SEC and CFTC release new regulatory framework, raising challenges to the legislative necessity of the CLARITY Act

Gate News reports that on March 18, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly issued an interpretive guidance document, systematically delineating the regulatory framework for digital assets. This move is seen by the market as a substantial alternative to the “Digital Asset Market Transparency Act” (CLARITY Act).

The document proposes a classification system for five types of tokens, including digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities, with only digital securities falling under securities regulation. Mainstream assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dogecoin are explicitly categorized as digital commodities, further reducing regulatory uncertainty.

Regarding the division of regulatory responsibilities, the new framework continues the previous contentious point: CFTC oversees the spot market for digital commodities, while the SEC regulates digital securities. Additionally, the guidance clarifies the compliance boundaries for activities such as staking, airdrops, and mining, and introduces the “add-on and separation” principle, providing a pathway for projects to transition from securities to non-securities.

Notably, the content overlaps significantly with the CLARITY Act, including token classification logic and the division of regulatory authority. Some market participants believe that regulators have already completed about 80% of the rule-making without legislation, reducing the urgency for the bill to pass. Analysts MartyParty and Ryan Adams, co-founders of Bankless, both point out that this guidance already covers the main functions of the bill.

However, the interpretive document has limitations. The CLARITY Act involves registration requirements for trading platforms, compliance frameworks for brokers, and anti-money laundering enforcement mechanisms, which are not yet included in the current guidance. Moreover, the guidance is not legally binding and may be adjusted due to policy changes in the future, whereas formal legislation would offer greater stability and enforceability.

Currently, the U.S. Congress is still debating key issues such as stablecoin yield mechanisms, and related legislation has been delayed. While the regulators’ proactive measures have alleviated industry uncertainty, whether they can serve as a long-term substitute for a legal framework remains to be seen.