Comment period for the SEC's "Crypto Asset Regulation" propo
The public comment period for the US SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets ended on Tuesday, with Bitwise and the Hyperliquid Policy Center submitting comment letters calling for clearer rules on whether tokens are subject to securities laws, airdrops, token buybacks, and secondary-market intermediaries; other commentators, including a former SEC enforcement official, argued that the proposal should be withdrawn.
Event Timeline
- [11-03 13:18] The comment period for the SEC’s Regulation Crypto Assets proposal closes today, with Bitwise and the Hyperliquid Policy Center submitting comments (PANews)
- [11-03 13:20] The comment period for the SEC’s Regulation Crypto Assets proposal has closed, with Bitwise and the Hyperliquid Policy Center submitting comments (Odaily Planet Daily)
Background and Impact
The public comment period for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets ended on Tuesday (November 3). Both PANews and Odaily Planet Daily reported that Bitwise and the Hyperliquid Policy Center have submitted comment letters jointly calling on the SEC to provide clearer rules on issues including whether tokens are subject to securities laws, airdrops, token buybacks, and secondary-market intermediaries.
The two institutions’ focuses do not completely overlap. In addition to the shared demands, the Hyperliquid Policy Center also called for making the proposed safe harbor more operable; Odaily Planet Daily’s wording was “improve the operability of the proposed safe harbor.” Meanwhile, other commentators, including a former SEC enforcement official, advocated withdrawing the proposal, a direction opposite to that of the parties submitting comment letters. This means that during the comment period there was not only one voice “calling for more detailed rules.”
The core of the disagreement is how the boundaries of the rules should be drawn. Whether tokens are subject to securities laws, how airdrops and token buybacks are characterized, and what obligations secondary-market intermediaries bear all directly affect trading platforms’ business design and compliance costs; if the safe harbor lacks operability, it will also be difficult for it to serve a transitional role. For ordinary users, these provisions will ultimately be reflected in the scope of tradable assets and product forms; regardless of whether users enter the market through Huobi HTX registration and APP download, Sesame Gate.io registration and APP download, or Bitget registration and APP download, or participate in trading through Binance registration and APP download or OKX registration and APP download, whether the rules are clear affects the types of assets they face and the level of information disclosure.
Currently, public information only shows that the comment period has closed and the contents of the above comment letters; there is no further disclosure on whether the SEC will absorb the relevant opinions or whether the proposal will be revised. The disagreement between commentators advocating withdrawal of the proposal and institutions calling for more detailed rules constitutes the main variable for observing the proposal’s subsequent direction.
Frequently Asked Questions
### Will the proposal take effect immediately after the comment period ends?
Existing reports do not disclose the SEC’s follow-up arrangements or timetable. What can be confirmed is only that the comment period ended on Tuesday, and that Bitwise, the Hyperliquid Policy Center, and others have submitted comment letters; whether the proposal will be revised still requires official information.
### What specific issues does this proposal involve?
The disclosed focuses include whether tokens are subject to securities laws, airdrops, token buybacks, and rules for secondary-market intermediaries; the Hyperliquid Policy Center additionally focuses on the operability of the proposed safe harbor, believing it needs to be easier to implement.
### What voices oppose the proposal?
The reports mention that other commentators, including a former SEC enforcement official, advocated withdrawing the proposal, a direction opposite to that of institutions calling for more detailed rules. Currently, public materials do not disclose specific details of their reasons for opposition.