SEC Defines Crypto Rules – Here’s How Industry is Responding

The SEC’s new crypto rules are being framed as a long-awaited source of clarity. But industry participants say the picture is more complicated.

Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don’t!)

For exchanges and brokers, the immediate effect is more about a shift toward a structured, and in some ways more demanding, operating environment.

From Listing Clarity to Ongoing Oversight

Industry participants broadly agree that clearer definitions are a step forward. The distinction between digital commodities, securities, and other token categories provides a more consistent framework for evaluating assets at the listing stage — something that has historically been a major source of uncertainty.

Gracy Chen, CEO, Bitget, Source: LinkedIn

However, clarity does not eliminate complexity. “Clearer taxonomy may not automatically make listing decisions ‘easier’, but it makes them more predictable — and that’s far more valuable,” said Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget.

She noted that exchanges have long struggled not with assessing projects themselves, but with uncertainty around how tokens might be classified over time — a risk that extends beyond the initial listing decision. That uncertainty is now being reshaped rather than removed.

According to Kyrylo Khomiakov, Regional Head of CEE, Central Asia and Africa at Binance, the new framework improves early-stage classification but does not replace the need for case-by-case legal analysis.

Tokens that are marketed with expectations of profit may still fall under securities laws depending on issuer behavior and disclosures, meaning that regulatory risk continues throughout the lifecycle of an asset, not just at the point of listing.

In practice, this shifts the burden toward ongoing monitoring. Exchanges are expected to track how tokens evolve, how they are positioned in the market, and whether they remain within their initial classification — particularly in scenarios where safe harbor provisions may apply.

[#highlighted-links#]

That risk is not theoretical. Between 2023 and 2024, more than 2,600 tokens were listed across major exchanges, with about 25% later delisted — often due to regulatory, liquidity, or compliance issues.

Enforcement activity has also been significant, with U.S. regulators initiating well over 100 crypto-related cases over the past decade, highlighting how classification risk can emerge well after a token is launched.

Why Classification Remains a Moving Target

At the same time, the impact of the new framework is unlikely to be uniform across the market. Alexander Kuptsikevich, Senior Market Analyst at FxPro, expects the changes to primarily benefit higher-quality projects rather than the broader long tail of crypto assets.

“To be honest, it is unlikely that the latest changes will trigger another major boom,” he said. “Instead, we are likely to see increased confidence from high-quality developers aiming to embed stricter supply-generation rules into their protocols from the beginning.”

The market itself remains highly concentrated. The top 10 tokens account for roughly 80–85% of total market capitalization, while thousands of smaller assets make up a long tail with limited liquidity. More than 90% of tokens fall into this category, often trading with low daily volumes.

He added that the changes are unlikely to significantly affect meme tokens and smaller projects that were never designed with exchange listings in mind.

In that sense, the new regulatory approach may act less as a catalyst for growth and more as a filter, reinforcing the divide between institutional-grade assets and speculative segments of the market.

A Market That Favors Scale and Compliance

The proposed safe harbor regime could further support this shift. Rather than simply increasing the volume of token issuance, industry participants expect it to encourage more disciplined project design, with greater emphasis on long-term utility and compliance from the outset.

For exchanges and brokers, the net effect is a trade-off. On one hand, clearer classification reduces ambiguity and allows firms to build more consistent internal frameworks for listing and risk management. On the other, it introduces additional requirements around due diligence, monitoring, and documentation — particularly as tokens move through different stages of their lifecycle.

As Khomiakov notes, this dual effect ultimately favors larger players with established compliance infrastructure. Binance points to its internal processes — including dedicated compliance teams and ongoing risk monitoring — as a foundation for operating within a more structured regulatory environment.

“I see this as part of a broader transition,” Chen said. “The industry is moving from a phase defined by experimentation to one defined by clarity, accountability, and infrastructure.”

For brokers and exchanges, clearer rules do not reduce the workload. They change it — from uncertainty at the listing stage to continuous oversight over how assets are used and evolve.