Original Title: A Former SEC Chief Economist Analyzed How Tokenized Securities Can Benefit From DeFi
Original Authors: @milesjennings, @rstwalker and Aiden Slavin, a16z crypto
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: When regulators begin to actively promote "traditional securities on-chain," the question is no longer whether the technology is feasible, but whether the system is ready to keep up.
This article revolves around a key proposal: in the context of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) advancing the on-chain financial market, a16z and the DeFi Education Fund proposed a "Software Safe Harbor" framework, attempting to delineate regulatory boundaries for a new class of market participants—non-custodial, decentralized blockchain applications.
Its core logic is not complicated: If these applications are merely neutral software interfaces that do not control assets, do not execute trades, and do not provide advice, should they still be included in the regulatory framework of traditional brokerage firms?
The analysis by former SEC Chief Economist Craig Lewis provides a more structured answer to this question. He did not start from "whether regulation should be imposed," but rather returned to a more fundamental comparison: given the inherent high costs and opacity in the existing brokerage system, does the introduction of on-chain trading and automated settlement weaken the market or reconstruct its operation?
On one hand, atomic settlement, on-chain transparency, and 24/7 trading are redefining the efficiency boundaries of financial infrastructure; on the other hand, investor protection mechanisms, market fragmentation, and new types of risks are also emerging simultaneously. The real divergence does not lie in whether these risks exist, but in whether they already exist in another form within the traditional system, only long ignored.
From this perspective, the "Safe Harbor Proposal" resembles a type of institutional experiment: it seeks to open a limited but verifiable space for on-chain finance without completely overturning the existing regulatory framework. The key issue thus shifts from "whether to go on-chain" to "which aspects can go on-chain first."
If the past decade's crypto industry has been approaching traditional finance on a technical level, the next real variable may arise from how regulation redefines the boundaries of the role of "intermediaries."
Here is the original text:
Bringing traditional securities onto the blockchain is one of the core priorities of the current U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Commission recognizes the potential of tokenization, and under the leadership of Chairman Atkins, launched "Project Crypto" nine months ago, aimed at updating the rules and regulatory frameworks related to U.S. securities. Its goal is to drive the gradual migration of national financial markets onto the blockchain, thus achieving a series of advantages such as instant settlement, 24/7 trading, and lower costs.
However, to truly unlock the full potential of tokenized securities, innovators and investors still need clear "rules of the game," especially for blockchain applications that allow users to trade tokenized securities peer-to-peer without intermediaries.
Based on this, last August we, together with the DeFi Education Fund, submitted a "Software Safe Harbor" proposal to the SEC, clearly defining under what conditions these blockchain-based applications—as neutral software that allows users to interact with public blockchain networks and smart contract protocols—can be exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This proposal not only articulates how these applications create value for market participants but also explains how they align with the SEC's core mission in terms of protecting investors, maintaining market fairness and order, and promoting capital formation.
Today, Craig Lewis, a professor at Vanderbilt University, former SEC Chief Economist, and Director of the Economic and Risk Analysis Division, has officially submitted his economic analysis report on the "Software Safe Harbor" proposal to the SEC. Although Lewis's research focuses on the proposal itself, it more broadly assesses the economic costs and benefits of tokenized securities, providing important insights into how blockchain technology could reshape the traditional financial system. Although this study received funding support from a16z, Professor Lewis employed an independent and rigorous methodology in his assessment.
In his analysis, Lewis presented five major benefits that the Safe Harbor mechanism could unleash for compliant applications:
· Atomic settlement: Eliminating counterparty credit risk from delayed settlements and reducing systemic risk potential from central counterparty failures.
· On-chain transparency: Replacing opaque private ledger systems with publicly verifiable transaction records.
· 24/7 continuous trading: Breaking through the time and geographic limits of traditional exchanges, improving price discovery efficiency and liquidity.
· Substantial reduction in costs: Automating distribution of dividends, compliance processes, etc., through smart contracts. For example, research by Ripple and BCG indicates that tokenizing investment-grade bonds can reduce operational costs by 40% to 60%.
· Lowering barriers to entry: Attracting new developers into the market, creating competitive pressure on traditional financial institutions, promoting their innovation, ultimately benefiting users.
At the same time, Lewis also pointed out four types of potential costs that this proposal might bring:
· Investor protection might be weakened: For example, traditional brokerages can freeze assets or roll back transactions, while compliant applications are not designed to have this capability.
· Regulatory arbitrage risk: Some traditional institutions might attempt to transform into compliant applications to evade regulatory obligations, but the cost of their transformation might be high.
· Market fragmentation risk: Trading tokenized securities might further disperse market liquidity and transmit risks to the traditional financial system through DeFi leverage mechanisms. However, Lewis believes this should be assessed against the existing dark pool and over-the-counter trading systems.
· Retail trading cost issues: Risks such as gas fee fluctuations, slippage, and smart contract vulnerabilities, but these should be compared to the hidden costs in traditional finance. Meanwhile, DeFi fees are significantly declining, for instance, the Ethereum Dencun upgrade has reduced Layer 2 data costs by over 90%.
Lewis's analysis specifically limits itself to front-end applications that meet the Safe Harbor conditions and emphasizes that these applications are essentially "passive software interfaces," designed not to introduce the risks that the Securities Exchange Act aims to avoid. These conditions include:
· Non-custodial architecture
· No autonomous trading execution authority
· No marketing or investment advice
· Only connecting to truly decentralized (or working towards this direction) protocols
He further pointed out that the benchmark for comparison should not be some idealized market structure, but the current brokerage system—which includes many hidden costs, such as DTC fees, clearing and settlement fees, intermediary markups, and insurance buffers.
Ultimately, Lewis concluded: If the SEC formally evaluates these costs and benefits, it is likely to find that the Safe Harbor mechanism helps unlock the significant economic value inherent in tokenized securities.
As Chairman Atkins stated, tokenization "could reshape the financial system we know." The SEC has expressed its support for this direction through "Project Crypto," joint guidance documents, and other means.
However, to truly realize this vision, a clear and effective regulatory framework still needs to be established for blockchain applications that support peer-to-peer trading. This is precisely the goal of this Safe Harbor proposal, and Professor Lewis's analysis also indicates that its overall economic logic is highly persuasive—despite the trade-offs, the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.
Lewis has already outlined the path, and we look forward to the committee proceeding along this.
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。
