The SEC's public comment period for Regulation Crypto Assets closed on October 20, 2026, with six blockchain organizations asking the agency to put its digital commodity classification into binding rule text. Their joint letter is now in the SEC's public comment file. No final rule has been adopted as of October 25.
The submission brings together Chainlink Labs, the Cardano Foundation, Hedera Hashgraph, Ava Labs, the Stellar Development Foundation and Aptos Labs. The SEC lists it as received on October 20. The request focuses on turning the SEC's existing interpretation into express provisions in the regulation.
Two fundraising exemptions, with conditions attached
The SEC issued the proposal on August 18, 2026, under File No. S7-2026-27 and Release No. 33-11434. Publication in the Federal Register followed on August 21. The proposed framework concerns certain investment contracts involving crypto assets, rather than treating every token as a security.
Under the startup exemption, an eligible issuer could raise up to $5 million over a four-year period. It would be a one-time exemption from Securities Act registration, accompanied by public filings at the start and end of the period and disclosures for investors.
A separate fundraising exemption would have two tiers: up to $20 million in a 12-month period under Tier 1, and up to $75 million under Tier 2. Offering materials would include narrative disclosures, financial information and financial statements. Tier 2 statements would require an audit, and issuers would face ongoing reporting obligations.
Registration relief would not remove the federal securities laws' antifraud and antimanipulation provisions. That distinction matters: the proposal offers conditional routes for raising capital, not a general exemption from accountability.
The safe harbor addresses when an investment contract ends
The third major component is an investment contract safe harbor. It would address an arrangement in which a crypto asset is not itself a security but has been sold subject to an investment contract.
To use the safe harbor, an issuer would have to complete or permanently stop the essential managerial efforts it had represented or promised to undertake. It also could not make, or intend to make, new promises of such efforts concerning the asset. A public filing would certify compliance and explain the basis for that conclusion.
If those conditions were met, the SEC would treat the covered investment contract as having ceased to exist. This proposed route concerns the relationship between an asset and promises made around it, rather than a token passing a simple test based on its name or technology.
What the joint letter wants written into the rules
The six organizations ask for a definition of digital commodity and an express statement that such an asset is not itself a security. They argue that the proposal discusses the classification in its explanatory material but leaves it out of the operative provisions.
They also seek a default presumption that a non-issuer's secondary sale of a digital commodity does not involve an investment contract when no outstanding issuer promises of essential managerial efforts remain. They want relief for the assets already identified in the March interpretation without requiring a transition report.
Another requested safeguard would make clear that using the safe harbor is voluntary and does not admit that an investment contract previously existed. The organizations present these changes as a way to reduce uncertainty for developers and market participants, not as a request to rewrite the March classification.
March's interpretation supplies the starting point
On March 17, 2026, the SEC issued an interpretation distinguishing digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities. It explained how a non-security crypto asset could become subject to an investment contract and later cease to be subject to it.
Its digital commodity category centers on assets whose characteristics and utility connect them to a functioning crypto system, with value driven by that system's operation and supply and demand rather than expected profits from others' essential managerial work. The interpretation separates the asset's status from the circumstances of a particular transaction involving it. The August proposal builds on that distinction.
Earlier letters show where implementation remains contested
Hedera filed a separate letter dated October 7, seeking clearer treatment of essential managerial efforts and stronger protection for issuers reasonably relying on the SEC's interpretation. It also questioned whether a transition report would serve any purpose for an asset already classified as a digital commodity.
Ava Labs, a developer of Avalanche technology, submitted a separate October 12 letter. The joint filing identifies that submission as a supplemental comment on functionality. These earlier submissions show that the debate extends beyond fundraising limits to the conditions for leaving an investment contract behind.
The deadline is past, but adoption has no announced date
The SEC must now consider the comment record as it determines its next steps. Its rulemaking guidance explains that feedback can lead to changes in a proposal; adoption, if it follows, requires a separate final release explaining the resulting rules.
As of October 25, the agency still lists Regulation Crypto Assets as a proposal and has announced no adoption timetable. The unresolved questions include whether it will add the requested digital commodity provisions, revise the safe harbor or change the offering conditions. Closing the comment period has not put any of the proposed exemptions into effect.