions

The early months of the Trump administration saw the SEC dismiss a remarkable number of enforcement actions against crypto companies. The Coinbase case, which had become a focal point of industry opposition to the Gensler regime, was dropped along with actions against Binance, Ripple, Kraken, Helium, and numerous others.

For Solana ecosystem participants, these dismissals carry particular significance. The previous SEC regime had explicitly named SOL as a potential security in its complaints against major exchanges, leading to real consequences including Solana's delisting from Robinhood. The abandonment of these legal theories creates meaningful breathing room for the ecosystem.

Peirce described the decision-making process behind these dismissals: "When we started to say we want to take a more legally precise look at how the law interacts with crypto, some of the conclusion that you come to is that actually these theories don't work with the enforcement actions that we're pursuing."

She emphasized that each case receives individual consideration based on its specific facts and circumstances, pushing back against any suggestion of blanket immunity for crypto projects. The commissioner also defended SEC staff against industry criticism, noting that "we have a hard working and dedicated staff here at the SEC. They try to follow the direction of the commissioners."

The Crypto Task Force and Industry Engagement

The SEC's Crypto Task Force has become a primary vehicle for industry engagement, hosting meetings with projects ranging from Jito to numerous others seeking to understand the new regulatory landscape. Peirce described these sessions as essential for developing workable rules.

"Part of what we're trying to do with the meetings is really drill down and understand what are people trying to build. How would they ideally build it for commercial long-term viability if the rules weren't the barrier? How can we then construct the rules so they don't serve as a barrier?" she explained.

The meetings have revealed interesting patterns. Many industry participants, after years of hostile regulatory environment, were unprepared to articulate specific policy needs when finally given the opportunity. "I knew that we would get into the new administration and then I would say, 'Okay, now what do we need to do?' You said we needed new rules. You said you needed clarity. Where do you need clarity? Where are new rules?' People would be a bit unprepared for that because it's just been so depressing over the past several years."

This dynamic speaks to the psychological toll of regulatory uncertainty and the difficulty of pivoting from survival mode to strategic engagement with policymakers.

Tokenization: Promise and Complexity

Tokenized securities have emerged as one of the most discussed applications of blockchain technology, with proponents arguing that putting traditional assets on-chain can improve settlement times, reduce costs, and expand market access. Peirce's observations suggest the reality is considerably more complex.

"A lot of people thought, they're experimenting thinking, how can we get a traditional security onto on-chain and so somehow we want to tokenize it and there hasn't been a lot of really precise thinking about what exactly is someone getting when she's buying a token that is supposedly representative of a security," she noted.

The recent confusion around Robinhood's tokenization of OpenAI stock—which prompted a public clarification from OpenAI that they hadn't authorized the arrangement—illustrates the coordination challenges that remain unsolved.

Peirce issued a statement cautioning against assumptions that tokenization somehow changes the legal character of assets: "If you take something and you tokenize it and it's a security, you take a security, you tokenize it. It's likely still going to be a security and so you have to think about all the rules that might apply and it might be a different kind of security."

She highlighted specific risks including the potential for tokenized shares to transform into different security types like security-based swaps, or for investors to inadvertently purchase interests in SPV structures rather than the underlying assets they intended to acquire.

Tokenized Equities: Legitimate Questions

Beyond technical complexity, Peirce acknowledged that fundamental questions about the value proposition of tokenized equities deserve serious consideration. "The questions around what's the point are fair questions too," she said. "It may not be that tokenizing stock is the answer."

Liquidity fragmentation presents a particular concern. If tokenized versions of stocks trade in separate pools from their traditional counterparts, the result could be worse price discovery and wider spreads rather than improved market efficiency. "How are people going to treat the un-tokenized stock the same as the tokenized stock? Is it going to be one big liquidity pool or are we going to have this fragmentation? How is that going to be arbitrage?"

The commissioner also noted that tokenization discussions must account for existing market participants who aren't pursuing blockchain-based approaches. "We're obviously doing it with a recognition that there are people who are not planning to tokenize securities who want to make sure that there's no unfair on level playing field."

Despite these concerns, Peirce maintained an openness to experimentation. "I think my role as a regulator is just to enable people to try these things, to build the room for people to experiment. If it works, if there's a market demand for it, then to build a path to have a long-term regulatory solution."

The Liquid Staking Breakthrough

For Solana ecosystem participants, perhaps the most consequential regulatory development of recent months has been the SEC's clarification that liquid staking tokens are not securities. This determination removes a significant overhang that had threatened a core primitive of DeFi infrastructure.

"When you look at what it actually is, it's really a technical service as opposed to, of course, facts and circumstances matter," Peirce explained. "You can design anything so that it's a securities offering. If you're really offering just a technical liquid staking service, that just doesn't make sense to regulate that a securities product."

This clarification has immediate practical implications. The original spot Ethereum ETFs launched without staking capabilities, limiting their utility for investors who could achieve higher returns through direct holding. Now, staked versions of these products can move forward, and more exotic offerings like the Jito SOL ETF application become viable.

Peirce noted that fiduciary duty considerations may actually require fund managers to pursue staking where available. "A fiduciary managing one of those funds might believe it really should be maximizing the value for investors. Staking enables them to generate a higher yield."

The Window for Builders

Perhaps the most urgent message from the conversation was Peirce's call for immediate action from builders who have been waiting for regulatory clarity. With her own term uncertain and political dynamics unpredictable, she framed the current moment as a unique opportunity that may not last.

"This is your moment to build interesting things because if you don't build them now and if the administration changes and goes back to one that is more interested in shutting crypto down than in building an environment in which good actors can thrive, there's going to be nothing to stop that administration from shutting crypto down if there's nothing good there."

The statement carries significant weight coming from a sitting commissioner and reflects a clear-eyed assessment of regulatory risk. While legislation like the Genius Act and Clarity Act may provide more durable protections, nothing is guaranteed until bills become law and survive potential future challenges.

Peirce emphasized that demonstrating positive outcomes during the current permissive window may be essential for the industry's long-term regulatory treatment. "You want to make the case for your industry," she noted, suggesting that building legitimate, valuable infrastructure now could influence how future administrations approach crypto regardless of their initial inclinations.

Making Regulatory Progress Stick

The question of regulatory durability loomed throughout the conversation. Many in the crypto industry have expressed concern that progress under the current administration could be easily reversed by future leadership. Peirce addressed several mechanisms for creating more lasting change.

Legislative solutions offer the most robust protection. "Putting things into legislation does make it much more likely that they'll stick," she acknowledged. "And so I think that's why there's been such an effort to put the Genius Act out there and then to work on the Clarity Act and its companion work in the Senate."

Within the SEC's authority, formal rulemaking through notice-and-comment procedures creates more durable frameworks than staff statements or enforcement policy alone. "We're working toward more permanent types of documents. So that would be rule making, for example, where you're getting notice and comment from people and you're actually adopting a rule and that is more permanent as well."

However, Peirce was realistic about the limits of regulatory permanence. Even formal rules can be changed through subsequent administrations, and the industry's demonstrated ability to create value during the current window may matter as much as any institutional safeguard.

The Decentralization Dilemma

The previous regulatory regime created perverse incentives around decentralization. Projects that wanted to launch tokens while remaining compliant with ambiguous rules often engaged in what critics called "decentralization theater"—establishing offshore entities, restricting US access (trivially circumvented by VPNs), and structuring tokens to avoid any rights that might trigger securities classification.

"I think that is really well said, and that is one thing that happens when you have bad regulations," Peirce agreed. "People do a lot of work—there are a lot of lawyers that went into figuring this out, a lot of engineering to figure out how to build something that wasn't in the US, and as you said, decentralization theater."

The result was worst of all worlds: legitimate projects operated under significant legal uncertainty while fraudsters ignored the rules entirely, and investors received tokens with no meaningful governance rights or economic claims because attaching such rights would clearly trigger securities status.

Peirce expressed hope that clearer regulation would allow more organic decision-making about project structure. "I hope what we can do with a better regulatory structure is let people build in the way that makes sense for whatever problem they're trying to solve by building something."

She explicitly noted that not all projects should rush to decentralize: "Sometimes that's going to mean pieces of it are going to be centralized. Sometimes that's going to mean that you want to have a separate foundation entity, but maybe many times you'll decide that's not necessary."

Securities Status as a Choice, Not Just a Risk

One of the more nuanced points in the discussion concerned the potential for tokens to intentionally operate as securities if the regulatory framework made that viable. Under the previous regime, securities classification was something to be avoided at all costs because registration was effectively impossible and offered no workable pathway for crypto projects.

"Sometimes you're going to decide, you know what? I don't mind if this asset is a security," Peirce suggested. "I want it to have these rights to go along with it, which will make it a security. And that's OK, because now the SEC has designed a registration regime that actually works and that we can register this and we can sell it, or we can rely on an exemption from registration in the US."

This vision—where securities status becomes a legitimate option rather than a legal death sentence—would represent a fundamental shift in how crypto projects approach tokenomics and governance. Projects could offer meaningful economic rights and governance participation to token holders without fear of enforcement action, potentially creating more aligned incentives between teams and communities.

Centralization Concerns Persist

Throughout the conversation, Peirce returned repeatedly to concerns about recreating traditional financial system problems in new technological garments. FTX, the fraud that loomed largest over the previous regulatory era, was fundamentally a centralized exchange that exhibited failure modes that have plagued centralized intermediaries throughout financial history.

"It was a centralized entity. It was a centralized exchange. And it had exhibited problems that have existed with respect to centralized entities for centuries," Peirce observed. "And this is a lot of the reason why people wanted to come in and use the new technology to try to get rid of these centralized intermediaries because when you have centralized intermediaries, they sometimes take people's money, they sometimes are careless, and they sometimes have conflicts."

She cautioned that simply building crypto-native replacements for traditional intermediaries without addressing these structural risks misses a key promise of the technology. "If you just create a whole new set of centralized intermediaries, you will have another problem again in the future because that's what happens with centralized intermediaries."

This perspective aligns well with DeFi's philosophical foundations and suggests regulatory openness to genuinely decentralized protocols that eliminate or reduce intermediary risk rather than merely shifting it to new entities.

The Global Dimension

Crypto's borderless nature creates persistent regulatory challenges. Projects operating outside US jurisdiction can still reach American users through DeFi protocols, and the effectiveness of geographic restrictions depends on easily-circumvented technical controls like IP blocking or VPN detection.

"If things are happening overseas and they're flowing back to the US, that is also something that the issuer of those tokenized securities needs to be thinking about," Peirce noted. "There can be real legal considerations there."

The SEC's jurisdictional limitations also affect its ability to address fraud. When bad actors operate outside the United States, American regulators have limited tools regardless of which agency claims authority. This reality argues for focusing domestic regulatory resources on facilitating legitimate activity rather than attempting impossible enforcement against offshore operations.

Tax Considerations Remain Unresolved

While the SEC has made significant progress on securities law questions, other regulatory domains remain murky. Tax treatment of staking rewards, token swaps, and various DeFi activities continues to create compliance challenges that the SEC cannot address.

"The tax I can happily say is outside of my purview," Peirce acknowledged when asked about potential issues with tokenized equities. This limitation underscores that the current regulatory progress, while meaningful, addresses only one dimension of the legal uncertainty facing crypto participants.

Industry observers have noted that tax treatment may become particularly complex as tokenized securities proliferate, potentially creating scenarios where economically equivalent transactions receive different treatment depending on whether they involve traditional or tokenized instruments.

Peirce's Legacy Aspirations

The conversation concluded with reflection on Commissioner Peirce's goals for her remaining time at the SEC. Having indicated she will not seek another term, she faces the challenge of making progress durable despite the uncertainty of future leadership.

"I don't really care what people think about me particularly," she said when asked about her desired legacy. "I think what matters is that this institution has the opportunity to turn over a new leaf."

Her stated motivation for public service centers on the unique role American capital markets play in enabling entrepreneurship. "It's a way for people to be able to build businesses by drawing on money from investors who are not related to them. You don't have to know someone rich in order to build a good business in the US. You can go to the capital markets and people will give you money because they think your idea is good."

This vision of democratized access to capital aligns naturally with crypto's potential to reduce barriers to participation in financial systems—a connection that helps explain Peirce's longstanding support for regulatory approaches that enable rather than prohibit innovation.

Implications for Solana

The regulatory developments discussed throughout the conversation carry particular significance for the Solana ecosystem. The previous regime's explicit targeting of SOL as a potential security in major exchange lawsuits created existential uncertainty that affected everything from exchange listings to institutional adoption.

With those cases dismissed and the SEC's approach fundamentally reset, Solana projects can operate with significantly reduced legal risk. The liquid staking clarification enables protocols like Jito to grow without securities law concerns. The potential for staked SOL ETFs creates new channels for institutional capital to enter the ecosystem.

More broadly, Solana's positioning as infrastructure for "internet capital markets" becomes more viable in a regulatory environment that acknowledges the legitimacy of crypto innovation rather than treating it as presumptively fraudulent. The ecosystem's emphasis on speed, low costs, and real-world utility aligns with Peirce's stated preference for enabling builders who create genuine value.

The Path Forward

The crypto industry's regulatory environment has shifted more dramatically in the past year than at any point in its history. After nearly a decade of uncertainty, hostility, and enforcement-based rulemaking, there exists for the first time a serious pathway toward workable compliance frameworks that don't require geographic arbitrage or decentralization theater.

This window, as Commissioner Peirce emphasized, may be temporary. Political dynamics remain uncertain, and even sympathetic administrations eventually give way to successors with different priorities. The industry's response to this opportunity—whether it builds lasting infrastructure or squanders the moment on short-term speculation—may determine its regulatory treatment for decades to come.

For builders in the Solana ecosystem and across crypto more broadly, the message is clear: the time to create meaningful, valuable, compliant applications is now. The regulatory framework is more permissive than it has ever been, and demonstrating what can be built when legitimate innovation is allowed may be the most effective argument for maintaining that openness into the future.

Facts + Figures

• Commissioner Hester Peirce has served at the SEC since 2018, making her one of the longest-tenured commissioners during the crypto regulatory debates.

• The SEC operates under a three-part mission: protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering orderly and efficient markets.

• The SEC and CFTC have announced a joint roundtable to address jurisdictional questions around crypto assets, perpetual futures, and prediction markets.

• Under the new administration, the SEC has dropped enforcement actions against Coinbase, Binance, Ripple, Kraken, Helium, and numerous other crypto companies.

• The SEC has officially clarified that liquid staking tokens are not securities, removing a major regulatory overhang for DeFi protocols.

• Commissioner Peirce's term officially concluded in June but she can remain for an additional 18 months while a successor is sought.

• Peirce has indicated she will not seek another term at the SEC regardless of eligibility.

• The Genius Act and Clarity Act are identified as legislative efforts that could provide more durable regulatory protection than executive agency actions alone.

• Jito was mentioned as one of the earlier projects to meet with the SEC's Crypto Task Force regarding liquid staking.

• A Jito SOL ETF application has been filed, enabled by the recent liquid staking clarification.

• The original spot Ethereum ETFs launched without staking capabilities, limiting returns compared to direct holding.

• Robinhood's tokenization of OpenAI stock led to confusion when OpenAI publicly stated they had not authorized the arrangement.

• Five commissioners vote on all SEC enforcement actions and rules, with Peirce being one of those five voting members.

• The SEC cannot pursue all crypto fraud because some fraudulent schemes fall outside securities law jurisdiction and must be referred to criminal authorities, state regulators, or other federal agencies.

• Under the previous regime, SOL was explicitly named as a potential security in SEC complaints against major exchanges, leading to Solana's delisting from Robinhood.

Questions Answered

What is the SEC and what does it do?

The Securities and Exchange Commission is the federal agency responsible for overseeing American capital markets. It regulates stock exchanges, broker-dealers, investment advisors, mutual funds, and public company disclosures. The SEC operates under a three-part mission of protecting investors, facilitating capital formation, and fostering orderly and efficient markets. The agency is led by five commissioners who vote on all enforcement actions and rules. Their jurisdiction has increasingly intersected with cryptocurrency, though the extent of that intersection has been hotly debated.

Why did the SEC drop so many crypto enforcement actions?

The SEC dropped enforcement actions against companies like Coinbase, Binance, and Ripple because the new administration determined that the legal theories underlying those cases don't hold up under careful scrutiny. Commissioner Peirce explained that when the agency took "a more legally precise look at how the law interacts with crypto, some of the conclusion that you come to is that actually these theories don't work with the enforcement actions that we're pursuing." Each case was considered on its individual facts and circumstances rather than through blanket dismissal, but the pattern reflects a fundamental shift away from treating most crypto assets as presumptive securities.

Are liquid staking tokens securities?

According to the SEC's recent clarification, liquid staking tokens are not securities when offered as a technical service rather than an investment contract. Commissioner Peirce explained that "when you look at what it actually is, it's really a technical service" and that regulating such services as securities products "just doesn't make sense." However, she cautioned that facts and circumstances matter—"you can design anything so that it's a securities offering"—so projects must still ensure their specific implementation doesn't cross regulatory lines.

What should crypto builders do right now?

Commissioner Peirce issued an urgent call for builders to capitalize on the current regulatory window, which may not last. "This is your moment to build interesting things because if you don't build them now and if the administration changes and goes back to one that is more interested in shutting crypto down than in building an environment in which good actors can thrive, there's going to be nothing to stop that administration from shutting crypto down if there's nothing good there." Demonstrating value through legitimate, useful applications may be the most effective way to secure favorable regulatory treatment long-term.

How are tokenized securities treated by the SEC?

Tokenized securities remain securities regardless of the blockchain wrapper. Peirce cautioned against assuming tokenization changes legal character: "If you take something and you tokenize it and it's a security, you take a security, you tokenize it. It's likely still going to be a security." She also warned that tokenization might transform assets into different security types—a share of stock might become a security-based swap, or investors might actually be purchasing interests in an SPV rather than the underlying asset. The SEC encourages those interested in tokenization to engage directly with regulators to understand applicable requirements.

Will the new regulatory approach last?

Durability depends on multiple factors. Legislative solutions like the Genius Act and Clarity Act would provide stronger protection than executive agency actions alone. Formal rulemaking through notice-and-comment procedures creates more lasting frameworks than staff guidance. However, even formal rules can be changed by future administrations. Commissioner Peirce emphasized that the industry demonstrating positive outcomes during the current window may be essential for influencing how future administrations approach crypto regardless of their initial inclinations.

What is the relationship between the SEC and CFTC on crypto?

The SEC and CFTC have historically experienced jurisdictional tension over crypto assets, with the classification of assets as securities versus commodities determining which agency has authority. The current administrations at both agencies are pursuing closer collaboration, including an announced joint roundtable to address priority questions around perpetual futures and prediction markets. Commissioner Peirce described this as reproducing successful past partnerships and fulfilling public expectations that agencies "not fight over jurisdiction but do what's best for the markets in the U.S."

Does the SEC still pursue crypto fraud?

Yes, the SEC continues pursuing enforcement actions against actual fraud committed using crypto. Commissioner Peirce emphasized "it is not an anything goes world now" and that the agency remains "very much in the business of going after people who are using in the name of crypto to basically defraud other people." The key change involves jurisdictional precision—the SEC now acknowledges that some crypto fraud falls outside securities law and must be referred to criminal authorities, state regulators, or other federal agencies rather than being improperly claimed under securities jurisdiction.