Six major blockchain organizations have formally urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to clarify how digital‑asset classifications, staking activities, and secondary‑market trading fit within the agency’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework.
In a joint comment letter submitted on October 20, the industry signified its concern that ambiguous regulatory language is creating legal uncertainty for developers, token issuers, and market participants.
With the SEC’s public comment period now closed, the request shows the sector’s push for durable, binding rules that distinguish digital commodities from securities and provide clear guidance for staking‑related activities central to modern blockchain networks.
Coordinated Appeal for Regulatory Clarity
The joint letter was signed by six prominent blockchain organizations:
- Chainlink Labs
- Cardano Foundation
- Hedera
- Aptos Labs
- Ava Labs
- Stellar Development Foundation.
These entities represent networks behind LINK, ADA, HBAR, APT, AVAX, and XLM; tokens that collectively hold significant market value and play foundational roles in decentralized finance (DeFi), interoperability, and enterprise blockchain infrastructure.
Their request centers on a single theme: the need for explicit, binding regulatory definitions. The groups argue that the SEC’s current approach, which relies on interpretive guidance, footnotes, and staff commentary, forces developers and market participants to “guess” whether securities laws apply to their projects.
Uncertainty on regulatory interpretations, they contend, exposes innovators to unnecessary legal risk and discourages long‑term development in the United States.
The organizations specifically ask the SEC to embed the definition of “digital commodity” directly into the operative text of Regulation Crypto Assets framework, rather than leaving it in preambles or guidance documents that lack legal durability.
As AInvest notes, placing the definition in binding rule text would ensure that future SEC leadership cannot easily reinterpret or reverse the classification without undergoing formal rulemaking.
Why The Need to Define Digital Commodity?
The distinction between a digital commodity and a digital security is central to how tokens can be issued, traded, and used.
Digital commodities, such as those overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), can generally be traded freely on exchanges and do not carry the registration, disclosure, and resale restrictions associated with securities.
Digital securities, by contrast, fall under the SEC’s jurisdiction and are subject to stringent compliance requirements.
The six blockchain groups argue that without a clear, binding definition, token issuers and developers cannot reliably determine how their assets will be treated. Uncertainty will affect everything from treasury management to exchange listings to protocol upgrades.
The March 17 SEC‑CFTC joint guidance referenced several of the tokens tied to the letter, but only in a footnote; an indicator of regulatory thinking, but not a legally binding classification.
To networks with billions of dollars in circulating value, the stakes are high. It is estimated that more than $116 billion in market value is tied to tokens whose long‑term regulatory treatment depends on how the SEC finalizes its definitions.
Industry Responses and Diverging Views
The SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework has drawn more than 100 public comments from crypto firms, trade associations, legal scholars, and Wall Street institutions.
Ripple Labs submitted its own letter on the same day as the six‑party coalition, supporting the broader effort but focusing on refining existing classifications rather than challenging the rulemaking structure.
Meanwhile, the Hyperliquid Policy Center supported the proposal but argued that airdrops should be treated differently, noting that giveaways with no consideration should not qualify as securities transactions.
Other financial groups raised concerns about exemptions for token offerings, including startup fundraising limits and conditional safe‑harbor provisions.
The diversity of responses underscores the complexity of regulating digital assets and the competing priorities among industry stakeholders.
