Author｜Paul S. Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. SEC

Compiled by｜Aki from Wu Says Blockchain Aki

This article is a transcript of the conversation held by Chairman Atkins at ETHDenver on February 18, 2026.

Peirce: I am honored to share the stage with Chairman Atkins today. Before we start, I would like to remind everyone: my statements and his are personal expressions made in our respective official capacities and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Committee or other members. Chairman Atkins doesn't need much introduction, but I will briefly provide some background.

Mr. Atkins was sworn in as the 34th Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21 last year. Prior to returning to the SEC, Chairman Atkins' most recent position was as CEO of the consulting firm Patomak Global Partners, which he founded in 2009. Chairman Atkins served as a Commissioner at the SEC from 2002 to 2008; during his tenure, he advocated for transparency and consistency in regulation and promoted the application of cost-benefit analysis in institutional work.

Chairman Atkins began his career practicing law in New York, primarily handling a variety of corporate transactions for U.S. and foreign clients, including both public and private securities offerings, as well as mergers and acquisitions. He spent two and a half years based in his firm's Paris office and obtained the qualification of "conseil juridique" (legal advisor) in France. He is a member of the New York and Florida bar associations, holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from Vanderbilt University Law School, and an undergraduate degree (A.B., Phi Beta Kappa) from Wofford College (1980). Chairman Atkins was born in Lillington, North Carolina, and grew up in Tampa, Florida. He and his wife Sarah have three sons.

Here’s an interesting fact about Chairman Atkins: he is fluent in German and French. He might also be considering adding a new language to his repertoire. Chairman, have you thought about learning Solidity?

Atkins: Not necessary. Vibe coding is more than enough. Compared to the BASIC-PLUS and COBOL I used in college, this is a huge improvement.

Peirce: That makes sense, Chairman. But if your AI-generated smart contracts start claiming that "everything is a security," we might start questioning whether that’s an AI hallucination. A few years ago, if someone told me I would be sharing a stage with the SEC Chairman at a crypto conference, I would have thought they were talking nonsense. But here we are—let’s get to the point.

In the past year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under Chairman Atkins' leadership, as well as the phase led by Acting Chair Uyeda at the beginning of the year, has taken many initiatives to "clarify" crypto regulation, including:

Proactively soliciting and receiving written responses on a wide-ranging set of challenging questions covering various crypto topics;

Holding multiple in-depth roundtables on several specific issues, including: the definition of securities, trading, custody, tokenization, DeFi, and privacy; meeting numerous developers and builders at "Crypto Out" outreach events both offline in Washington, D.C., and online, as well as across the country;

Providing technical assistance to the United States Congress in advancing crypto legislation;

Launching a new collaboration initiative with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to establish a long-term foundation for regulatory coordination and cooperation in areas of mutual interest, including crypto; ending the practice of "regulation by enforcement";

Issuing multiple staff guidance documents and FAQs to help the market understand what the SEC staff considers within and outside its jurisdiction (covering issues like mining, staking, meme coins, stablecoins, etc.) and how regulated entities can comply with existing rules when engaging in crypto-related activities; abolishing some unhelpful staff guides, such as SAB 121;

Releasing a staff statement regarding broker-dealer custody of "crypto asset securities"; issuing an interdepartmental staff statement proposing a taxonomy for tokenized securities; approving generic listing standards for exchanges in regard to crypto ETPs (exchange-traded products);

Providing several projects with staff no-action letters, including tokenization and DePIN-related projects; and initiating rule design, exemptive relief, and committee interpretation processes to lay the groundwork for establishing a sustainable, stable regulatory framework.

Chairman, can you give us a preview of what progress we can expect in crypto regulation this year?

Atkins: We have a lot of work to move forward. In addition to maintaining communication on important legislative work being conducted in Congress, as you mentioned, we will also advance regulatory work through “Project Crypto.” This initiative is now being jointly developed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

As you all know, one of our own—Mike Selig—who was previously introduced to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, is now serving as the chief legal advisor for the Crypto Task Force in my office; he has since become the Chairman of the CFTC. We plan to advance a series of important issues together—regulatory coordination, joint rulemaking—creating an unprecedented collaborative regulatory path, especially considering the historical "crossfire" between these two agencies on regulatory boundaries.

For the SEC, I expect the Commission and staff will focus on the following matters in the coming weeks and months:

Framework documents at the Committee level: Explaining how we view crypto assets that may constitute "investment contracts" and thus fall under regulation. How is an investment contract formed? And how is it terminated?

Innovation exemptions: Allowing limited trading of certain tokenized securities on new platforms to explore and gradually shape a long-term regulatory framework in practice.

Rulemaking proposals: Establishing a more common-sense, workable path that enables market participants to raise funds in scenarios related to the sale of crypto assets.

No-action letters and exemptions: Providing further clarity, including addressing whether products like wallets and other user interfaces need to be registered under the Securities Exchange Act; clarifying provisions for those that do not constitute registration subjects.

Broker-dealer custody rulemaking: Initiating rulemaking pertaining to broker-dealer custody of "non-security crypto assets," including payment stablecoins.

Transfer agent modernization rulemaking: Promoting updates to the transfer agent system to accommodate the role that blockchain may play in record-keeping.

Supplemental guidance and no-action letters: Continuing to help market participants understand how existing rules apply in their specific factual circumstances through additional guidance and no-action letters.

Peirce: It sounds like there’s a considerable amount of work ahead, but for us "securities rule enthusiasts," this experience feels somewhat like participating in the Olympics—the level of excitement can rival the thrill of skiing down a slope at 80 miles per hour, performing high-level moves in mid-air, or completing a quadruple jump on ice before landing a backflip. While we are far from as "dramatic" as Olympic champions, we indeed have a rare opportunity: to revisit a myriad of complex regulatory issues in the context of this new technology. This task also requires some "air skills," and we do not wish to hurt or break anything—the only thing to break are unnecessary regulatory barriers that hinder technological advancement.

I want to take a moment to discuss "innovation exemptions." The expectations and concerns raised may need to be moderated. Indeed, the way people are currently talking about it reminds me of those buying abandoned lockers: they firmly believe that inside lies a rare masterpiece and a box filled with gold bars. Similarly, some are convinced that innovation exemptions can single-handedly resolve all their regulatory pain points.

On the other hand, some in traditional finance (TradFi) seem to believe that this soon-to-be-opened locker holds a monster that will devour the entire traditional financial system in a nasty manner. They worry that innovation exemptions will allow crypto companies to disregard all regulations. Both sides are likely to find that the innovation exemption will not be as "disruptive" as either side imagines. It will be an important step in enabling tokenized securities to integrate more smoothly into the existing financial system, but it will not change the entire financial system overnight.

What we are currently doing remains incremental—business as usual. The goal is to promote the absorption of new technologies by the system in a "naturally growing" manner: enhancing the system's vitality and resilience while enabling it to serve investors, businesses, and other capital users more effectively. Paul, please tell us specifically what you envision as an innovation exemption.

Atkins: I lean towards establishing an "innovation exemption" that allows both traditional financial participants and crypto-native entities to experiment within certain boundaries. For example, permitting market participants to trade certain tokenized securities through automated market makers (AMM), even if that mechanism may not have a "controlled" entity by a single person or group. In my view, as long as market participants have the intention, they should be able to interact with decentralized applications on a public, permissionless blockchain. However, I also anticipate that many Americans will prefer having intermediary institutions custody their assets and trade on their behalf. The choice of whether to use intermediaries should be made by individual investors, not decided by the SEC on their behalf. I also want to discuss whether a "safe harbor" should be provided for participants that may factually facilitate such transactions.

Specifically, I would like to explore how issuers intending to tokenize their securities can collaborate with transfer agents or other tokenization agents to carry out the tokenization, enabling transactions on-chain through AMM or other trading systems, environments, or platforms that provide decentralized liquidity. According to this potential pathway, the innovation exemption would place limits on trading volume and may grant exemptions from certain rules and other requirements within a defined scope—requirements that may not be relevant under the way this technology functions. Buyers and sellers of tokenized securities would need to go through a whitelisting process. This exemption would be temporary, but long enough for us to assess whether new rules need to be drafted or existing rules revised to allow such transactions to continue under appropriate conditions, allowing any relevant parties needing to complete registration to do so. I welcome feedback from all parties on this potential proposal.

Peirce: Thank you for giving us a "glimpse into the locker." No Picasso, but also no terrifying monster. Just a step-by-step approach from which market participants can learn and possibly help us move toward a "fit-for-purpose" long-term sustainable regulatory framework. Speaking of new things, you and I have seen some demonstrations showing us how these technologies (e.g., decentralized trading) operate. Was there anything you saw that impressed you?

Atkins: An interesting aspect of this technology is the ability to "embed" compliance requirements directly into the smart contract code. For example, a company’s founders could write their commitment not to resell their securities for a certain period directly into the smart contract managing the tokenized securities. Similarly, we can reimagine the communication between issuers and holders through blockchain. Furthermore, privacy-preserving technologies like zero-knowledge proofs could fundamentally change how we achieve the regulatory goals of the Bank Secrecy Act. In this model, Americans wouldn’t have to hand over their privacy unconditionally to financial institutions, and the compliance costs for these intermediaries would also be lower.

Peirce: That sounds promising. I have always been very concerned that financial surveillance is too deeply embedded in our financial system. Americans now have an opportunity to leverage new technologies to protect themselves from malefactors while also safeguarding our nation from adversarial threats. We should seize this moment to reemphasize the importance of financial privacy for the security of the American people.

Now let's talk about the "elephant in the room": how do you view the recent drop in crypto asset prices? Should regulatory attention be focused on this issue now? Should regulators be in a panic, or even care about the price drop?

Atkins: The role of regulators is not to worry about daily market fluctuations; our duty is to ensure that market participants receive the information needed to make informed investment decisions. Whether buying stocks, precious metals, or crypto assets, if a person's only focus is "numbers always go up," they will likely be disappointed. The market will rise and fall under the influence of many factors. The most important thing we can do as regulators is to ensure that the rule system for the asset classes we oversee allows market participants to obtain the necessary information, thus expressing their market judgments and sentiment through decisions on whether to buy relevant assets.

Peirce: I agree. "Number go down" is the current popular slogan, and some crypto critics are even "celebrating in the streets." In German, this reaction could be termed "Schadenfreude," roughly translated as "joy at another’s misfortune"—taking pleasure in the loss or destruction of others. Here, we might refer to their attitude as "Ethbelowthreeglee" (joy when Ethereum drops below three thousand) or "Bitcoinunderseventylevity" (lightness when Bitcoin drops below seventy thousand).

But the best response to these critics is not to hurriedly look for some regulatory change in hopes of getting "the numbers back up." Of course, providing clearer rules through legislation and regulation can help create a more favorable environment for building. But regulation is not the "source" of value emergence. You must create what people truly want and need. Only then can you garner broader support across the aisle in Washington—if people are indeed using something, the government will be less willing to take it away.

Chairman, could you share some lessons learned from your many years in capital markets on how innovators can effectively interact with the regulatory system and successfully advance compliance and innovation?

Atkins: I agree with your perspective: building useful things that people truly want and need in Washington speaks volumes. If this technology can be developed and applied thoughtfully, as securities gradually move onto the blockchain, it could have transformative effects on the financial system. For instance, asset tokenization could change the financial system as we know it by shortening settlement times, promoting the circulation of collateral and dividends, facilitating proxy voting, or making it easier for people to construct and manage "customized, decentralized" portfolios. We are ready to collaborate with those committed to building a better future.

I’m not inclined to repeat the often-ridiculed slogan of the last administration, but I do want to say: "Come in and talk to us." We are not going to show favoritism towards any specific asset or technology, nor will we become your advocate, but we hope our market can remain open to those offering new products and services. Our rule system should not become an obstacle to innovation—particularly when these innovations can further our regulatory goals of protecting investors, fostering capital formation, and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

Peirce: You’ve captured that balance well. We are not "cheerleaders" for any new asset or technology, but we want the market to welcome those with ideas and trying to improve market functioning. The SEC has not always been adequately friendly in the past. If regulation is done poorly, it can cause the American public to miss out on benefits they could have enjoyed.

For instance, in the past, we were unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with token issuers, leading to an unusual outcome: tokens that do not confer any substantive rights on their holders draw less negative regulatory attention than those that do. The consequence is that we now find ourselves in a world where most tokens do not grant their holders any rights.

I hope we can reach a stage where project developers no longer fear designing tokens that have a certain claim to income streams and therefore fall within the definition of securities. Paul, what conditions and changes do we need to realize the state where "people can confidently issue those tokens that naturally fall under securities laws"?

Atkins: We need to continue advancing what we are doing—providing clearer rules and pathways on how tokenized securities can interconnect with the existing regulatory framework, and how intermediaries can operate in compliance when representing clients in tokenized securities trading and custody. This work can only be done cooperatively; we welcome input from all parties, including crypto opponents caught up in "Schadenfreude."

I encourage everyone present to think about what attributes a token should possess to be genuinely useful to people; then work with us towards creating a regulatory framework that accommodates and supports these attributes without undermining our important regulatory objectives. Of course, this process will take time. Innovators do not have to wait for these changes to be fully implemented before they start building. While we engage in broader discussions to assess whether fundamental adjustments to the rule system are needed, communicating with us to see whether there are feasible compliance paths under existing rules based on your specific facts and business structures may be a necessary transitional step.

Peirce: Paul, you are known for your optimism even in tough times. Do you have any parting advice for the audience experiencing a challenging crypto market cycle?

Atkins: Keep your head down and build something truly important. This is how we can transform "Schadenfreude" into "Freudenfreude"—the joy we genuinely feel when others succeed. A bit of dark chocolate and Diet Coke might help too, but moderation is key with things like Celsius and Zyn.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。