SEC Chairman Atkins Signals Major Crypto Policy Shift, Calls Previous Approach a ‘Missed Opportunity’

SEC Chairman Atkins has publicly characterized the agency’s previous approach to cryptocurrency regulation as a “big missed opportunity” and committed to “regaining momentum” on digital asset policy. These remarks—among the most significant from SEC leadership on crypto policy direction—suggest a potential departure from the enforcement-heavy approach that defined the previous administration.

For cryptocurrency exchanges, token issuers, DeFi protocols, and institutional investors, this statement raises immediate questions: What changes are coming? When? And what should market participants do in the meantime?

The short answer: Existing law remains fully in effect. But the policy window may be opening.

Key Takeaways

• Policy acknowledgment, not legal change: Chairman Atkins’ statement signals direction but does not modify existing securities law obligations. The Securities Act and Exchange Act apply to digital assets as before.
• Potential shift from enforcement to rulemaking: The “regaining momentum” language suggests movement toward constructive rulemaking rather than case-by-case enforcement.
• Pending enforcement actions remain active: Entities currently facing SEC enforcement should not assume automatic dismissal—formal settlements or policy changes are required.
• International competition recognized: The statement implicitly acknowledges that clearer frameworks in the EU, UK, and Singapore have created competitive pressure on U.S. markets.
• Monitor for concrete proposals: The coming weeks should reveal whether rhetoric translates into specific rulemaking, guidance, or enforcement policy changes.

What the Law Is Right Now

Before analyzing what may change, practitioners must understand what has not changed:

Securities registration requirements remain in effect. Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77e, prohibits offers or sales of securities without registration or an applicable exemption. Digital assets that constitute “investment contracts” under SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 301 (1946), remain subject to this requirement.

Exchange registration requirements remain in effect. Section 5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78e, prohibits operating as an exchange without registration. Platforms facilitating trading in digital asset securities face this requirement regardless of policy statements.

Anti-fraud provisions apply regardless. Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), together with Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, prohibit fraud in connection with securities. These provisions will remain applicable even if registration requirements are modified.

Pending enforcement actions continue. SEC enforcement matters currently in litigation or investigation are not automatically affected by policy statements. Formal settlement, dismissal, or withdrawal is required to resolve such matters.

Context: The Enforcement-First Era

Chairman Atkins’ characterization of the prior approach as a “missed opportunity” directly references the enforcement-centric strategy pursued under former Chairman Gary Gensler. [Note: Verify Gensler’s exact tenure dates before publication.]

Under that approach, the SEC applied the Howey test to digital assets primarily through enforcement actions rather than prospective rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553. The agency’s position—articulated by Gensler in public statements—was that existing law provided sufficient clarity and that most crypto tokens were securities requiring registration.

This approach generated notable judicial decisions with mixed results:

• In SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20-cv-10832 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), Judge Torres held that XRP sales to institutional investors constituted securities transactions, but that programmatic sales on exchanges did not—a partial victory for the defendant that highlighted the difficulty of applying Howey to secondary market trading.
• Multiple enforcement actions against exchanges alleged operation of unregistered securities exchanges, with varying procedural postures.
• Actions against staking and lending services raised questions about whether yield-generating crypto products constitute securities.

The result was legal uncertainty. Market participants faced potential securities law liability without clear guidance on which assets required registration or how compliance could be achieved. Commissioner Hester Peirce repeatedly criticized this approach, calling for safe harbors and clearer rules. Commissioner Mark Uyeda questioned the fairness of enforcement without prior guidance.

What ‘Regaining Momentum’ May Mean

Chairman Atkins’ commitment to “regaining momentum” could manifest in several ways. None have been formally announced, but the following represent plausible policy directions based on the statement and prior reform proposals:

Formal Rulemaking

The SEC has statutory authority to promulgate rules under both the Securities Act and Exchange Act. Rulemaking would proceed under APA notice-and-comment procedures, 5 U.S.C. § 553, providing opportunity for industry input and creating binding legal standards.

Potential rulemaking areas include:

• Token safe harbors: Rules providing conditional exemptions from registration for token distributions meeting specified criteria. Commissioner Peirce previously proposed a “Token Safe Harbor” in 2020 (revised 2021) that would provide a three-year grace period for network development. [Note: Verify current status of any pending safe harbor proposals.]
• Digital asset exchange registration: Tailored registration requirements for trading platforms handling digital assets, potentially distinct from legacy equity exchange rules under Regulation ATS, 17 C.F.R. § 242.300 et seq.
• Custody standards: Rules addressing qualified custodian requirements for digital assets, potentially modifying the application of Rule 206(4)-2 under the Investment Advisers Act, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2.

Staff Guidance and No-Action Relief

Before or alongside formal rulemaking, SEC staff can provide interpretive guidance or no-action letters offering practical compliance paths. The Division of Corporation Finance previously issued a “Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets” in April 2019, though this staff guidance was non-binding and left significant questions unresolved.

A more active no-action letter process—which was largely dormant for crypto applications under the prior administration—could provide near-term clarity for specific business models.

Enforcement Policy Modifications

The Division of Enforcement exercises discretion in case selection, charging decisions, and settlement terms. Without any formal rulemaking, a policy shift could result in:

• Withdrawal or settlement of pending actions on favorable terms
• Reduced pursuit of novel legal theories not previously addressed in guidance
• Emphasis on prospective compliance rather than retrospective penalties
• Coordination with the CFTC on jurisdictional boundaries

The CFTC Factor

Any comprehensive crypto regulatory framework must address the jurisdictional relationship between the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC has jurisdiction over commodity derivatives and, under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., has claimed that Bitcoin and Ether are commodities subject to its anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority.

Chairman Atkins’ statement did not address CFTC coordination, but “regaining momentum” on crypto policy will necessarily require resolving—or at least clarifying—the boundary between securities (SEC) and commodities (CFTC) jurisdiction. Legislative proposals such as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), which passed the House in 2024, have attempted to provide statutory clarity on this division. [Note: Verify current status of FIT21 or successor legislation.]

International Competitive Pressure

The “missed opportunity” framing suggests awareness of international regulatory competition. While the U.S. pursued enforcement without clear rules, other jurisdictions established comprehensive frameworks:

European Union: The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, establishes licensing requirements for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) and rules for stablecoin issuers. MiCA provides legal certainty for EU-licensed entities unavailable under the U.S. enforcement-based regime.

United Kingdom: The Financial Conduct Authority regulates cryptoassets under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended), with specific registration requirements for crypto businesses.

Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore licenses digital payment token service providers under the Payment Services Act 2019, providing a clear regulatory pathway.

This regulatory divergence has created arbitrage opportunities, with some projects establishing primary operations outside the U.S. to access clear compliance frameworks while limiting U.S. market exposure.

Practical Implications

Given the current state of policy transition, market participants should consider the following:

For Token Issuers

• Continue Howey analysis: Conduct thorough securities law analysis before any token distribution. Policy statements do not eliminate existing registration requirements.
• Document compliance efforts: Maintain records demonstrating good-faith efforts to comply with securities laws. Such documentation may be relevant in any future enforcement context or if amnesty-style relief becomes available.
• Monitor safe harbor proposals: If formal safe harbor rulemaking proceeds, early engagement with the comment process may influence final rules.

For Exchanges and Trading Platforms

• Maintain current compliance programs: Do not relax compliance based on policy statements. Exchange Act registration requirements remain in effect.
• Evaluate registration paths: If tailored exchange registration frameworks emerge, early preparation may provide competitive advantage.
• Monitor enforcement settlements: Settlement terms in pending exchange enforcement actions may signal acceptable compliance structures.

For DeFi Protocols

• Legal uncertainty persists: Neither the prior administration nor the current one has provided clear guidance on how securities laws apply to decentralized protocols. This remains a significant gap.
• Governance structures matter: The degree of decentralization may affect Howey analysis, but no bright-line rules exist.

For Institutional Investors

• Custody remains a challenge: Qualified custodian requirements under the Investment Advisers Act continue to limit institutional digital asset investment pending rule modification.
• ETF developments: Monitor for changes in SEC posture toward spot crypto ETF applications beyond Bitcoin.

For Entities in Pending Enforcement

• Do not assume dismissal: Policy statements do not automatically resolve pending matters.
• Evaluate settlement posture: Changed enforcement philosophy may create settlement opportunities—but requires negotiation.
• Preserve all defenses: Continue vigorous defense while exploring resolution possibilities.

What to Monitor

In the coming weeks and months, watch for:

• SEC open meeting agendas: Formal rulemaking proposals appear on Commission meeting agendas
• Commissioner speeches: Remarks from Commissioners Peirce, Uyeda, and new appointees elaborating on policy
• Staff bulletins: Division of Corporation Finance and Division of Trading and Markets guidance
• Enforcement announcements: Settlements, dismissals, or charging decision patterns
• Congressional hearings: Oversight hearings that may reveal policy direction or legislative coordination
• CFTC statements: Chairman and Commissioner remarks on coordination with SEC

Conclusion

Chairman Atkins’ acknowledgment of a “missed opportunity” represents a significant rhetorical break from the SEC’s prior crypto enforcement posture. For market participants who have long sought regulatory clarity, the statement offers reason for measured optimism.

But rhetoric is not law. The Securities Act and Exchange Act remain in effect. Howey remains the governing test. Pending enforcement actions remain pending. Until formal rulemaking, staff guidance, or enforcement policy changes create binding legal frameworks, compliance obligations are unchanged.

The policy window may be opening. Practitioners should watch closely—and maintain compliance programs until it does.

---

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and regulations in the cryptocurrency space change rapidly—consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation and jurisdiction. Seth Goettelman is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin and Florida.