@yerbearserker
Some perspective on yesterday's SEC/CFTC crypto classification release, because I think both the hype and the skepticism are missing pieces.
What makes this structurally different from past guidance:
The SEC and CFTC issued this jointly. Those two agencies have been fighting over crypto jurisdiction for years. Them aligning on a single document, with the CFTC agreeing to administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistent with these classifications, is new territory.
They named assets. Page 14 lists BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, DOGE and others as explicitly not securities. The SEC has never done that before. That's very hard to walk back and becomes exhibit A in any future defense.
It explicitly supersedes the 2019 staff framework that was the basis for most Gensler-era enforcement actions. The old weapon got replaced.
It's designated a "major rule" under the Congressional Review Act, giving it more institutional weight than typical guidance.
The caveats are real though. This is interpretation, not legislation. It hasn't been court-tested. A future administration could theoretically shift direction, which is why the Clarity Act still matters to harden this into law.
But dismissing this as "just guidance" misses that it's the most specific, jointly-issued regulatory position on crypto asset classification that's ever existed in the US.
The path is being drawn. It hasn't been paved yet. But the direction matters.
https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2026/33-11412.pdf
🏛️
That said... open to thoughts/feedback! What do you think about it?
cc: @nounishprof @adrienne @bradq @diviflyy @garrett @toadyhawk.eth @kylepatrick.eth @bribe