US Crypto Policy Tracker: Regulatory Developments

On April 13, 2026, the Staff of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets (Staff) issued a statement (the Statement) addressing the broker-dealer registration requirements under Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) with respect to persons that create, offer, or operate certain interfaces “designed to assist users” in cryptoasset securities (Covered User Interface Providers). Under the conditions specified, the Staff will not object to a Covered User Interface Provider operating without broker-dealer registration. The Statement applies to persons who create, offer, or operate websites or downloadable wallet software, but does not address persons who create, offer, or operate custodial wallets that control users’ private keys.

In addition to establishing the conditions, the Statement makes clear that relief would not extend to Covered User Interface Providers that engage in, or hold themselves out as providing, certain services with respect to securities (including cryptoasset securities) that have been historically linked to broker-dealers.

While permitting transaction-based compensation for unregistered broker-dealers is significant (the second such instance after the 2014 M&A broker no-action letter), the highly prescriptive nature of the relief in this case may limit its practical utility and may render full compliance difficult for many interfaces.

Importantly, the Statement is limited to broker-dealer registration under Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. It does not address whether any provider, connected trading venue, or distributed ledger trading system could constitute an “exchange” under Section 3(a)(1) or an alternative trading system under Regulation ATS, nor does it address other potential obligations or liabilities under the federal securities laws.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 17, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission), joined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), issued a comprehensive interpretation (the Interpretive Release) clarifying how federal securities laws apply to cryptoassets and transactions involving cryptoassets.

The Interpretive Release is the first major SEC statement following the SEC-CFTC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on March 11, 2026, which established a framework for coordination on issues of shared regulatory concern and committed both agencies to “clarify, coordinate, and harmonize” policies, including “providing a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for crypto assets” (see this Latham blog post). The Interpretive Release is clear evidence of the regulatory cooperation embodied in the MOU. CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig specifically endorsed the Interpretive Release, stating that “The CFTC joined the interpretation to provide guidance the CFTC and its staff will administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistent with the SEC’s interpretation.”

The Commission classifies cryptoassets into five categories based on their characteristics, uses, and functions:

• Digital Commodities are cryptoassets that are integral to, and derive their value from, the operation of a “functional” crypto system and from supply and demand dynamics, rather than from expected profits based on the essential managerial efforts of others. Although it typically conveys to holders certain technical or governance rights with respect to the associated functional crypto system, a digital commodity is not a security because “it does not have the economic characteristics of a security.”
• Digital Collectibles are cryptoassets designed to be collected and may represent artwork, music, videos, trading cards, in-game items, or references to internet memes and trends. Meme coins fall within this category; the Commission states that they typically are acquired for artistic, entertainment, social, or cultural purposes, with value driven by supply and demand rather than any essential managerial efforts of others. Therefore, “A digital collectible itself … is not a security because it does not have the economic characteristics of a security.”
• Digital Tools perform practical functions such as memberships, tickets, credentials, or identity badges. They are often non-transferable and derive value from their functional utility. A digital tool itself is not a security because it “does not have intrinsic economic properties or rights, such as generating a passive yield or conveying rights to future income, profits, or assets of a business enterprise or other entity, promisor, or obligor.”
• Stablecoins are designed to maintain a stable value relative to a reference asset. Payment stablecoins issued by permitted payment stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act are categorically not securities by operation of statute. The Commission affirms that “Covered Stablecoins,” as described in a prior SEC Staff statement, do not involve the offer and sale of securities. Thus, the SEC’s relief is broader than the GENIUS Act definition, which limits reserves to specified investments and requires issuers to be licensed by federal or state regulators.
• Digital Securities are financial instruments enumerated in the definition of “security” that are formatted as or represented by a cryptoasset. “A security is a security regardless of whether it is issued, or otherwise represented, offchain or onchain.”

Investment Contracts and the Howey Test: Perhaps the most consequential element of the Interpretive Release addresses when a non-security cryptoasset becomes subject to an investment contract and therefore a security under the federal securities laws and, critically, when it ceases to be subject to one. A non-security cryptoasset becomes subject to an investment contract “when an issuer offers it by inducing an investment of money in a common enterprise with representations or promises to undertake essential managerial efforts from which a purchaser would reasonably expect to derive profits.” According to the SEC, the reasonableness of such expectations depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The SEC elaborates that “representations or promises are more likely to create reasonable expectations of profit when they are explicit and unambiguous as to the essential managerial efforts to be undertaken by the issuer, contain sufficient details demonstrating the issuer’s ability to implement the proposed project, and explain how the issuer’s efforts will produce the profits that purchasers reasonably expect.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 11, 2026, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul S. Atkins and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael S. Selig signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide coordination and collaboration on issues of shared regulatory concern. The MOU reflects both agencies’ stated commitment to provide fair notice to market participants, respect individual liberty, and foster lawful innovation with a “minimum effective dose” of regulation that promotes innovation, strengthens market integrity, and enhances US competitiveness in global finance. The MOU is the culmination of recent Project Crypto announcements by Chairman Atkins and Chairman Selig, indicating increased SEC/CFTC collaboration and the reduction of duplicative oversight, most notably regarding digital asset markets.

The MOU identifies six core areas where the agencies will clarify, coordinate, and harmonize their regulatory approaches:

• Issuing joint interpretations and rulemakings to clarify product definitions
• Modernizing frameworks for clearing, margin, and collateral
• Reducing frictions for dually registered exchanges, trading venues, and intermediaries
• Developing a “fit-for-purpose regulatory framework” for digital assets and emerging technologies
• Streamlining regulatory reporting for trade data, funds, and intermediaries
• Coordinating cross-market examinations, economic analyses, risk monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On January 28, 2026, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Investment Management, and Division of Trading and Markets (collectively, the Staff) issued a statement setting forth a basic taxonomy of tokenized securities. The Tokenization Statement elaborates on the “Token Taxonomy” set forth by SEC Chair Paul S. Atkins in a November 2025 speech, and reiterates the principle he expressed that “[s]ecurities, however represented, remain securities… [and] economic reality trumps labels.”

According to the Staff, securities can either be tokenized by or on behalf of the issuers of such securities or by third parties unaffiliated with the issuers of such securities using either a custodial or synthetic model. Each model “var[ies] in terms of structure and the rights afforded to holders.”

The Tokenization Statement “is intended to assist market participants as they seek to comply with the federal securities laws and prepare to submit any necessary registrations, proposals, or requests for appropriate action to the Commission or its staff.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 17, 2025, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a statement on the application of the “possession” requirements of Rule 15c3-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Customer Protection Rule) to fully paid and excess margin digital asset securities. Building on the May 2025 withdrawal of the 2019 Joint Statement and publication of the Crypto FAQs, the Staff provided further clarity in the 2025 Crypto Custody Statement, specifically concerning the “physical possession” prong of paragraph (b)(1) of the Customer Protection Rule. The Staff highlighted five circumstances under which it “will not object to a broker-dealer deeming itself to have ‘physical possession’ of the crypto asset security carried for the account of customers as set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c3-3.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 11, 2025, the SEC Division of Trading and Markets issued a no-action letter (NAL) stating that it would not recommend enforcement against the Depository Trust Company (DTC) under the applicable securities laws if DTC operates a tightly scoped, three-year pilot to tokenize DTC-custodied assets on supported blockchains as proposed in DTC’s request letter (the Request). DTC aims to launch the pilot in the second half of 2026, and the NAL expires automatically three years after launch (and may be modified or revoked by the Staff at any time). The NAL “is based strictly on the facts and circumstances discussed in the Request, and any different facts or circumstances might require a different response.” As such, the no-action relief applies only to the “Preliminary Base Version” of the DTC’s tokenization pilot program, as described in the Request.

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, leader of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, issued a statement in support of the NAL.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog

On November 12, 2025, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul Atkins delivered a significant speech about digital assets at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Ninth Annual Fintech Conference. In the speech, Chair Atkins shared his views on digital assets emerging from Project Crypto, including the potential establishment of a “token taxonomy” based in existing securities laws and the application of the Howey test to digital assets. According to Chair Atkins, the SEC will pursue a clear, practical framework for digital assets that aligns with the Howey test and recognizes limiting principles on the SEC’s jurisdiction.

He highlighted four types of digital assets (while noting that the list is non-exhaustive):

• Digital commodities or network tokens: Digital assets that are intrinsically linked to and derive their value from a programmatic operation of a functional and decentralized blockchain network
• Digital collectibles: Digital assets that are designed to be collected, such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs)
• Digital tools: Digital assets that perform a practical function, such as tickets or credentials
• Tokenized securities: Digital assets that represent the ownership of a financial instrument outlined in the definition of “security” in the Securities Act of 1933

Of these four types of digital assets, Chair Atkins stated that only tokenized securities are securities, underpinning his assertion that “most crypto tokens trading today are not themselves securities.” While he previewed this position in in a speech he delivered in July 2025 at the America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., it is a notable pivot from the previous SEC Chair’s approach of treating nearly all digital assets as securities falling within the SEC’s jurisdiction.

On November 24, 2025, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a no-action letter (NAL) stating that it would not recommend enforcement against Fuse Crypto Limited or its Fuse Token under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Furthermore, Fuse will not be required to register the tokens with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if it offers and sells the tokens in the manner and under the circumstances described in Fuse’s request letter (Latham is the counsel of record for Fuse).

The no-action request focused on whether the Fuse Token was an “investment contract” (and thus a security) under US securities law, specifically the longstanding Howey test. Under that test, a transaction involves a security when there is a reasonable expectation of profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial or managerial efforts of others. The request letter asserted that Fuse Tokens should not be considered securities transactions requiring registration under the securities laws for multiple reasons, including the economic reality of the Fuse Tokens, no reasonable expectation of profits, and no reliance on managerial efforts.

This is the second no-action relief granted by SEC Staff in the current administration for a digital asset utility token. Although it is fact-specific, the NAL may reduce enforcement risk for blockchain startups and drive further innovation in the blockchain space.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 30, 2025, the SEC Division of Investment Management issued a no-action letter allowing for the treatment of a state-chartered trust company as a “bank,” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (and, therefore, an institution permitted to custody assets), with respect to the placement and maintenance of digital assets and cash or cash equivalents reasonably necessary to effect transactions in digital assets. The no-action letter dispels the cloud of enforcement that may have prevented venture capital firms, hedge funds, registered investment advisers, and registered funds from using state-chartered financial institutions to custody cryptoassets. The Staff noted that the no-action relief is “based on all of the facts and representations” made by the requestor, and “any different facts or circumstances might require a different conclusion.”

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a supporting statement.

Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw dissented.

On September 29, 2025, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a no-action letter (NAL) stating that it would not recommend enforcement against a certain foundation company and blockchain token issuer (the Foundation) under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Further it would not require registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if the Foundation’s programmatic token transfers are conducted in the manner and under the circumstances described in its request letter.

According to the request letter, the Foundation’s decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN, or the Network) “is a set of smart contracts that provide a framework for permissionlessly adding high-performance network connectivity, which others can pay for and use.” Furthermore, “[t]here is no central promoter or sponsor responsible for operating the Network” that supports three programmatic token flows to facilitate network functioning:

• User payments (fees paid by market participants to use the Network and transmit communications over the Network);
• Provider payments (programmatic distributions of user payments to Network providers who supply high-performance connectivity to the network); and
• Computation payments (new token emissions used to reward resource providers for protocol computations, such as calculation of provider payment amounts).

The Staff provides no legal analysis in the NAL, but issued the NAL wholly based on the facts and analysis presented by the Foundation’s counsel in the request letter, in which the requestor asserts that the programmatic distribution of tokens for provider payments and computation payments in accordance with Network rules (collectively, Programmatic Distributions) does not satisfy the fourth prong of the Howey test. The Programmatic Distributions depend on the network providers’ and resource providers’ own efforts, rather than the efforts of any promoter or manager. The Staff noted that “[a]ny different facts or conditions might require the Division to reach a different conclusion.”

This is the first no-action relief granted by SEC Staff for a digital asset token since 2020 (for information on previous digital asset-related NALs, see Latham blog posts here, here, and here).

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a supporting statement.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 17, 2025, the SEC approved proposed rule changes by three national securities exchanges to adopt generic listing standards for exchange-traded products (ETPs) that hold spot commodities, including digital assets. Such ETPs will be permitted to list and trade on exchanges without being subject to prior SEC approval under Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Formerly, exchanges like Nasdaq, NYSE Arca, and Cboe BZX would file a 19b-4 form with the SEC to propose a change to their own rules, allowing them to list a specific crypto exchange-traded fund (ETF). Concurrently, the crypto ETF issuer would file an S-1 registration statement with the SEC for the actual ETF product. Once the SEC acknowledged and published the 19b-4 filing on the Federal Register, a formal clock started for the SEC’s review and potential approval or rejection of the rule change (S-1 filings are not subject to the same deadline-driven process as 19b-4 filings). By establishing generic listing standards, exchanges can now list ETFs without filing for individual rule changes, and issuers only need to file S-1 forms for approval. The SEC has also reportedly requested that issuers withdraw their existing 19b-4 filings. This change is expected to significantly accelerate the launch of new spot crypto ETFs.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins stated that “[b]y approving these generic listing standards, we are ensuring that our capital markets remain the best place in the world to engage in the cutting-edge innovation of digital assets. This approval helps to maximize investor choice and foster innovation by streamlining the listing process and reducing barriers to access digital asset products within America’s trusted capital markets.”

Commissioner Hester M. Peirce issued a supporting statement.

Commissioner Caroline A. Crenshaw dissented. 

On September 4, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget released the SEC’s Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda (the SEC Agenda). The SEC Agenda contemplates multiple potential rulemakings, including a number of rulemakings that either expressly contemplate or could directly impact digital assets. These include:

• rules relating to the offer and sale of digital assets;
• amendments to existing rules to account for the trading of digital assets on alternative trading systems and NSEs;
• amendments to existing rules regarding the scope of, and exceptions from, the term “dealer”;
• amendments to existing books and records rules to address the application of these rules to digital assets;
• amendments to existing rules or new rules to modernize regulation of client and fund asset custody, including digital assets; and
• modernization of transfer agent rules to address digital assets and the use of distributed ledger technology by transfer agents.

According to a statement issued by SEC Chair Paul Atkins, “A key priority of my Chairmanship is clear rules of the road for the issuance, custody, and trading of crypto assets while continuing to discourage bad actors from violating the law.” In alignment with the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report and Trump administration policy, the SEC Agenda “represent[s] the [SEC]’s renewed focus on supporting innovation, capital formation, market efficiency, and investor protection” in the digital asset markets.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 5, 2025, SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Acting Chair Caroline D. Pham issued a joint statement (the Harmonization Statement) on regulatory harmonization opportunities and announced a September 29, 2025, joint agency roundtable to discuss regulatory harmonization priorities. The Harmonization Statement heralds “a new day at the SEC and the CFTC” that seeks to, according to the SEC’s press release, “provide markets the clarity they deserve.” The Harmonization Statement also highlights “the innovations that greater harmonization of SEC and CFTC regulatory frameworks can unleash.”

A primary motivating force behind the Harmonization Statement is the administration’s goal to provide regulatory clarity for the digital asset market in a manner that helps solidify the United States as the global leader of crypto and blockchain technology. Of particular note, the Harmonization Statement states that “both agencies are prepared to consider ‘innovation exemptions’ to create safe harbors or exemptions that allow market participants to engage in peer-to-peer trading of spot, leveraged, margined, or other transactions in spot crypto assets, including derivatives such as perpetual contracts, over DeFi protocols.” The Harmonization Statement also describes the right to self-custody one’s assets as a “core American value.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 2, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets and the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight and Division of Clearing and Risk (collectively, the Divisions) issued a joint statement (the Spot Commodity Joint Statement) expressing that, in the Divisions’ view, current law does not prohibit SEC- and CFTC- registered exchanges from facilitating the trading of certain spot commodity products, namely leveraged, margined, or financed retail commodity transactions on digital assets (Retail Commodity Transactions).

According to the Spot Commodity Joint Statement, the Divisions aim to “promote trading venue choice and enhance market optionality for market participants” as part of an effort to position the United States as a favorable environment for both regulatory oversight and crypto innovation, in line with recommendations from the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report.

According to the Divisions, current law does not prohibit CFTC-registered designated contract markets (DCMs), CFTC-registered foreign boards of trade (FBOTs), or SEC-registered national securities exchanges (NSEs) from facilitating the trading of Retail Commodity Transactions.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 5, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) published a Statement on Certain Liquid Staking Activities clarifying that, in its view, liquid staking activities (as described by the Staff) do not involve the offer and sale of securities requiring registration under the US federal securities laws.

The Liquid Staking Statement follows the May 29, 2025, Statement on Certain Protocol Staking Activities, which addressed three forms of protocol staking activities — self- or solo staking, self-custodial staking directly with a third party, and custodial arrangements — which comprise the vast majority of staking activity (for more information, see this Latham blog post).

As with other recent Staff statements, the Liquid Staking Statement applies the Howey test for an investment contract in analyzing whether the transactions involved in liquid staking activities constitute the offer or sale of a “security,” emphasizing the Howey test’s focus on the economic realities of a transaction, financial product, or scheme. According to the Staff, Liquid Staking Providers do not provide entrepreneurial or managerial efforts to stakers. Like the custodial arrangements described in the Protocol Staking Statement, a Liquid Staking Provider is “simply acting as an agent” on behalf of the depositor, and “does not decide whether, when, or how much” of a depositor’s cryptoassets to stake. A Liquid Staking Provider also “does not guarantee or otherwise set the amount of the rewards owed to depositors.”

Commissioner Peirce published a statement in support of the Liquid Staking Statement, while Commissioner Crenshaw published a statement criticizing it.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On July 31, 2025, SEC Chair Paul Atkins delivered a significant digital asset policy speech at the America First Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. (“American Leadership in the Digital Finance Revolution”). In the speech, Chair Atkins reflected on the history of financial and technological innovations in the US capital markets, repudiated former regulatory approaches that in his view stifled the development of blockchain innovation and digital asset technologies, and announced the SEC’s “Project Crypto.”

Project Crypto is the direct result of President Trump’s January executive order on digital assets aiming “to make America the crypto capital of the world” (for more information, see this Latham blog post). Chair Atkins delivered his speech just one day after the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets published a comprehensive report on digital assets (“Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology”) (for more information, see this Latham blog post).

Project Crypto is an SEC-wide initiative to modernize the securities laws to foster capital formation in the digital asset markets and “enable America’s financial markets to move on-chain.” Project Crypto will employ formal notice-and-comment rulemaking and other interpretive or exemptive authorities to overhaul the securities laws that govern certain digital assets and digital asset service providers.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On July 29, 2025, the SEC voted to permit in-kind creations and redemptions by authorized participants for cryptoasset exchange-traded product (ETP) shares, which were previously limited to creations and redemptions on an in-cash basis. In-kind creation and redemption is consistent with other commodity-based ETPs approved by the SEC.

The SEC also voted to approve other technical orders related to digital asset products “that advance a merit-neutral approach to crypto-based products.”

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stated that the approvals are another step in the SEC’s effort “to build a rational regulatory framework for crypto.” He noted that the orders “will make these [crypto] products less costly and more efficient” for market participants.

Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda applauded the SEC’s decision to permit in-kind creations and redemptions for crypto ETPs, stating that “[t]he [SEC’s] order eliminates the market asymmetries and inefficiencies created by cash-only redemption,” such as significant transaction costs, price slippage in the underlying asset class, and increased expenses.

On July 1, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) published a Statement on Crypto Asset Exchange-Traded Products (the Statement). The Statement addresses the application of certain disclosure requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to offerings and registrations of securities by issuers of cryptoasset exchange-traded products (crypto ETPs) on national securities exchanges. The Staff emphasizes that “[d]isclosure should be presented in clear, concise, and understandable language, without overly relying on technical terminology or jargon.” As with previous Staff guidance concerning digital assets, the Statement is descriptive and not prescriptive, and does not append absolute or relative value to the various disclosures the Staff has chosen to highlight. It also does not purport to address all material disclosure items. “Each issuer,” the Staff notes, “should consider its own facts and circumstances when preparing its disclosures.”

The Statement includes observations regarding disclosures related to crypto ETP issuers’ prospectus summary; risk factors; business description; service providers, custodians, and associated fees and expenses; plan of distribution; management; conflicts of interest; and financial statements.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog. 

On May 29, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) published a Statement on Protocol Staking Activities clarifying that in the Staff’s view, certain defined protocol staking activities do not involve the offer and sale of securities requiring registration under the US federal securities laws (the Staking Statement). The Staff focuses on “the economic realities” of Self (or Solo) Staking, Self-Custodial Staking Directly with a Third Party, and Custodial Arrangements, and finds that none of them is a security under the test in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (328 U.S. 293 (1946)). The SEC has employed the Howey test for decades to determine whether a financial product or scheme qualifies as an investment contract, and hence a security for the purposes of the federal securities laws.

Commissioner Peirce published a statement of support, and Commissioner Crenshaw published a statement criticizing the Staking Statement.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On May 15, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets (the Staff) announced two actions concerning digital assets and the securities laws:

1. Along with the Office of General Counsel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) — it withdrew a joint statement (the 2019 Joint Statement) issued on July 8, 2019, that effectively curtailed broker-dealers from custodying digital asset securities. The withdrawal of the 2019 Joint Statement is consistent with the continued push of the SEC and Staff (as well as other federal agencies) to dial back statements and guidance issued in previous administrations, in line with the crypto-friendly approach of the current administration and agency leadership. The withdrawal also cleared the way for the Crypto FAQs, which represent an incremental step forward (to echo Commissioner Hester M. Peirce’s description of the FAQs) in providing the much-needed interpretive guidance lacking from the 2019 Joint Statement.

2. It issued a set of FAQs related to broker-dealer and transfer agent engagement with digital assets and blockchain (the Crypto FAQs), covering topics such as the Customer Protection Rule, custody, the Securities Investor Act of 1970 (SIPA), recordkeeping, transfer agent registration, and master securityholder files.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

In a May 8, 2025, speech, Commissioner Peirce stated that the SEC’s Crypto Task Force “is considering a potential exemptive order that would allow firms to use DLT to issue, trade, and settle securities… [which would] allow firms to use innovative trading systems for eligible tokenized securities.” The potential conditional exemption would require compliance with market integrity conditions to prevent fraud and manipulation, and would aim to address challenges firms face in complying with existing regulations and encourage the issuance and trading of tokenized securities.

On April 10, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) published a Statement on Offerings and Registrations of Securities in the Crypto Asset Markets (the Statement). The Statement addresses the application of certain disclosure requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to disclosure documents relating to securities in the digital asset markets. The Statement provides general guidance on offerings of equity or debt securities of issuers whose operations relate to networks, applications, and/or digital assets, as well as offerings of digital assets themselves as part of an investment contract. The Statement is not prescriptive but descriptive and does not append absolute or relative value to the various disclosures the Staff has chosen to highlight. “Each issuer,” the Staff noted, “should consider its own facts and circumstances when preparing its disclosures.”

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog. 

On April 4, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Staff) published a Statement on Stablecoins clarifying that in the Staff’s view the offer and sale of certain dollar-backed stablecoins does not involve an offer and sale of securities requiring registration under the US federal securities laws (the Stablecoin Statement). The Stablecoin Statement specifically addresses stablecoins that are designed to maintain a stable value relative to the US dollar (USD) on a one-for-one basis, can be redeemed for USD on a one-for-one basis, and are backed by assets held in a reserve that are considered low-risk and readily liquid with a USD-value that meets or exceeds the redemption value of the stablecoins in circulation (Covered Stablecoins). With respect to such Covered Stablecoins only, the Stablecoin Statement sets out the Staff’s view that the offer and sale of such Covered Stablecoins does not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 or Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog. 

On March 20, 2025, the SEC Staff published a Statement on Certain Proof-of-Work Mining Activities (the Statement). Because Proof-of-Work Mining Activities “do not involve the offer and sale of securities within the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,” miners and pool operators engaging in such PoW Mining Activities are not required to register with the SEC (or otherwise fall within one of the Securities Act’s exemptions from registration). The Statement is the Staff’s second non-binding clarification on how it views the federal securities laws applying to a specific aspect of the digital asset economy since President Trump issued an executive order on digital assets and the SEC established a Crypto Task Force. 

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On February 27, 2025, the SEC Staff published a Statement on Meme Coins (the Statement). According to the Staff, transactions in meme coins that fit the description above “do not involve the offer and sale of securities under the federal securities laws.” The Statement is the first tangible clarification of how the federal securities laws apply to a specific category of crypto since President Trump issued an executive order on digital assets and the SEC established a Crypto Task Force. The Statement is responsive to the Crypto Task Force’s first priority (as highlighted by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who leads the task force): determining the status of digital assets under the securities laws. 

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On February 20, 2025, the SEC voluntarily dismissed its appeal against a pair of related decisions by the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas to vacate the SEC’s Rules 3a5-4 and 3a44-2 (together, the Rules). The Rules, which the SEC adopted on February 6, 2024, expanded the definition of “dealer” and “government securities dealer” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to capture a wider group of market participants, including those that had traditionally availed themselves of the “trader” exception. The Rules placed increased emphasis on the regularity of buying and selling securities as a core component of a business and thus would likely have caught many market participants under the definition of “dealer” that, due to advancements in electronic trading, were previously able to play a significant role as liquidity providers. The Rules carried the potential to materially stifle innovation in certain market sectors, particularly crypto and DeFi (for more information, see this Latham blog post).

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On February 20, 2025, the SEC announced the establishment of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit (CETU), which will focus on combatting cyber-related misconduct and protecting retail investors from fraud in the emerging technologies sector. The new unit, led by Laura D’Allaird, replaces the SEC’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit and comprises about 30 fraud specialists and attorneys from various SEC offices with “substantial fintech and cyber-related experience.” This is a decrease from the approximately 50 individuals who worked in the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit. In the statement announcing the CETU’s establishment, then Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda noted that the CETU will “complement the work of the Crypto Task Force,” which was created in January 2025 to develop a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for cryptoassets. The CETU will focus on several priority areas, including fraud involving artificial intelligence and machine learning, as well as fraud involving blockchain technology and cryptoassets.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On February 4, 2025, Commissioner Hester Peirce, leader of the SEC’s newly established Crypto Task Force, published a statement outlining the Task Force’s 10 main areas of focus. Key items include the security status of digital assets, defining the SEC’s jurisdiction, relief for token offerings, registration issues, and a path forward for broker-dealers and custodying digital assets. 

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 27, 2024, Judge Katherine Failla of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) ruled (the Ruling) in favor of the SEC on all but one argument raised in Coinbase’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the SEC adequately alleged the tokens at issue and Coinbase’s staking services are securities and that Coinbase has been operating as an unregistered broker, exchange, and clearing agency. The Ruling followed significant recent decisions in two other high-profile SEC enforcement actions regarding cryptocurrencies: SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 1:20-Civ-10832 (SDNY), and SEC v. Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-01346 (SDNY). The Coinbase decision, however, may be the most significant among the three decisions because (1) it addresses a broader range of market activity by a token exchange (as opposed to an issuer) and 13 third-party tokens (as opposed to fewer tokens from a single issuer), and (2) Judge Failla’s Ruling addresses the prior decisions in Ripple and Terraform and thus serves as the latest, most comprehensive opinion to date in the canon of case law on the issues.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

Note: On February 27, 2025, the SEC announced the dismissal of the civil enforcement action against Coinbase.

On January 10, 2024, the SEC issued, on an accelerated basis, an Omnibus Approval Order (the Order) for proposed NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, and Cboe BZX rule changes seeking to list and trade shares of 11 spot bitcoin trusts. Spot bitcoin trusts hold actual bitcoin, as opposed to bitcoin futures trusts, which hold derivatives tied to the price of bitcoin. The approval of these rule change requests represents a green light for spot bitcoin-based exchange traded products (ETPs) to trade on national securities exchanges for the first time in bitcoin’s 15-year history, after a decade of attempts by market participants to obtain such approval. In the Order, the SEC found the proposals to be “consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,” including the requirement that the exchanges’ rules be designed to “prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices.”

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 13, 2023, the SEC issued a cease-and-desist order (the Order) against Stoner Cats 2, LLC (SC2) for an alleged unregistered securities offering relating to SC2’s sale of $8.2 million worth of NFTs. The SEC alleged that the NFTs were issued to the public to finance the production of a web-based animated series by the same name. SC2 agreed to a settlement that includes a civil monetary penalty of $1 million and ceasing and desisting from violating the Securities Act of 1933. SC2 neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which does not include any allegations of misleading or fraudulent statements. The SEC obtained this settlement a few weeks after its first enforcement action against an NFT issuer.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The Enforcement Division’s Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit has brought numerous enforcement actions related to fraudulent and unregistered cryptoasset offerings and platforms. Note that many listed enforcement actions and investigations have been withdrawn under the SEC’s new leadership and policy stance.

Visit the SEC website for more information.

On May 29, 2026, the CFTC issued four related releases approving and providing initial regulatory guidance for cryptoasset perpetual futures contracts, a product class that has become the dominant form of crypto-derivative trading globally but has until now developed almost entirely on offshore venues due to regulatory uncertainty.

• The CFTC issued an Order of Approval (the Order) permitting a registered designated contract market (DCM) to list a cash-settled perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of Bitcoin. The contract has no fixed expiration date and “employs a periodic funding mechanism whereby long and short position holders exchange funding payments that are based on the difference between the contract’s mark price and the underlying reference price.” The Commission found that the Bitcoin spot market’s “deep, broadly distributed, active, and continuous trading” supports the effective functioning of this mechanism. The Order’s categorization analysis is expressly limited to the approved contract and similarly structured perpetuals referencing Bitcoin or other digital commodities (as defined in the March 2026 SEC-CFTC joint guidance) with deep, active, and continuous spot market trading, but does not extend to other asset classes. This is the first CFTC approval of a perpetual futures contract for listing, and the Commission emphasized that categorization remains a case-by-case exercise. In reviewing the DCM’s submission and issuing the Order, the Commission considered its analysis that a contract without a fixed termination date can still satisfy the “futurity” requirement, relying on the Seventh Circuit precedent of CME v. SEC, holding that futurity “exists where contracts provide for future executory payment obligations, not only where a contract has a final settlement date and fixed term.”
• The CFTC issued a Policy Statement providing guidance on the listing of perpetual contracts. The Policy Statement expresses the Commission’s view that perpetual contracts referencing asset classes outside the scope of the Order (i.e., those other than digital commodities with deep, active, and continuous spot trading) should go through the voluntary approval process under Regulation 40.3 rather than self-certification under Regulation 40.2. The Commission pointed to the novel characteristics of perpetuals (including the absence of a traditional expiration date and unresolved questions around market structure and customer protection) as the basis for this position. Asset classes specified in the Statement as meriting independent analysis include (but are not limited to) agricultural products, precious metals, equity securities, and narrow-based security indexes.
• Three CFTC divisions (Division of Clearing and Risk, Division of Market Oversight, and Market Participants Division) jointly issued CFTC Staff Letter No. 26-16, an Advisory setting out the Staff’s operational, surveillance, clearing, and margin expectations for registrants considering 24/7 trading and clearing. The Advisory notes that cryptoasset derivatives may be well-suited for continuous trading given the digital infrastructure and global reach of their underlying markets. It is informational only and does not create new obligations. Key expectations under the CEA include:
• DCMs and Swap Execution Facilities (SEFs) must demonstrate they can maintain real-time monitoring and robust market surveillance for abusive trading practices across a 24/7 schedule, and should avoid offering contracts that settle during off-peak periods when underlying markets may be less active.
• DCMs and SEFs must ensure reliability and integrity of their trading platforms at all times.
• DCMs and SEFs must both establish and maintain adequate compliance staff and resources to conduct effective audit trail reviews, trade practice surveillance, market surveillance, and real-time market monitoring.
• Derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) must demonstrate sufficient financial resources and liquidity to meet obligations continuously (even when collection of collateral is limited to traditional market hours) and must ensure initial margin requirements consider unique risks associated with a given product or portfolio.
• Futures commission merchants (FCMs) must treat customer funds as belonging to customers and not as the property of the FCM.
• FCMs must assess and adjust the targeted amount of residual interest in segregated accounts to account for 24/7 risks, provide adequate customer risk disclosures (including the risk of auto-liquidation during non-banking hours), and maintain sufficient operational capabilities and staffing during extended hours.
• The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued CFTC Staff Letter No. 26-17, a staff interpretation and no-action letter confirming that certain perpetual contracts listed on an exchange regulated by the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority qualify as “foreign futures” under Commission Regulation 30.1. The interpretation is limited to similarly structured perpetuals “that are based on the spot price of digital commodities that have deep, active and continuous spot market trading.” The letter also grants no-action relief permitting a registered FCM that is a subsidiary of a US publicly traded digital asset company to post customers’ digital assets (including Bitcoin, Ether, and payment stablecoins) with an affiliated foreign broker to margin foreign futures and options positions. The letter builds on prior staff guidance on digital asset margin collateral (Staff Letter 26-05) and the transfer of customer securities to foreign intermediaries under a right of re-use (Staff Letter 25-38).

On March 17, 2026, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division (the Division) issued CFTC Letter No. 26-09 (the No-Action Letter) stating that it would not recommend enforcement against Phantom Technologies Inc. (Phantom) in connection with certain proposed activities involving its digital asset self-custody wallet software designed to enable users to trade in CFTC-regulated derivatives. 

Specifically, the No-Action Letter confirms that the Division will not recommend enforcement against Phantom for failure to register with the CFTC as an introducing broker (IB) or against Phantom’s personnel for failure to register as associated persons (APs) in connection with Phantom providing wallet and front-end interface software for users to access CFTC-regulated derivative products trading on a CFTC-regulated designated contract market (DCM), either directly or as a brokered customer of a futures commission merchant (FCM).

The No-Action Letter represents a welcome evolution and incremental expansion of the existing body of CFTC staff guidance on passive technology service provider or independent software vendor activities that do not require registration as an IB or AP. Effective until further rulemaking on the application of IB registration to software providers, the No-Action Letter may be the first sign of more to come from the CFTC under Chairman Michael Selig in providing improved certainty and regulatory clarity for innovators in the US derivatives markets.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 11, 2026, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Paul S. Atkins and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael S. Selig signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to guide coordination and collaboration on issues of shared regulatory concern. The MOU reflects both agencies’ stated commitment to provide fair notice to market participants, respect individual liberty, and foster lawful innovation with a “minimum effective dose” of regulation that promotes innovation, strengthens market integrity, and enhances US competitiveness in global finance. The MOU is the culmination of recent Project Crypto announcements by Chairman Atkins and Chairman Selig, indicating increased SEC/CFTC collaboration and the reduction of duplicative oversight, most notably regarding digital asset markets.

The MOU identifies six core areas where the agencies will clarify, coordinate, and harmonize their regulatory approaches:

• Issuing joint interpretations and rulemakings to clarify product definitions
• Modernizing frameworks for clearing, margin, and collateral
• Reducing frictions for dually registered exchanges, trading venues, and intermediaries
• Developing a “fit-for-purpose regulatory framework” for digital assets and emerging technologies
• Streamlining regulatory reporting for trade data, funds, and intermediaries
• Coordinating cross-market examinations, economic analyses, risk monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On January 29, 2026, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig delivered a significant crypto policy speech in coordination with SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, in which he announced that rather than running a separate and parallel “Crypto Sprint” initiative, the CFTC will be partnering with the SEC on Project Crypto, “bringing coordination, coherence, and a unified approach to the federal oversight of crypto asset markets.” He asserted, “America’s financial regulators must modernize and harmonize their approach to regulation to future-proof our markets for the innovations of tomorrow.” Chairman Selig recently described this “Future-Proof” initiative, in which he directed CFTC staff to undertake a comprehensive review and modernization of the agency’s existing rules and regulations to serve both traditional incumbents as well as nascent products and trading venues.

According to Chairman Selig, coordination and harmonization between the CFTC and SEC “will advance a clear crypto asset taxonomy, clarify jurisdictional lines, remove duplicative compliance requirements, and reduce regulatory fragmentation.” He voiced support for the digital asset market structure legislation currently being considered in the Senate that will promote these objectives if enacted, but stated that the CFTC and SEC must coordinate and execute to the fullest extent possible “while Congress continues its work.”

Key CFTC (and SEC) focus areas for Project Crypto as a joint policy initiative include a token taxonomy, expanding eligible tokenized collateral, safe harbors for software developers and users, and support for “Super Apps.”

On December 11, 2025, Acting Chair Pham announced that the CFTC was “withdrawing outdated guidance related to actual delivery of ‘virtual currencies,’ given the substantial developments in crypto asset markets.” The final interpretative guidance (the Actual Delivery Guidance) was published on June 24, 2020, and clarified the CFTC’s views regarding the “actual delivery” exception to Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) in the context of virtual currencies. Commodity transactions with retail purchasers that are transacted using leverage, margin, or other financing arrangement (Retail Leveraged Commodity Transactions) are regulated as futures contracts which would require on-exchange trading and broker registration requirements under Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the CEA (Retail Commodity Rules), unless an exception applies. The Retail Commodity Rules exempt Retail Leveraged Commodity Transactions from such regulatory requirements if “actual delivery” of the underlying commodity occurs within 28 days from the date of the transaction.

The withdrawal of the Actual Delivery Guidance signals that these primary factors no longer serve as necessary indicia of “actual delivery” of Retail Leveraged Commodity Transactions. According to the withdrawal notice, “[t]he Commission has determined to withdraw the [Actual Delivery Guidance] in order to reevaluate such guidance in light of further developments during the past 5 years in the means and methods deployed in the spot market for the purchase and sale of virtual currencies and the derivatives markets connected to such spot market.”

On December 8, 2025, CFTC Acting Chair Pham announced the publication of CFTC Letter No. 25-41, and that effective immediately, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division was withdrawing the October 21, 2020, Staff Advisory No. 20-34 (“Accepting Virtual Currencies from Customers into Segregation”). Staff Advisory No. 20-34 clarified the CFTC Staff’s views on the acceptance, holding, and reporting of virtual currency in segregated accounts by futures commission merchants (FCMs) and the development of related risk-management programs. Specifically, the Staff Advisory related to virtual currencies deposited by customers with FCMs in connection with physically delivered futures contracts or swaps. Due to the “custodian risk” associated with holding virtual currency as segregated customer collateral, the Advisory laid out specific and restrictive guidance for FCMs on virtual asset acceptance and custody, and FCMs responsibility to implement appropriate policies, procedures, and oversight programs. According to the withdrawal announcement, “[S]ince the issuance of the Advisory, there have been substantial developments with respect to digital assets and the use of tokenized collateral, including stablecoins in the derivatives markets.” The CFTC’s tokenized collateral initiative, as well as regulatory developments under the GENIUS Act, were cited as specific factors “result[ing] in the Advisory becoming outdated and no longer relevant.” However, because the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report states that the “CFTC should adopt rules ensuring customer asset segregation for digital assets,” it remains to be seen whether the CFTC or CFTC Staff will adopt new rules or issue new guidance to replace withdrawn Staff Advisory No. 20-34.

On December 8, 2025, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued CFTC Letter 25-40, a no-action letter (NAL) stating that, subject to certain conditions, it would not recommend CFTC enforcement action against an FCM that accepts payment stablecoins and other non-securities digital assets (e.g., bitcoin and ether) as customer margin collateral. The FCM must take into account the value of such payment stablecoins and digital assets when determining whether or to what extent a customer account is under-margined and performing segregation calculations, or it must deposit its own payment stablecoins into segregated customer accounts as residual interest. FCMs must notify the Market Participants Division prior to relying on the no-action position, and for a period of three months from the commencement of the FCM’s reliance on the NAL, must: (i) limit the digital assets accepted as margin collateral to bitcoin, ether, and payment stablecoins; (ii) provide weekly reporting of total digital assets held in each of the futures, cleared swaps, and customer funds accounts, listing each digital asset type separately for each account type; and (iii) promptly notify CFTC Staff in writing of any significant operation or system issue, disruption, or failure (including any cybersecurity incident) that affects the use of digital assets as customer margin collateral.

On December 8, 2025, the CFTC launched a digital assets pilot program allowing FCMs to accept bitcoin, ether, and USDC as customer margin collateral in derivatives markets. The CFTC also issued guidance on tokenized collateral and withdrawal of outdated requirements given the enactment of the GENIUS Act.

On December 8, 2025, CFTC Acting Chair Pham announced that the CFTC’s Market Participants Division, Division of Market Oversight, and Division of Clearing and Risk (collectively, the Divisions) issued CFTC Letter No. 25-39 (Tokenized Collateral Guidance), which is new guidance addressing the Divisions’ views on certain regulatory issues related to the use of tokenized assets as collateral in the trading of futures and swaps. Like other related CFTC regulations, the Tokenized Collateral Guidance takes a technology-neutral approach to the transfer or holding of eligible collateral, “so long as they satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, such as those addressing legal enforceability, custody and segregation, and risk management.” However, market participants (including registered FCMs, derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), and swap dealers and major swap participants (Swap Entities)) are reminded that because tokenization methods are unique, with unique rights and protections afforded to token holders, “any tokenized asset or tokenization structure must be analyzed on an individual basis to ensure it meets all requisite regulatory requirements and registrant policies and procedures.”

On December 4, 2025, CFTC Acting Chair Pham announced that “listed spot cryptocurrency products will begin trading for the first time in U.S. federally regulated markets on CFTC registered futures exchanges.” On the heels of this announcement, Bitnomial (a digital asset futures and options trading exchange) announced the listing of leveraged spot crypto, a product the CFTC regulates as futures contracts but up to now had not provided a path for listing on exchanges.

On September 23, 2025, CFTC Acting Chair Caroline D. Pham announced that as part of the CFTC’s crypto sprint, it is seeking input on the use of tokenized collateral (including stablecoins) in derivatives markets.

The request for comment follows the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report, which directs the CFTC to “provide guidance on the adoption of tokenized non-cash collateral as regulatory margin” to implement the recommendations in the November 21, 2024, report by the CFTC’s GMAC Digital Asset Markets Subcommittee. That report recommended expanding the use of non-cash collateral in derivatives markets through blockchain technology. See below and Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The CFTC invites interested stakeholders to submit feedback and suggestions on the use of tokenized collateral including stablecoins in derivatives markets by October 20, 2025.

On September 5, 2025, SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Acting Chair Caroline D. Pham issued a joint statement (the Harmonization Statement) on regulatory harmonization opportunities and announced a September 29, 2025, joint agency roundtable to discuss regulatory harmonization priorities. The Harmonization Statement heralds “a new day at the SEC and the CFTC” that seeks to, according to the SEC’s press release, “provide markets the clarity they deserve.” The Harmonization Statement also highlights “the innovations that greater harmonization of SEC and CFTC regulatory frameworks can unleash.”

A primary motivating force behind the Harmonization Statement is the administration’s goal to provide regulatory clarity for the digital asset market in a manner that helps solidify the United States as the global leader of crypto and blockchain technology. Of particular note, the Harmonization Statement states that “both agencies are prepared to consider ‘innovation exemptions’ to create safe harbors or exemptions that allow market participants to engage in peer-to-peer trading of spot, leveraged, margined, or other transactions in spot crypto assets, including derivatives such as perpetual contracts, over DeFi protocols.” The Harmonization Statement also describes the right to self-custody one’s assets as a “core American value.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 2, 2025, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets and the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight and Division of Clearing and Risk (collectively, the Divisions) issued a joint statement (the Spot Commodity Joint Statement) expressing that, in the Divisions’ view, current law does not prohibit SEC- and CFTC- registered exchanges from facilitating the trading of certain spot commodity products, namely leveraged, margined, or financed retail commodity transactions on digital assets (Retail Commodity Transactions).

According to the Spot Commodity Joint Statement, the Divisions aim to “promote trading venue choice and enhance market optionality for market participants” as part of an effort to position the United States as a favorable environment for both regulatory oversight and crypto innovation, in line with recommendations from the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report.

According to the Divisions, current law does not prohibit CFTC-registered designated contract markets (DCMs), CFTC-registered foreign boards of trade (FBOTs), or SEC-registered national securities exchanges (NSEs) from facilitating the trading of Retail Commodity Transactions.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 28, 2025, the CFTC Division of Market Oversight issued an advisory (the FBOT Advisory) reaffirming the availability of the CFTC’s existing FBOT registration framework for non-US entities legally organized and operating outside the United States that seek to provide persons physically located in the United States with direct market access to their trading platforms. According to Acting Chair Pham’s announcement of the FBOT Advisory, “[t]he CFTC’s FBOT registration framework applies to all markets, regardless of asset class, and includes both traditional and digital asset markets.”

The FBOT Advisory reaffirms the FBOT registration framework, stating that “[f]or the avoidance of doubt, a FBOT that is registered with the CFTC in accordance with the Part 48 rules does not need to become a DCM in order to provide U.S.-located members or other participants with direct access to the electronic trading and order matching system of the FBOT.”

According to Acting Chair Pham, the FBOT Advisory “provides the regulatory clarity needed to legally onshore trading activity that was driven out of the United States due to the unprecedented regulation by enforcement approach of the past several years.” In a speech on September 18, 2025, Acting Chair Pham reiterated the message that the CFTC will work to “legally onshore trading activity efficiently and safely under CFTC regulations.” She added that the CFTC will “explore whether trading platforms authorized under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), or similar virtual asset or crypto asset regimes, would also qualify under the CFTC’s current cross-border frameworks.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 1, 2025, CFTC Acting Chair Caroline D. Pham announced that the CFTC was launching a “crypto sprint” in response to the directive that the SEC and CFTC “use their existing authorities to immediately enable the trading of digital assets at the Federal level” in the comprehensive report on digital assets from President Trump’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets (for more information, see this Latham blog post).

Notably, Acting Chair Pham affirmed that the CFTC “will work closely with SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce to achieve Project Crypto.” On August 4, 2025, Acting Chair Pham announced that the first initiative in the CFTC’s crypto sprint would be to solicit feedback on a plan to allow “trading spot crypto asset contracts that are listed on a CFTC-registered futures exchange” (known as designated contract markets (DCMs)).

As currently in force, Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) gives the CFTC jurisdiction with respect to certain transactions in commodities offered to retail customers with leverage, margin, or financing. Such transactions are regulated as if they were futures contracts and therefore must be transacted on a DCM. Importantly, the CFTC does not currently exercise supervisory authority over non-security spot cryptoasset contracts other than those captured under Section 2(c)(2)(D). Acting Chair Pham invited public comment from stakeholders on how to implement the Presidential Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Report recommendations using the CFTC’s existing authority as she proposed in 2022. While not expressly discussed in the August 2025 statement, in 2022 Acting Chair Pham proposed using the CFTC’s exemptive authority to extend retail foreign exchange and DCM regulations to include non-security spot crypto. Acting Chair Pham reiterated this proposal in March 2025.

The proposal that supervisory authority and oversight of spot cryptoassets be extended to the CFTC (without disturbing SEC jurisdiction over spot crypto securities) broadly aligns with the regime contemplated by the digital asset market structure bill under consideration in the Senate (i.e., the CLARITY Act).

Public comments on this initiative are due by August 18, 2025, including on “whether there are any implications under the securities laws or regulations with respect to an SEC framework for trading of non-security assets that are part of an investment contract.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 28, 2025, the CFTC’s Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) announced it is withdrawing CFTC Staff Advisory No. 23-07, Review of Risks Associated with Expansion of DCO Clearing of Digital Assets, effective immediately. As stated in the withdrawal letter, DCR determined to withdraw the advisory to ensure that it does not suggest that its regulatory treatment of digital asset derivatives will vary from its treatment of other products.

Visit the CFTC website for more information.

On March 28, 2025, the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight (DMO) and DCR announced they are withdrawing CFTC Staff Advisory No. 18-14, Advisory with Respect to Virtual Currency Derivative Product Listings, effective immediately. As stated in the withdrawal letter, DMO and DCR determined that the advisory is no longer needed given additional staff experience with virtual currency derivative product listings and increasing market growth and maturity.

Visit the CFTC website for more information.

Adoption of an Approach for the Classification and Understanding of Digital Assets (March 6, 2024)

A clear, consensus-driven approach to classifying assets and the functions they serve underpins robust markets and effective regulation. The evolving digital asset ecosystem has led many to develop proprietary taxonomies to classify digital assets and their related technology. In recognition of this progress, the Subcommittee has engaged digital asset stakeholders across the broader digital asset ecosystem to build a common approach for the classification and understanding of digital assets. This approach aims to set out consistent language for participants in the digital asset ecosystem to promote innovation, identify and address risk considerations, and enable effective regulatory understanding. With this objective in mind, the approach builds upon the considerable classification efforts of global prudential standard setters and regional authorities, including the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board, and others. The GMAC recommends this approach be considered an initial basis for a consensus-driven, functional taxonomy. However, as the digital asset ecosystem continues to evolve, so too will the terminology used to classify it.

Visit the CFTC website for more information.

On November 21, 2024, the Digital Asset Markets Subcommittee of the CFTC’s GMAC issued a report that recommended expanding the use of non-cash collateral in derivatives markets through distributed ledger technology (DLT). In the Report, the Subcommittee identifies several ways in which using DLT may mitigate or avoid the challenges that have historically constrained the use of non-cash collateral in derivatives markets, such as improved transfer timing and avoiding other inefficiencies of existing market and technology infrastructure. The Report emphasizes that the use of DLT for existing forms of eligible non-cash collateral would not alter or change the nature of the underlying assets, and thus not require regulatory amendments to realize potential benefits and collateral management efficiencies.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

This primer provides an overview of digital assets and the digital assets market. Regulation of digital assets, including the CFTC’s role, is also explained in this primer.

Visit the CFTC website for more information.

The CFTC’s digital assets website includes resources for market participants and customers about digital assets and the CFTC’s oversight role.

Visit the CFTC website for more information.

On December 17, 2025, the FRB withdrew its 2023 Policy Statement and issued a new policy statement regarding the treatment of digital assets and other innovative products and services. For context, the 2023 Policy Statement governed “novel activities” that both FDIC-insured state member banks and non-insured state institutions (that may be admitted to Federal Reserve membership) may propose. A state member bank must first consult federal statutes, OCC regulations, and OCC interpretations to determine whether national banks are permitted to undertake the activity. If none of the sources authorizes the activity, then state member banks must investigate whether federal statute or part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations gives state banks permission to engage in the activity. If no authority for a state bank exists, a state member bank may not engage in the activity unless it has received the Federal Reserve’s permission under Section 208.3(d)(2) of Regulation H. Under that provision, a state member bank may not, without Federal Reserve permission, change the general character of its business or the scope of the corporate powers it exercised at the time of its admission to membership (for more information, see this Latham blog post).

Under the 2025 Policy Statement, “state member banks may … be permitted by the Board to engage as principal in activities that are not authorized for national banks or insured state-chartered banks, provided that the Board finds that the uninsured state member bank would be capable of engaging in such activity in a manner consistent with bank safety and soundness and preserving the stability of the U.S. financial system. The Board may make such determinations by rule, order, or other means, including under section 208.3(d)(2) of the Board’s Regulation H.” The 2025 Policy Statement provides examples of factors that the FRB may consider to assess whether the uninsured state member bank would be capable of engaging in such activity in a safe and sound manner, including: (i) the uninsured state member bank’s regulatory framework; (ii) the risks presented by the proposed activities and the bank’s planned internal controls framework to address such risks; and (iii) how the institution would mitigate the risks otherwise addressed by deposit insurance and FDIC resolution.

Governor Michael S. Barr issued a dissenting opinion.

On November 13, 2025, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Ninth Annual Fintech Conference, FRB Governor Christopher Waller outlined the banking regulators’ plans for integrating fintech innovations into the traditional banking system. FRB Governor Waller described the central bank’s efforts to operationalize specialized “skinny” master accounts, which would allow fintechs that qualify as eligible depository institutions to access the central bank’s payment systems. The skinny master accounts are intended to expand competition in the payments space by providing fintechs with the ability to participate in the payment system in a meaningful but limited way, promoting competition and efficiency, and allowing for FRB oversight. As such, the accounts would not allow overdrafts or earn interest, and certain Federal Reserve services (such as “discount window” emergency loans) would be restricted.

FRB Governor Waller first introduced this idea in a speech at the Payments Innovation Conference on October 21, 2025. In that speech, he noted that “distributed ledgers and crypto-assets are no longer on the fringes but increasingly are woven into the fabric of the payment and financial systems.” He also said that the Federal Reserve “can and should do more to support those actively transforming the payment system” and should “acknowledge and embrace private-sector innovation that can improve the payment system while preserving its safety and stability, which are as essential to the new generation of innovators as they are to legacy institutions.”

The FRB’s goal is to have skinny master accounts available by the fourth quarter of 2026. In the near term, it plans to issue a request for public comment while simultaneously developing the necessary technical infrastructure to make skinny master accounts available to “legally eligible institutions that right now conduct payment services primarily through a third-party bank that has a full-fledged master account.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 19, 2025, the FRB issued its proposal.

On August 15, 2025, the FRB announced that it will sunset its novel activities supervision program and return to monitoring banks’ novel activities through the normal supervisory process. The FRB stated that it was rescinding SR 23-7 (“Creation of Novel Activities Supervision Program”), issued on August 8, 2023, by its Division of Supervision and Regulation. SR 23-7 established a program that sought to improve the FRB’s ability to monitor and examine novel activities, including bank-fintech partnerships and activities involving digital assets and blockchain technology (for more information, see this Latham blog post). According to the announcement, the FRB has decided to rescind SR 23-7 and integrate supervision of the covered activities into its standard supervisory process due to its increased understanding of the activities, related risks, and bank risk management practices.

On July 14, 2025, the FRB, the FDIC, and the OCC (collectively, the agencies) issued a joint statement on risk-management considerations for banking organizations engaged in cryptoasset safekeeping. The joint statement addresses potential risk-management considerations under existing laws and regulations related to banks holding cryptoassets (i.e., controlling the cryptographic keys associated with the cryptoasset) on a customer’s behalf in a fiduciary or non-fiduciary capacity. Generally, cryptoasset safekeeping requires the maintenance of an effective control environment, including the “[s]tandard custodial risk management principles.” Programs and controls, however, may need to be tailored to the specific services being offered and the unique attributes of the cryptoassets under safekeeping. According to the agencies, the joint statement “does not create any new supervisory expectations.”

Latham Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On April 24, 2025, the FRB announced it will rescind guidance for banks issued in 2022 related to digital asset and stablecoin activities. It also announced that, together with the FDIC, it will join the OCC (collectively, the agencies) in withdrawing from two 2023 joint statements that limited banks’ ability to engage in digital asset activities. According to the FRB, “[t]hese actions ensure the Board’s expectations remain aligned with evolving risks and further support innovation in the banking system.” As a result of rescinding SR Letter 22-6, the FRB will no longer expect banks to notify the FRB prior to engaging in cryptoasset-related activities and the FRB “will instead monitor banks’ crypto-asset activities through the normal supervisory process.” As a result of rescinding SR Letter 23-8, a state member bank is no longer required to receive a written notification of supervisory nonobjection from the FRB before engaging in the covered cryptoasset and stablecoin activities.

Latham Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On June 23, 2025, the FRB announced that reputational risk will no longer be a component of examination programs in its supervision of banks and issued a revised version of its “Guidelines for Rating Risk Management at State Member Banks and Bank Holding Companies,” removing all references to reputational risk. According to the announcement, “[t]he Board has started the process of reviewing and removing references to reputation and reputational risk from its supervisory materials, including examination manuals, and, where appropriate, replacing those references with more specific discussions of financial risk.” The FRB, however, still expects banks to “maintain strong risk management to ensure safety and soundness and compliance with law and regulation.”

On January 27, 2023, the FRB took two actions, clarifying that it considers many cryptocurrency activities to be inconsistent with the business of banking. First, the Federal Reserve announced that it had denied the application of Custodia Bank, Inc. (Custodia) to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. Second, it issued a policy statement (2023 Policy Statement) under Section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act to “limit the activities of state member banks and subsidiaries of state member banks in a manner consistent with section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” Section 24 states that an FDIC-insured state bank may not engage as a principal in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank, unless the FDIC determines that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund and the insured state bank is, and continues to be, in compliance with applicable capital standards prescribed by the appropriate federal banking agency. The Policy Statement governs “novel activities” that both FDIC-insured state member banks and non-insured state institutions (that may be admitted to Federal Reserve membership) may propose. A state member bank must first consult federal statutes, OCC regulations, and OCC interpretations to determine whether national banks are permitted to undertake the activity. If none of the sources authorizes the activity, then state member banks must investigate whether federal statute or part 362 of the FDIC’s regulations gives state banks permission to engage in the activity. If no authority for a state bank exists, a state member bank may not engage in the activity unless it has received the Federal Reserve’s permission under Section 208.3(d)(2) of Regulation H. Under that provision, a state member bank may not, without Federal Reserve permission, change the general character of its business or the scope of the corporate powers it exercised at the time of its admission to membership.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 8, 2023, the FRB published the related SR 23-8, Supervisory Nonobjection Process for State Member Banks Seeking to Engage in Certain Activities Involving Dollar Tokens.

SR Letter 23-8 was withdrawn by the FRB on April 24, 2025.

The 2023 Policy Statement was withdrawn by the FRB on December 17, 2025.

On January 3, 2023, the FRB, the FDIC, and the OCC (collectively, the agencies) issued a concise joint statement on crypto-asset risks to banking organizations (“Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations”). With the safety and soundness of the US banking system in mind, the statement addresses the various risks that the agencies view as being associated with cryptoassets and cryptoasset sector participants. According to the statement, “banking organizations should ensure that crypto-asset-related activities can be performed in a safe and sound manner, are legally permissible, and comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those designed to protect consumers.”

A related joint statement (“Joint Statement on Liquidity Risks to Banking Organizations Resulting from Crypto-Asset Market Vulnerabilities”) was published on February 23, 2023, addressing crypto-asset risks and liquidity risks to banking organizations resulting from crypto-asset market vulnerabilities.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On April 24, 2025, the FRB and FDIC announced (here and here) that they were joining the OCC in withdrawing from the two joint statements. 

On August 16, 2022, the FRB issued a Supervision and Regulation Letter outlining its expectations for FRB-supervised banking organizations engaged in cryptoasset-related activities (SR Letter 22-6). This follows the publication of a financial institution letter issued by the FDIC in April 2022 (the FDIC Letter) and an interpretive letter issued by the OCC in November 2021 (the OCC Letter). Both letters similarly address supervisory expectations in connection with cryptoasset-related activities that FDIC-supervised institutions and OCC-chartered banks (i.e., national banks and federal savings associations) engage in, respectively. While SR Letter 22-6 does not mention President Biden’s March 2022 Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets, it does seemingly address the Order’s broad mandate that federal financial regulators “consider the extent to which investor and market protection measures within their respective jurisdictions may be used to address the risks of digital assets and whether additional measures may be needed.” According to SR Letter 22-6, the emerging cryptoasset sector presents potential opportunities to banking organizations, their customers, and the overall financial system. However, the Federal Reserve notes five areas in which cryptoassets pose distinct risks: (i) Technology and operations risks related to cybersecurity and governance; (ii) Anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) risks; (iii) Consumer protection risks; (iv) Legal compliance risks; and (v) Financial stability risks.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

SR Letter 22-6 was withdrawn by the FRB on April 24, 2025.

On February 25, 2026, the OCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) for institutions subject to its jurisdiction.

The Proposal would impose comprehensive requirements governing stablecoin issuance, reserves, redemption rights, custody arrangements, and supervisory authority. Notably, issuers would be prohibited from paying interest or yield to stablecoin holders, with a rebuttable presumption that certain affiliate and related third-party arrangements violate this prohibition.

The OCC’s Proposal follows the Treasury Department’s September 2025 proposal (see this Latham blog post), as well as the FDIC’s December 2025 proposal (see this Latham blog post), each seeking public comment related to their required implementation of the GENIUS Act.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On February 27, 2026, the OCC issued a final rule amending its chartering regulation under 12 CFR 5.20 (the Final Rule). The Final Rule codifies the position taken by the OCC in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the Proposal) as originally issued on January 8, 2026 (see this Latham blog post). It revises the OCC’s chartering regulation to clarify that a national trust bank may engage in activities of a trust company, “activities related thereto,” and activities that are part of the business of banking. The Rule confirms that national trust banks may engage in non-fiduciary activities in addition to their fiduciary activities, and that this is consistent with the National Bank Act.

The GENIUS Act, 2025 legislation that established a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, permits national trust banks to be permitted issuers of payment stablecoins (see this Latham Client Alert). The GENIUS Act has driven a surge of applications from non‑traditional firms and financial institutions seeking national trust bank charters, including to act as custodians for digital assets. That influx drew criticism that, if those applications were approved, the OCC would have improperly expanded the scope of national trust bank powers. The Final Rule is a direct response to this criticism. The Proposal reflects the ongoing efforts at the OCC to use existing authorities and interpretations to foster access, flexibility, competition, and innovation in the banking sector.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 12, 2025, the OCC announced its conditional approval of five digital asset entities’ applications for national trust bank charters, including two de novo national trust bank charters and three conversions from state trust companies to national trust banks. In granting its approval, the OCC stated that the entities will be subject to the same standards that apply to all conditional approvals and that if the entities satisfy the OCC’s conditions, they will join the approximately 60 other national trust banks that are currently supervised by the OCC. The digital asset activities in which the five banks, collectively, would engage are broad. Certain of these activities were authorized under the so-called “bootstrap” provision of the National Bank Act, which permits a national trust bank to engage in any “other fiduciary capacity in which [s]tate banks, trust companies, or other corporations which come into competition with national banks are permitted to act under the laws of the State in which the national bank is located.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 9, 2025, the OCC issued Interpretive Letter 1188, confirming that national banks may engage in riskless principal cryptoasset transactions as part of the business of banking. According to the OCC, “[i]n a riskless principal transaction, an intermediary purchases an asset from one counterparty for immediate resale to a second counterparty, the ultimate purchaser of the asset. The intermediary’s purchase of the asset from the initial counterparty is conditioned on an offsetting order from the second counterparty to purchase the same asset from the intermediary.” Noting that riskless principal transactions in securities are generally permissible banking activities under 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh), the OCC stated that the inclusion of “a security that has some novel features” — such as a cryptoasset security — would not affect the permissibility analysis. Regarding riskless principal transactions in cryptoassets that are not securities, the OCC interpreted this activity under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1000(c)(1), which states that whether an activity may be considered part of the business of banking depends on if the activity: (i) is the functional equivalent to, or logical outgrowth of, a recognized banking activity; (ii) strengthens the bank by benefiting the bank’s customers or business; (iii) involves risks similar to those already assumed by banks; and (iv) is authorized for state-chartered banks. The OCC found that riskless principal cryptoasset transactions are permissible by analyzing each factor in turn.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On November 18, 2025, the OCC issued Interpretive Letter 1186, confirming that national banks may hold limited amounts of cryptoassets on their balance sheets as principal where reasonably necessary to pay blockchain network fees (aka “gas fees”), and may pay such fees on blockchain networks to facilitate otherwise permissible activities. National banks may also hold amounts of cryptoassets as principal necessary to test otherwise permissible crypto platforms, whether internally developed or acquired from a third party (such as for providing cryptoasset custody services). The OCC conducted its analysis under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1000(d)(1), which states that an activity is incidental to the business of banking “if it is convenient or useful to an activity that is specifically authorized for national banks or to an activity that is otherwise part of the business of banking.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On October 7, 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the Agencies) issued two joint notices of proposed rulemaking (collectively, the Proposals) in an effort to concentrate bank supervision on material financial risks and eliminate reputation risk as a supervisory factor in light of Trump administration policies.

The material risks proposal would revise the supervisory framework by formally defining the term “unsafe or unsound practice” and establishing a uniform standard for “matters requiring attention” (MRAs).

The reputation risk proposal would eliminate reputation risk as a factor in bank supervision, focusing supervisory program efforts on data-driven and measurable risks such as credit and liquidity risks.

The Proposals follow in the wake of the OCC’s September 2025 bulletins (Bulletins 2025-22 and 2025-23) aimed at eliminating unlawful debanking in the federal banking system. Like Bulletins 2025-22 and 2025-23, the Proposals are a response to key directives in the August 7, 2025, executive order “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Financial Regulatory Blog.

The OCC published two bulletins (Bulletins 2025-22 and 2025-23) in September 2025 aimed at eliminating unlawful debanking in the federal banking system. Bulletins 2025-22 and 2025-23 are a response to key directives in the August 7, 2025, executive order 14331 (EO 14331), “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” (see this Latham blog post), which called for bank regulators to identify financial institutions that have had any past or current formal or informal policies or practices conducive to unlawful debanking. Pursuant to EO 14331, financial institutions must ensure that all decisions to provide or deny service are “made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses,” rather than political or religious beliefs, or engagement with certain disfavored but otherwise lawful business activities. The OCC has indicated that regulated financial institutions should adjust their policies and procedures as necessary to align with EO 14331 in order to prevent unlawful debanking. Bulletins 2025-22 and 2025-23 give OCC-supervised institutions additional clarity on how the OCC intends to consider unlawful debanking in light of EO 14331.

OCC Bulletin 2025-22 clarifies that unlawful banking will be taken into consideration when the OCC evaluates (i) licensing filings by banks seeking to engage in various corporate activities or by entities seeking a federal charter or license and (ii) OCC-regulated banks’ records of performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The OCC will engage in a “holistic review” to evaluate “on a case-by-case basis” banks’ historical record and current policies and procedures designed to prevent unlawful practices, potentially affecting their licensing outcomes and CRA ratings.

OCC Bulletin 2025-23 reminds supervised financial institutions of their legal obligations to safeguard customer financial records, unless disclosure is required by law under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA). Specifically, under the RFPA, financial institutions are not permitted to disclose a customer’s financial records to any government authority except in limited circumstances.

Read more on Latham’s Global Financial Regulatory Blog.

• Interpretive Letter #1170 (July 2020) clarified the authority of national banks and federal savings associations to provide cryptocurrency custody services for customers.
• Interpretive Letter #1172 (September 2020) clarified the authority of national banks and federal savings associations to hold reserves of assets backing stablecoins on behalf of certain customers that issue stablecoins.
• Interpretive Letter #1174 (January 2021) clarified the authority of national banks and federal savings associations to participate in independent node verification networks and use stablecoins to conduct payment activities and other bank-permissible functions.
• Interpretive Letter #1176 (January 2021) affirmed the OCC’s authority to charter national banks that limit operations to those of a trust company and related activities. On the same date, the OCC granted conditional approval for the conversion of Anchorage Trust Company, a South Dakota-chartered non-depository public trust company offering digital asset and cryptocurrency custody services, to become Anchorage Digital Bank National Association, the first cryptocurrency trust company to operate under a national trust bank charter.
• Interpretive Letter #1179 (November 2021) clarified that national banks and federal savings associations must demonstrate that they have adequate controls in place before they can engage in certain cryptocurrency, distributed ledger, and stablecoin activities, as specified in Interpretive Letters #1170, #1172, and #1174. Interpretive Letter #1179 also reiterated that under OCC Interpretive Letter #1176, the OCC retains discretion to determine, for purposes of federal law, whether an activity is a trust activity and whether an activity is conducted in a fiduciary capacity. RESCINDED
• Interpretive Letter #1183 (March 2025) rescinds Biden-era Interpretive Letter 1179, eliminating the supervisory nonobjection process for banks to engage in digital asset activities.
• Interpretive Letter #1184 (May 2025) affirms the custody activities permitted in Interpretive Letter #1170.

On May 7, 2025, the OCC published Interpretive Letter #1184 (a response to an inquiry from a regulated entity) affirming that national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) may provide and outsource cryptocurrency custody and execution services on behalf of customers. Interpretive Letter #1184 affirms the custody activities permitted in Interpretive Letter #1170, first published on July 22, 2020. Specifically, a bank may provide cryptoasset custody services in a fiduciary or non-fiduciary capacity; outsource bank-permissible cryptoasset activities, including custody and execution services to third parties (e.g., a sub-custodian); buy and sell digital assets held in custody on a customer’s behalf at the direction of the customer and in a manner consistent with the customer agreement and applicable law; facilitate a customer’s cryptocurrency and fiat currency exchange transactions; and provide various crypto-related services such as transaction settlement, trade execution, recordkeeping, valuation, tax services, and reporting.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 7, 2025, the OCC reaffirmed that national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) may participate in a range of cryptocurrency activities, including crypto custody, certain stablecoin activities, and participation in independent node verification networks. Specifically, the OCC issued Interpretive Letter 1183, which rescinds Biden-era Interpretive Letter 1179 (November 18, 2021). Interpretive Letter 1179 directed that the activities addressed in previous OCC interpretive letters — i.e., 1170 (bank crypto custody), 1172 (bank stablecoin reserve holding), and 1174 (banks acting as a node on a distributed ledger) — were legally permissible, provided the bank could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of its supervisory office, that it had controls in place to conduct the activity in a safe and sound manner. The OCC stated in Interpretive Letter 1183 that the permissibility of the activities described in Interpretive Letters 1170, 1172, and 1174 were reaffirmed, and that the supervisory nonobjection process described in Interpretive Letter 1179 “is no longer necessary.” The OCC stated that its staff has increased its knowledge and supervisory expertise regarding cryptoasset activities. As part of its ongoing supervisory process, the OCC will, however, further examine the activities described in Interpretive Letters 1170, 1172, and 1174.

The OCC also simultaneously withdrew itself from two interagency statements that reflected the federal banking regulators’ “careful and cautious” approach to crypto under the Biden administration: (i) the “Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations” (January 3, 2023), and (ii) the “Joint Statement on Liquidity Risks to Banking Organizations Resulting from Crypto-Asset Market Vulnerabilities” (February 23, 2023).

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On September 21, 2020, the OCC issued Interpretive Letter #1172 (the Letter), giving national banks and federal savings associations (FSAs) the greenlight to hold deposits that serve as reserves for the underlying assets backing certain “stablecoins” on behalf of customers. According to the Letter, national banks and FSAs are granted this expanded authority to hold stablecoin reserves if all of the following conditions are met: (i) Deposits that constitute reserves for stablecoins are limited to stablecoin transactions involving hosted wallets; (ii) The stablecoins are backed by a single fiat currency; (iii) The stablecoins are redeemable by the holder on a one-to-one basis upon submission of a redemption request to the issuer.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

Brian P. Brooks, who was newly appointed as OCC’s acting comptroller, advanced the agency’s fintech-focused modernization initiatives and took steps to fulfill his promise to support technological innovation in the banking industry. On June 25, 2020, while speaking on the American Bankers Association’s podcast, Brooks announced that the OCC will introduce a new Payments Charter 1.0 (Payments Charter) later in 2020 that will serve as a federal alternative to obtaining state money transmitter licenses. That announcement came less than a month after the OCC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) requesting public comment regarding the OCC’s regulations relating to “digital activities” of national banks and FSAs. The ANPR was issued to ensure that such regulations continue to evolve with industry developments. 

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On May 22, 2026, the FDIC approved a third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the third FDIC Proposal) to implement the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) for permitted payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs) that are subsidiaries of insured depository institutions.

Specifically, the Proposal would implement anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) and economic sanctions compliance standards for FDIC-supervised PPSIs — including requirements promulgated by the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control — that are principles-based, tailored to the business model and risk profile of PPSIs, and consistent with applicable law. It would also establish supervision and enforcement provisions for PPSI AML/CFT programs, in alignment with FinCEN requirements.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On April 7, 2026, the FDIC approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the second FDIC Proposal) to implement the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) for institutions subject to its jurisdiction.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The second FDIC Proposal would establish a prudential framework for FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs), as well as requirements for insured depository institutions (IDIs) that provide certain payment stablecoin-related custodial and safekeeping services.

The FDIC proposes a simpler reserve diversification framework than the OCC, requiring only a 40% single-institution concentration cap (without daily or weekly liquidity floors, a weighted average maturity limit, or a minimum insured deposit requirement for large issuers).

Where the OCC would impose automatic, rules-based consequences for reserve or capital shortfalls and automatic redemption extensions during stress, the FDIC would retain supervisory discretion across all three areas, with no automatic issuance suspension, mandatory liquidation triggers, or self-executing extensions.

The second FDIC Proposal would clarify that reserve deposits at IDIs are insured as corporate deposits of the issuer (not on a pass-through basis to stablecoin holders) and that the FDI Act’s definition of “deposit” is technology-neutral, meaning tokenization does not affect deposit insurance eligibility.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 16, 2025, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the Proposal) to implement Section 5 of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act). The GENIUS Act, enacted by Congress in July 2025, created a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins whereby a subsidiary of an insured depository institution could be approved to issue payment stablecoins.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The GENIUS Act tasked the FDIC with developing new regulations to establish a framework for licensing, regulation, examination, and supervision for permitted payment stablecoin issuers that are subsidiaries of insured depository institutions. The goal of the Proposal is to establish procedures for a tailored application process under which the FDIC can evaluate the safety and soundness of an applicant’s stablecoin activities and support the responsible growth and use of digital asset technologies.

The Proposal would create 12 CFR 303.252 and align stablecoin issuer reviews to five statutory factors under the GENIUS Act, including the ability to meet reserve and disclosure requirements, management fitness and competence, and a clear, timely redemption policy. Once an application is substantially complete, the FDIC has 120 days to approve or deny it, and if no decision is made by then, the application is automatically approved. The FDIC may deny an application only if the applicant’s activities would be unsafe or unsound based on statutory factors, and it must provide a written explanation with specific findings within 30 days of denial; denials are appealable within 30 days.

FDIC Acting Chairman Travis Hill issued a statement in support of the Proposal, and noted that the FDIC will “continue to explore ways to provide regulatory clarity regarding activities related to digital assets and tokenized deposits more broadly.”

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On November 13, 2025, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Ninth Annual Fintech Conference, FDIC Acting Chairman Travis Hill outlined the banking regulators’ plans for integrating stablecoins into the traditional banking system.

As part of the FDIC’s responsibilities under the GENIUS Act, enacted in July 2025 (see this Latham Client Alert), Acting Chairman Hill discussed an impending stablecoin licensing regime proposal. The GENIUS Act established oversight and licensing responsibilities for various regulators, including the FDIC. Although the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is likely to lead much of the issuer licensing under the GENIUS Act, the FDIC’s remit includes stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of FDIC-regulated institutions, as well as oversight responsibilities around reserve composition, misrepresentation of federal deposit insurance coverage, and participation in the interagency Stablecoin Certification Review Committee.

In collaboration with the FRB and the OCC, the FDIC is also preparing prudential standards for potential FDIC-supervised stablecoin issuers, addressing capital requirements, reserve requirements, and risk management (e.g., liquidity and interest rate risk management, operational and cybersecurity risk management, and compliance with anti-money laundering rules).

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 16, 2025, the FDIC published its proposal. (See entry above.)

On March 28, 2025, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter (FIL-7-2025) that provides new guidance for FDIC-supervised institutions engaging in or seeking to engage in crypto-related activities (the Guidance). Specifically, the Guidance clarifies that FDIC-supervised institutions can engage in permissible crypto-related activities without receiving prior FDIC approval. The Guidance rescinds FIL-16-2022 (Notification of Engaging in Crypto-Related Activities), issued on April 7, 2022, which initially established the prior notification requirement for crypto-related activities. The rescission of FIL-16-2022 by the FDIC predates a series of letters sent on April 1, 2025, by House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill to the heads of the FDIC, OCC, FRB, CFPB, SEC, and Financial Stability Oversight Council, requesting the rescission, modification, or re-proposal of specific Biden administration actions. In the letter addressed to FDIC Acting Chairman Travis Hill, the committee stated that “[t]he FDIC should withdraw FIL-16-2022, as it imposes unnecessary supervisory burdens on banks’ use of distributed ledger technology.”

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

To address certain misrepresentations about FDIC deposit insurance by some crypto companies, the FDIC issued an “Advisory to FDIC-Insured Institutions Regarding Deposit Insurance and Dealings with Crypto Companies.” By federal law, the FDIC only insures deposits held in insured banks and savings associations in the unlikely event of an insured bank’s failure. The FDIC does not insure assets issued by non-bank entities, such as crypto companies. The FDIC Crypto Advisory reminds insured banks that they need to be aware of how FDIC insurance operates and need to assess, manage, and control risks arising from third-party relationships, including those with crypto companies.

Read the FDIC Advisory.

On November 7, 2023, the CFPB proposed a rule, Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications (the Proposal), to supervise large providers of digital wallets and payment apps. The Proposal aims to ensure that US-based non-bank financial service companies providing digital wallets and payment apps will be subject to the same federal supervisory rules as banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions that the CFPB already supervises. According to the CFPB, fintech companies and other firms offering novel products and services in the consumer finance space have “blur[ed] the traditional lines of banking and commerce.”

On May 9, 2025, President Trump signed into law a congressional resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On January 10, 2025, the CFPB issued a proposed interpretative rule that would extend the consumer protections of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) to certain stablecoin and other virtual currency accounts, video game accounts, and credit card rewards points accounts (the Proposed Interpretation). In issuing the Proposed Interpretation, the CFPB seeks to ensure consistent application of the EFTA to emerging payment mechanisms and protect consumer rights in the event of unauthorized transfers and other errors. However, coming a little more than a week before President Trump’s inauguration, the Proposed Interpretation is unlikely to gain significant traction in its current form. As President Trump’s first term illustrated, and with the CFPB under ongoing scrutiny and criticism, a recalibration of the agency’s regulatory and enforcement approach and priorities is likely on the horizon. With the Trump administration signaling both a deregulatory and digital asset-friendly approach, the role of the CFPB with respect to stablecoins and emerging payment mechanisms will be an area of intersecting interests to watch regardless of the fate of the Proposed Interpretation.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog. 

On April 3, 2026, the Treasury issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comment related to its implementation of the GENIUS Act, following a general Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in September 2025. 

Specifically, under Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (“Option for State-Level Regulatory Regimes”), “a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a consolidated total outstanding issuance of not more than US$10,000,000,000 may opt for regulation under a State-level regulatory regime, provided that the State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework under this Act.” It also requires Treasury to “establish broad-based principles for determining whether a State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework under [the GENIUS] Act.” Once such principles are established, the GENIUS Act also requires that state payment stablecoin regulators review state-level regulatory regimes in accordance with the principles.

Treasury’s proposed rule would establish a two-tier classification of GENIUS Act requirements: “uniform requirements” that states must follow without material deviation (such as for stablecoin-reserve backing and anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance), and “state-calibrated requirements” where states retain discretion but must produce outcomes “substantially similar” to the federal framework.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On April 1, 2026, the Treasury issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), seeking public comment related to its implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act), a comprehensive framework for the federal regulation of payment stablecoins enacted on July 18, 2025.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The GENIUS Act directs the Treasury Secretary (as well as the primary federal payment stablecoin regulators and each state payment stablecoin regulator) to promulgate implementing regulations through notice and comment procedures within one year of enactment of the GENIUS Act. Specifically, under Section 4(c) of the GENIUS Act (Option for State-Level Regulatory Regimes), “a State qualified payment stablecoin issuer with a consolidated total outstanding issuance of not more than US$10,000,000,000 may opt for regulation under a State-level regulatory regime, provided that the State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework under this Act.” It also requires Treasury to “establish broad-based principles for determining whether a State-level regulatory regime is substantially similar to the Federal regulatory framework under [the GENIUS] Act.” And once such principles are established, the GENIUS Act requires that state payment stablecoin regulators review state-level regulatory regimes in accordance with the principles.

Treasury’s proposed rule creates a two-tier classification of GENIUS Act requirements: “uniform requirements” that states must follow without material deviation (such as stablecoin reserve backing and anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance), and “state-calibrated requirements” where states retain discretion but must produce outcomes “substantially similar” to the federal framework. 

Treasury interprets “substantial similarity” as requiring state regimes to “meet or exceed” the standards in Section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act, treating the federal framework as a floor.

The NPRM anchors the federal benchmark primarily to OCC regulations and interpretations, reflecting the OCC’s role as the default federal supervisor for most nonbank stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act.

On September 19, 2025, Treasury issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), seeking public comment related to its implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a comprehensive framework for the federal regulation of payment stablecoins enacted on July 18, 2025.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

The ANPRM is open for public comment until October 20, 2025. It builds on the Request for Comment on Innovative Methods to Detect Illicit Activity Involving Digital Assets issued by Treasury on August 18, 2025, which remains open for comment until October 17, 2025.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On December 27, 2024, Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released final regulations regarding reporting requirements for trading front-end service providers interacting directly with customers on digital asset transactions, often referred to as “DeFi brokers.” The final rules do not change or impose any new tax obligations on digital assets. Taxpayers have always been obligated to include gains from sales or exchanges of digital assets in their income. Instead, the rules announced today require brokers — not digital asset holders — to report on the gross proceeds of the sale of their digital assets through a Form 1099. The rules ensure DeFi brokers of digital assets are subject to the same information reporting rules as brokers for securities and operators of custodial digital asset trading platforms.

Read the final Treasury regulations.

On April 10, 2026, FinCEN and OFAC issued a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment related to its implementation of the GENIUS Act. The Proposal would treat permitted payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions subject to all federal laws applicable to financial institutions located in the US relating to prevention of money laundering, economic sanctions, customer identification, and due diligence.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 4, 2025, FinCEN issued a notice urging financial institutions to be vigilant in identifying and reporting suspicious activity involving convertible virtual currency kiosks, also known as crypto ATMs. FinCEN cited a growing number of risks involving crypto ATMs, including fraud, cybercrime, and drug trafficking organization activity. The notice highlights red flags and reminds financial institutions of their reporting requirements under the BSA.

On October 19, 2023, FinCEN announced a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that would designate as a “primary money laundering concern” all non-US convertible virtual currency mixing (CVC mixing). The NPRM would impose enhanced reporting and recordkeeping requirements for any financial transactions involving international mixers, intended to mitigate the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. The proposed designation is pursuant to Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to require domestic financial institutions and domestic financial agencies to take certain “special measures” against foreign jurisdictions, foreign financial institutions, classes of international transactions, or types of accounts designated as a primary money laundering concern. Section 311 has heretofore been employed only against non-US financial institutions and jurisdictions rather than an individual class of transactions.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

In a surprise release in the waning days of the first Trump administration, FinCEN issued a proposed rule (the Proposal) that would impose significant new obligations on market participants in the cryptocurrency and digital asset market (Requirements for Certain Transactions Involving Convertible Virtual Currency or Digital Assets). The Proposal “would require banks and money service businesses (MSBs) to submit reports, keep records, and verify the identity of customers in relation to transactions involving convertible virtual currency (CVC) or digital assets with legal tender status (LTDA) held in unhosted wallets, or held in wallets hosted in a jurisdiction identified by FinCEN.” Under the Proposal, CVC and LTDA, such as Bitcoin and Ether, would be deemed ‘‘monetary instruments’’ under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). This classification would bring them under the BSA’s existing anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism recordkeeping and reporting requirements for currency transactions. The Proposal would also establish a new recordkeeping requirement for certain CVC and LTDA transactions, similar to the recordkeeping and travel rule regulations applicable to funds transfers. 

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On April 10, 2026, FinCEN and OFAC issued a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment related to its implementation of the GENIUS Act. The Proposal would treat permitted payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions subject to all federal laws applicable to financial institutions located in the US relating to prevention of money laundering, economic sanctions, customer identification, and due diligence.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On November 26, 2024, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Texas District Court decision and overturned Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions designations against certain smart contracts associated with decentralized virtual currency “mixer” Tornado Cash. OFAC added Tornado Cash to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list on August 8, 2022, marking the first economic sanctions against a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol. OFAC stated that Tornado Cash had “indiscriminately” processed transactions and “repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risks.” Importantly, OFAC sanctioned not only the Tornado Cash “entity,” but over 50 Ethereum addresses representing Tornado Cash smart contracts.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On August 8, 2022, OFAC announced sanctions against decentralized virtual currency “mixer” Tornado Cash (and 44 associated USDC and ETH addresses) — the first action of its kind against a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol. Mixers (or “blenders”) are centralized platforms or decentralized protocols (software that operates on the Ethereum blockchain) that specialize in masking the source and flow of digital assets via randomized and deliberately obfuscating transactions. They can therefore be an attractive resource for those seeking to maximize anonymity, launder stolen digital assets, or evade law enforcement. OFAC asserted that since 2019, individuals and groups have used Tornado Cash to “launder” more than $7 billion worth of cryptocurrency. The service has allegedly been used by North Korea-affiliated hacking collective Lazarus Group (itself sanctioned since September 2019) to launder $455 million in stolen cryptocurrency, as well as recent multimillion-dollar ransomware attacks and DeFi exploits. Treasury stated that Tornado Cash had “indiscriminately” processed transactions and “repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop it from laundering funds for malicious cyber actors on a regular basis and without basic measures to address its risks.”

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On March 21, 2025, Treasury removed the economic sanctions against Tornado Cash.

On August 21, 2025, Acting Assistant Attorney General of DOJ’s Criminal Division Matthew Galeotti gave a speech at the American Innovation Project Summit in Jackson, Wyo., in which he announced that DOJ will no longer pursue unlicensed money transmission charges against software developers that create decentralized digital asset trading platforms, provided there is no criminal intent. As Acting Assistant Attorney General Galeotti put it, “developers of neutral tools, with no criminal intent, should not be held responsible for someone else’s misuse of those tools.” The announcement, which marks a continued departure from the Biden administration’s enforcement approach, aims to “provide fair notice and clarity” and foster a more innovation-friendly environment in the digital asset industry.

The speech was given at the request of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who issued a memorandum on April 7, 2025, titled “Ending Regulation by Prosecution.” In that memo, Deputy Attorney General Blanche stated that DOJ “is not a digital assets regulator” and “will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets while President Trump’s actual regulators do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.”

Consistent with the principles of fair notice and due process, Acting Assistant Attorney General Galeotti stated that DOJ will no longer pursue unlicensed money transmission charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (Sections 1960(b)(1)(A) or (B)) in cases involving digital assets unless there is clear evidence that a defendant knowingly and willfully violated the statute’s specific legal requirement. DOJ will therefore not criminally charge developers who write code without a specific intent to commit a crime, aid or abet criminal conduct, or join a criminal conspiracy. It is DOJ’s view that “merely writing code, without ill-intent, is not a crime. Innovating new ways for the economy to store and transmit value and create wealth, without ill-intent, is not a crime.” However, Acting Assistant Attorney General Galeotti stated that DOJ may pursue certain cases under Section 1960(b)(1)(C), which prohibits the transmission of funds that the defendant knows are derived from a criminal offense, or are intended to be used to support unlawful activity.

Read more on Latham’s Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.

On May 28, 2025, the DOL issued Compliance Assistance Release 2025-01, which rescinds its 2022 guidance that cautioned plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care before they consider adding a cryptocurrency option to a 401(k) plan’s investment menu for plan participants.” According to the DOL, “[t]he standard of ‘extreme care’ is not found in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and differs from ordinary fiduciary principles thereunder.” By withdrawing the previous guidance, the DOL is returning to its “historical approach by neither endorsing, nor disapproving of, plan fiduciaries who conclude that the inclusion of cryptocurrency in a plan’s investment menu is appropriate.”

Visit the Department of Labor website for more information.

On October 24, 2024, the Office of Financial Innovation (OFI) of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) published “The Metaverse and the Implications for the Securities Industry.” The Report covers an overview of how FINRA defines “the metaverse,” market trends, potential applications for metaverse platforms that the securities industry is exploring, potential use cases, challenges and related factors associated with metaverse platforms, and potential regulatory considerations. The Report is meant to be exploratory and informational only, and states that it “does not create any new legal or regulatory requirements or new interpretations of existing requirements.” FINRA, however, notes that its rules, and the securities laws generally, apply regardless of the technology used to facilitate brokerage activities.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog. 

On September 6, 2023, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) voted to approve Accounting for and Disclosure of Crypto Assets, an Accounting Standards Update (ASU) to FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 350 (Intangibles—Goodwill and Other), originally proposed in March 2023. The ASU will standardize the treatment of certain digital assets under US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) (the Update). According to FASB, market feedback indicated concern with the current accounting methodology for cryptoassets under ASC 350 as indefinite-lived intangible assets (whereby assets must be calculated at a historical cost less impairment, such as for trademarks). The methodology reflects “only the decreases, but not the increases, in the value of crypto assets in the financial statements until they are sold,” and therefore “does not provide investors . . . with decision-useful information . . . that reflects (1) the underlying economics of those assets and (2) an entity’s financial position.” To address FASB’s concern, the Update requires an entity to measure cryptoassets at fair value each reporting period with changes in fair value recognized in net income. The Update also mandates enhanced disclosure requirements concerning an entity’s cryptoasset holdings, intended to improve information available to investors.

Read more on Latham's Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog.