U.S. SEC Chair Details Cryptocurrency Policy Priorities for 2026

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

Editor | Wu Shuo Blockchain Aki

This is a transcript of U.S. SEC Chair Atkins’s conversation at ETHDenver on February 18, 2026.

Original link:

Peirce: I’m honored to share the stage today with Chair Atkins. Before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone: my and his remarks are personal statements made within our official capacities and do not necessarily represent the views of the commission or other commissioners. Chair Atkins needs little introduction, but I will briefly provide some background.

Mr. Atkins was sworn in as the 34th Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21 of last year. Prior to returning to the SEC, his most recent role was CEO of his consulting firm Patomak Global Partners, founded in 2009. He served as an SEC commissioner from 2002 to 2008; during his tenure, he advocated for transparency and consistency in regulation and promoted the use of cost-benefit analysis in agency work.

His career began practicing law in New York, handling various corporate transactions for U.S. and foreign clients, including public and private securities offerings and mergers and acquisitions. He spent over two and a half years stationed at his firm’s Paris office and earned the French “conseil juridique” qualification. He is a member of the New York and Florida Bar Associations, holds a J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School, and an A.B. (Phi Beta Kappa) from Wofford College (1980). Born in Lillington, North Carolina, and raised in Tampa, Florida, he and his wife Sarah have three sons.

An interesting fact about Chair Atkins: he is fluent in German and French. Perhaps he’s considering adding another language to his repertoire. Mr. Chair, have you thought about learning Solidity?

Atkins: No need. Vibe coding is enough. Compared to BASIC-PLUS and COBOL I used in college, that’s a huge step forward.

Peirce: Makes sense, Mr. Chair. But if your AI-generated smart contracts start claiming “all assets are securities,” we might suspect AI hallucination. A few years ago, if someone told me I’d be on stage at a crypto conference with the SEC Chair, I’d think they were talking nonsense. But here we are—so let’s get to the point.

Over the past year, under Chair Atkins’s leadership and during the phase led by Acting Chair Uyeda earlier this year, the SEC has taken many steps to “clarify” crypto regulation, including:

• Proactively soliciting and receiving written responses on a broad range of complex crypto topics;
• Holding multiple in-depth roundtables on specific issues: securities definition, trading, custody, tokenization, DeFi, and privacy; engaging with developers and builders in person in Washington, D.C., online, and across the country in “Crypto Outreach” events;
• Assisting Congress in advancing crypto legislation;
• Launching a new cooperation initiative with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to establish a long-term foundation for regulatory coordination in shared areas, including crypto;
• Ending the practice of “regulation by enforcement”;
• Publishing staff guidance and FAQs to help markets understand what falls within SEC jurisdiction (covering mining, staking, meme coins, stablecoins, etc.) and how regulated entities should comply when engaging in crypto activities;
• Abolishing some unhelpful staff guidance, such as SAB 121;
• Issuing staff statements on broker-dealer custody of “crypto assets securities”;
• Publishing inter-agency statements on the classification of tokenized securities;
• Approving general listing standards for crypto ETPs (exchange-traded products);
• Issuing no-action letters to several projects, including tokenization and DePIN initiatives;
• Initiating rulemaking, exemptions, and interpretive processes to build a sustainable, stable regulatory framework.

Mr. Chair, could you give us a preview of what crypto regulation progress we might expect this year?

Atkins: We have a lot of work ahead. Besides ongoing legislative discussions in Congress, as you mentioned, we’ll continue advancing regulation through “Project Crypto,” which is now a joint initiative with the CFTC.

As you know, one of our own—Mike Selig—initially brought into the SEC by Commissioner Hester Peirce, now serves as CFTC Chair. We plan to push forward on key issues—regulatory coordination, joint rulemaking—to create an unprecedented collaborative regulatory approach, especially considering past frequent clashes at the regulatory boundaries between our agencies.

For the SEC, I expect the commission and staff to focus in the coming weeks and months on:

• Framework documents at the commission level: Explaining how we view crypto assets that may constitute “investment contracts” and thus fall under regulation. How are investment contracts formed? How do they terminate?
• Innovation exemptions: Allowing limited trading of certain tokenized securities on new platforms to explore and gradually develop a long-term regulatory framework.
• Rule proposals: Creating more sensible, practical pathways for market participants to raise capital in scenarios involving crypto asset sales.
• No-action letters and exemptions: Providing clarity on whether wallets and other user interface products need to register under the Securities Act; clarifying when they do not.
• Broker-dealer custody rules: Developing rules for broker-dealer custody of “non-security crypto assets,” including payment stablecoins.
• Modernizing transfer agent rules: Updating transfer agent regulations to accommodate blockchain’s role in recordkeeping.
• Additional guidance and no-action letters: Continuing to help market participants understand how existing rules apply to their specific facts through extra guidance and no-action relief.

Peirce: That’s a substantial workload, but for us “securities rule enthusiasts,” it’s like participating in the Olympics—almost as thrilling as skiing at 80 mph, doing high-difficulty tricks after a jump, or completing a quadruple axel on ice. While not as “dramatic” as Olympic champions, we do have a rare opportunity: to revisit many complex regulatory issues in the context of this new technology. It’s a task requiring “aerial skills,” and we want to avoid breaking anything—except, perhaps, those unnecessary regulatory barriers that hinder technological progress.

I’d like to spend a moment on “innovation exemptions.” The expectations and concerns they raise probably need some cooling down. Honestly, the way people talk about it now reminds me of those who buy abandoned storage lockers, convinced they’ll find a priceless painting or a chest full of gold bars inside. Similarly, some believe the innovation exemption will solve all their regulatory problems overnight.

On the other hand, some traditional finance folks seem to think this upcoming “storage locker” contains a monster—one that will devour the entire traditional financial system in a grotesque way. They worry that the exemption will let crypto firms ignore all rules. Ultimately, both sides will likely find that the exemption isn’t as “disruptive” as they imagine. It’s an important step toward smoother integration of tokenized securities into the existing financial system, but it won’t overhaul the entire system overnight.

What we’re doing now is still incremental—always. The goal is to promote new technology’s “natural growth” within the system: enhancing its vitality and resilience while enabling it to serve investors, businesses, and capital users more effectively. Paul, please share your vision of what the “innovation exemption” might look like.

Atkins: I lean toward establishing an “innovation exemption” that allows both traditional market participants and crypto-native entities to experiment within certain boundaries. For example, permitting market participants to trade certain tokenized securities via automated market makers (AMMs), even if no single entity controls the mechanism. I believe that as long as market participants are willing, they should be able to interact with decentralized applications on a permissionless, open blockchain. But I also expect many Americans would prefer to have assets custodied and traded through intermediaries. Whether to use intermediaries should be up to individual investors, not SEC mandates. I also want to discuss whether we should provide a “safe harbor” for participants likely to facilitate such transactions.

Specifically, I hope to explore how issuers intending to tokenize securities can work with transfer agents or other tokenization agents to bring securities on-chain via AMMs or other decentralized liquidity platforms. Under this potential pathway, the exemption would set a cap on transaction volume and possibly grant some rule and requirement waivers—requirements that may be irrelevant under this technological approach. Buyers and sellers of tokenized securities would need to go through a whitelist process. This exemption would be temporary but long enough to assess whether future rules need to be created or existing ones revised to allow such transactions to continue under appropriate conditions, and to enable any parties that need to register to do so. I welcome feedback on this potential approach.

Peirce: Thanks for giving us a “peek inside the storage locker.” No Picasso, no monster—just a gradual step where market participants can learn and help us move toward a “fit-for-purpose,” sustainable long-term regulatory framework. Speaking of new things, you and I have seen demos showing how these technologies (like decentralized trading) work. Is there anything that particularly impressed you?

Atkins: One interesting aspect is embedding compliance requirements directly into smart contract code. For example, a founder could encode a promise not to resell their securities for a certain period directly into the smart contract managing tokenized securities. Similarly, blockchain could reshape how issuers communicate with holders. Privacy tech like zero-knowledge proofs could revolutionize how we meet the goals of the Bank Secrecy Act. Under this model, Americans wouldn’t have to surrender all their privacy to financial intermediaries, and compliance costs for those intermediaries could be lower.

Peirce: That sounds promising. I’ve long been concerned about over-embedding financial surveillance into our system. Americans now have an opportunity to leverage new tech to protect themselves from bad actors while also safeguarding national security. We should seize this moment to reexamine the importance of financial privacy for U.S. safety.

Now, let’s address “the elephant in the room”: how do you view recent declines in crypto asset prices? Should regulation focus on this? Should regulators panic or even care about price drops?

Atkins: Regulators’ job isn’t to worry about daily market fluctuations; it’s to ensure that market participants have the disclosures needed to make informed decisions. Whether buying stocks, gold, or crypto, if someone’s only concern is “the number always goes up,” they’re likely to be disappointed. Markets rise and fall due to many factors. As regulators, our most important role is to ensure that the rules governing these assets provide the necessary information so participants can judge and react accordingly.

Peirce: I agree. “Number go down” has become a popular slogan, and some crypto critics even celebrate it. In German, this reaction is called “Schadenfreude”—taking pleasure in others’ misfortune. Perhaps we could call their attitude “Ethbelowthreeglee” (Ethereum drops below 3,000) or “Bitcoinunderseventylevity” (Bitcoin drops below 70,000).

But the best response to critics isn’t rushing to find regulatory changes to “make the numbers go back up.” Of course, clearer rules through legislation and regulation can help create a conducive environment. But regulation isn’t the source of value—people must create what they truly want and need. Only then can we garner broader bipartisan support in Washington—if people are actually using something, the government is less likely to take it away.

Mr. Chair, based on your extensive experience in capital markets, could you share lessons on how innovators can more effectively engage with the regulatory system and successfully promote compliance and innovation?

Atkins: I agree—building what people truly want and need in Washington often says a lot. If this technology is developed and applied cautiously, as securities gradually go on-chain, it could be transformative for finance. For example, asset tokenization could shorten settlement cycles, facilitate collateral and dividend flows, enable proxy voting, or make it easier to build and manage “customized, decentralized” portfolios—changing the financial system as we know it. We’re ready to work with entrepreneurs committed to building a better future.

I’m reluctant to repeat the often-mocked slogan of the previous administration, but I will say: “Come in and talk to us.” We won’t favor any particular asset or technology, nor will we be your mouthpiece, but we want our markets to be open to those offering new products and services. Our rules shouldn’t be barriers to innovation—especially when such innovation can help us better protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.

Peirce: You’ve captured that balance well. We’re not cheerleaders for any new asset or tech, but we want markets to welcome those with ideas to improve how markets operate. The SEC hasn’t always been friendly enough. Poor regulation can deprive the American public of benefits they could otherwise enjoy.

For example, our past reluctance to engage constructively with token issuers led to an unusual outcome: tokens that don’t confer any substantive rights on holders are less likely to attract negative regulatory attention than those that do. The consequence is a world where most tokens don’t grant any rights to their holders.

I hope we reach a point where project developers no longer fear designing tokens that have some income rights and thus fall under securities laws. Paul, to achieve “people can freely issue tokens that are obviously securities,” what conditions or changes are needed?

Atkins: We need to continue advancing our ongoing work—providing clearer rules and pathways for how tokenized securities can fit within current regulation, and how intermediaries can operate compliantly when representing clients in tokenized securities trading and custody. This can only be done through collaboration; we welcome all feedback, including from those immersed in “Schadenfreude.”

I encourage everyone here to consider: what attributes should a token have to be genuinely useful? Then, together, we can work toward a regulatory framework that accommodates and supports these attributes without undermining our core regulatory goals. Of course, this process takes time. Innovators don’t necessarily have to wait for all these changes to be implemented before building. While we consider broader rule adjustments, engaging with us to see if existing rules can be navigated in your specific facts and business structures is a necessary transitional step.

Peirce: Paul, even in tough environments, you remain optimistic. Do you have any closing advice for listeners going through a difficult crypto market cycle?

Atkins: Focus on building what truly matters. That’s how you turn “Schadenfreude” into “Freudenfreude”—the joy of genuinely celebrating others’ success. A little dark chocolate and diet soda might help, but moderation with Celsius and Zyn is advisable.