On May 12, 2025, Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), delivered a speech entitled "Keynote Address at the Crypto Task Force Roundtable on Tokenization" at the "Cryptocurrency Task Force Roundtable", detailing the new guidelines for the SEC's proposed regulation of crypto assets.

The full text of this speech has been published on the SEC official website. Interested friends can "click on the original text" to view it.

First, let me give you my personal interpretation.

The first question facing the SEC is to distinguish which tokens are securities and which are not.

The SEC will encourage the issuance of on-chain securities and will tailor regulatory standards for the crypto industry.

First of all, the SEC will optimize the registration and issuance rules for the crypto industry in the future, and will most likely simplify the registration process.

The current SEC registration process is not very suitable for the crypto industry. For example, the S-1 form still requires disclosure of detailed information on executive compensation and use of funds.

Personally, I speculate that the SEC's crypto registry in the future may be more like the form filled out by leading exchanges when listing coins, so that it can be seamlessly compatible with the industry.

Second, the SEC will review and expand the scope of “qualified custodians” and consider allowing more types of licensed institutions to hold digital assets for clients.

This may mean that in addition to traditional bank trusts, compliant crypto custody companies and even exchanges, as well as emerging institutions with appropriate qualifications, may be included in the category of qualified custodians.

This will be of great benefit to exchanges in carrying out various financial services businesses. Personally, I believe that banks will be severely impacted in the future.

Finally, at the trading level, the trading platforms for various securities and cryptocurrencies will become consistent. That is, exchanges can buy securities, and brokers can also buy various cryptocurrencies.

This will be a great boon to all kinds of coin-issuing projects (cutting leeks). As for how the competition between brokerages and exchanges will turn out in the end, I’m still looking forward to it.

The following is the full Chinese translation of SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins’ speech at the “Tokenization Roundtable” on May 12, 2025 (Keynote Speech at the Tokenization Roundtable):

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am honored to speak to you all at today’s tokenization roundtable. Thank you to everyone who participated in today’s discussion.

The topic we discuss this afternoon is timely as securities are increasingly moving from traditional (or “off-chain”) databases to blockchain-based (or “on-chain”) ledger systems.

This migration from off-chain to on-chain systems is like the evolution of audio recording from analog records to tapes to digital formats decades ago. After audio was encoded into a transferable, editable, and storable digital format, the music industry ushered in a huge wave of innovation. Freed from a fixed format, audio became interoperable between various devices and applications, and could be disassembled, reassembled, and programmed to form entirely new products. This also gave rise to new hardware devices and content streaming business models, greatly benefiting consumers and the U.S. economy.

Just as digital audio revolutionized the music industry, the migration of on-chain securities has the potential to reshape some of the ways in which securities markets operate, enabling entirely new models for issuing, trading, holding, and using securities. For example, on-chain securities can distribute dividends to shareholders regularly and transparently through smart contracts. Tokenization can also improve the efficiency of capital formation, transforming previously illiquid assets into more liquid investment opportunities. Blockchain technology carries the potential to inspire a variety of new use cases in the securities market, promoting the emergence of many new market activities that are not currently covered by traditional Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.

In order to realize President Trump’s vision of “making the United States a global crypto capital center,” the SEC must keep up with the pace of innovation and think about whether regulatory reforms are needed for on-chain securities and other crypto assets. Rules and regulations designed for off-chain securities may not be applicable to on-chain assets, but will inhibit the development of blockchain technology.

One of my key priorities during my presidency is to develop a rational and clear regulatory framework for the crypto-asset market, establishing clear institutional norms that cover the issuance, custody and trading of crypto-assets, while continuing to deter illegal behavior. Clear rules are essential to preventing fraudulent behavior and protecting investors - especially helping investors identify scams that do not comply with the law.

Today's SEC is different from the past. Future policymaking will no longer rely on ad hoc enforcement actions. Instead, the Commission will use its existing legislative powers, interpretation powers, and exemptions to develop truly "tailored" standards for market participants. The SEC's enforcement strategy will also return to the original intent of Congress, which is to combat violations of established obligations, especially in terms of fraud and manipulation.

This reform will require coordination across multiple offices and divisions within the Commission, so I am very pleased that Commissioner Uyeda has teamed up with Commissioner Peirce to form the Crypto Working Group. The SEC has long suffered from siloed policymaking. The Crypto Working Group is an example of how our various policy divisions can work together to quickly provide the public with much-needed clarity.

Next, I will explain the three core areas of crypto policy: issuance, custody, and trading.

1. Issuance

First, I hope the SEC will develop clear and reasonable guidelines for the issuance of crypto assets that constitute securities or investment contracts. Currently, only four crypto asset issuers have conducted registered offerings or completed offerings under Regulation A. Most issuers avoid these methods, in part because it is difficult to meet the relevant information disclosure requirements. When issuers do not intend to issue traditional securities (such as stocks, bonds, notes), they often find it difficult to determine whether their crypto assets constitute "securities" or whether they should be subject to investment contracts.

In the past few years, the SEC initially adopted an "ostrich-like" regulatory strategy - seemingly expecting the crypto sector to die on its own. It then turned to an enforcement-oriented regulation of "shoot first, ask questions later". During this period, the SEC claimed that it was willing to communicate with the intended registrants and "welcome to visit", but this was just a feint in reality. Because the SEC has not adjusted any registration forms for this new technology. For example, the S-1 form still requires disclosure of detailed information on executive compensation and use of funds, which may not be important in investment decisions in crypto assets. The SEC has previously modified disclosure forms for asset-backed securities, real estate investment trusts (REITs), etc., but despite the surge in investor interest in crypto assets in recent years, the SEC has never made similar adjustments to the crypto sector. We cannot force "square pegs into round holes" to encourage innovation.

I am committed to guiding the Commission on a new path. Commission staff recently issued a statement clarifying certain registration and disclosure obligations for offerings. The staff also further clarified their view that certain offerings and crypto assets are not subject to federal securities laws. I have asked them to continue to provide further clarification on other types of offerings and assets under my guidance. However, the current registration exemptions and safe harbors may not apply to certain types of crypto asset offerings. In my view, these staff statements can only be transitional. Formal action by the Commission is critical and necessary.

In the meantime, I have asked the Commission to evaluate whether additional guidance, registration exemptions, and safe harbors are needed to create a clear path for crypto-asset offerings in the U.S. I believe the securities laws give the Commission broad discretion to support the crypto industry, and I intend to advance that goal.

2. Custody

Second, I support giving registrants more choice in how they decide to custody crypto assets. Commission staff recently withdrew SAB 121, which removed a significant barrier for firms that wanted to provide custody services for crypto assets. The issuance of that bulletin was a serious mistake. Staff should not have overstepped their authority to make such a broad policy ruling without seeking public comment. The rule created unnecessary confusion and went far beyond the SEC’s authority in terms of impact.

Of course, simply repealing SAB 121 is not enough. The SEC should also do more to increase competition in the legal custody services market.

It is necessary to clarify what kind of custodian can be considered a "qualified custodian" under the (Investment Advisers Act) and (Investment Company Act); at the same time, reasonable exception mechanisms should be provided to accommodate certain common business practices in the crypto asset market. Many advisors and funds already have more advanced self-custody technology than traditional custodians, which can more safely keep crypto assets. Therefore, existing custody rules may need to be updated to allow self-custody under certain conditions.

Additionally, it may be necessary to repeal and replace the “special purpose broker-dealer” regime. Currently, only two such institutions are in operation because they are subject to overly restrictive restrictions. In fact, broker-dealers have never been explicitly prohibited from custodying non-security crypto assets or crypto asset securities, but the SEC may need to provide clarity on how customer protection rules and net capital requirements apply to such activities.

3. Trading

Third, I advocate allowing registered institutions to trade more types of products on their platforms based on market demand, rather than restricting them as the previous Commission did. For example, some brokers want to launch a "super app" that integrates securities and non-securities trading and other financial services. Even if a registered broker has alternative trading system (ATS) qualifications, there is no federal securities law provision prohibiting it from providing services including "pairs trading" between securities and non-securities.

I have asked staff to examine how to modernize ATS regulation to better accommodate the cryptoasset markets and to explore whether further guidance or rulemaking is needed to support the listing and trading of cryptoassets on national securities exchanges.

While the SEC and its staff develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets, securities market participants should not be forced to go overseas to implement blockchain innovation. I would like to explore whether conditional exemptive relief is available for registered and unregistered institutions that want to launch new products and services that are not yet compatible with existing regulations.

I very much look forward to working with my colleagues in President Trump’s administration and Congress to make the United States the best place to participate in the global cryptoasset markets.

Thank you for listening, and I look forward to the in-depth discussion to come.