Major developments in crypto regulation:

(Image caption) The SEC and CFTC have for the first time clearly defined the regulatory boundaries for crypto assets in a joint statement, marking a key shift in the United States from "enforcement-led" to "rule-led".

On March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly issued a landmark explanatory statement that directly addressed the core question of whether crypto assets are securities, a question that had remained unresolved for more than a decade. For the first time, the statement provided the industry with a relatively complete "token taxonomy" and regulatory boundaries.

In a statement, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said, "After more than a decade of uncertainty, this interpretation will provide market participants with a clear understanding that regulators should use clear language to draw clear lines." The CFTC Chairman emphasized that creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs "have waited too long for this guidance," and that this action marks a shift in regulation from passive enforcement to proactive rule-making.



Key Point 1: Five Categories of Token Taxonomy

The most noteworthy aspect of this explanation is that it is the first time that crypto assets have been systematically divided into five categories, each corresponding to a different legal nature and regulatory body:

- Digital Commodities
Assets that possess inherent utility and do not rely on centralized entities, such as native Layer-1 tokens like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are, in principle, regulated by the CFTC as "commodities" in the spot and derivatives markets.

- Digital Collectibles
NFT assets, which exist in a non-fungible form and carry artistic, cultural, or entertainment value, focus on ownership and intellectual property protection rather than investment returns.

- Digital Utilities
Utility tokens that grant holders the right to access specific platform or protocol functions, such as tokens used to pay gas, transaction fees, or service usage rights, are essentially "usage rights" rather than "investment contracts."

- Stablecoins
Payment assets that are pegged to fiat currency or physical assets and are intended to maintain price stability still need to be subject to multiple regulatory frameworks (payments, anti-money laundering, reserve management, etc.) depending on their specific design.

- Digital Securities
Tokens issued through investment contracts whose value depends on the efforts and performance of a third-party management team must be fully subject to SEC securities regulations, including registration, disclosure, and investor protection requirements.

This classification directly refutes the extreme stance of "everything is a security" and provides a clear regulatory benchmark for designing products for various Web3, RWA, and creator economy projects in the future.

(Image caption) This regulatory initiative is the first to systematically propose a five-category token classification framework, distinguishing between digital goods, tools, collectibles, stablecoins, and digital securities, providing a clear design reference for Web3 and RWA projects.



Key point two: "Investment contract lifecycle": It is not that once it is a security, it will always be a security.

Another major theoretical breakthrough is that the SEC has formally recognized that so-called "investment contracts" can have a lifecycle:

- A crypto asset that originally falls under the category of "non-securities," such as a native token of a public blockchain, will still be considered a securities offering and must comply with federal securities laws if it is issued and sold through an ICO or private placement at a certain stage, accompanied by a clear investment contract and return guarantee.
- When the issuer has fulfilled its main obligations under the investment contract, the project has achieved full decentralization, and the token no longer depends on the efforts of a specific management team, the "investment contract relationship" can be terminated, and the token can return to its "commodity/instrument" attributes and no longer be permanently labeled as a "securities".

This "dynamic identity" framework provides a compliant "legitimacy" path for mature public chains and some early-stage projects that primarily rely on fundraising: transitioning from a securities stage with investment contracts to a stage of pure digital goods or tools.

For the industry, this means that when designing a token economy, it is necessary to consider both "how to raise funds legally during the launch phase" and "how to prove decentralization during the mature phase," rather than remaining in the "gray area" forever.

(Image caption) The SEC has proposed the concept of "investment contracts having a life cycle," indicating that tokens can gradually transition from the security attributes of the fundraising stage to the commodity or instrument attributes of the decentralized stage.



Key Point 3: Specific Guidelines for Airdrops, Mining, Staking, and Cross-Chain Encapsulation

This statement also provides relatively specific guidance for several highly controversial practical scenarios:

- Airdrop
If an airdrop is used solely as an incentive for users of the agreement, to grant governance rights, or for functional distribution, and is not combined with consideration for fundraising or a profit commitment, it generally does not constitute a securities issuance. However, if an airdrop is structured into a disguised fundraising tool, it may still fall under the scope of securities law.

- Protocol Mining & Staking
Native mining and protocol-level staking, without involving external fundraising for investment, can be regarded as an internal distribution mechanism of the protocol, which greatly reduces legal risks; however, if centralized management and fixed-income commitments are added, case-by-case assessment is still required.

- Cross-chain bridges and asset wrapping
For the "wrapping" of non-security crypto assets in cross-chain scenarios (such as WBTC), as long as the one-to-one mapping relationship is clear and there is no additional investment contract nesting, the regulatory attributes of the underlying assets will generally not be changed due to the wrapping itself, which is conducive to the development of cross-chain interoperability.

- Delineating the Regulatory Landscape
Overall, spot and derivatives trading of digital commodity assets is primarily regulated by the CFTC; digital securities involving investment contracts are still handled by the SEC under securities laws. This division of labor between the two agencies, through joint interpretation, paves the way for future congressional legislation.

(Image caption) Core mechanisms such as airdrops, mining, staking, and cross-chain encapsulation are being gradually categorized under the new guidelines. The key is whether they involve fundraising and investment expectations, rather than the technical form itself.



Implications of Web3 x RWA for the Chinese-speaking Market

This explanation marks a shift in the US's approach to crypto regulation: from a past focus on "enforcement-driven" case-by-case crackdowns to a framework-based governance based on "rules first." For Web3 x RWA projects currently undergoing asset on-chaining and revenue tokenization, this offers at least three direct implications:

- Product design must clearly distinguish:
- Is the token itself a "commodity/tool/collectible" or a digital security carrying an "investment contract"?
Fundraising activities and the internal distribution mechanism of the agreement are two different sets of logics in law.

- For RWA projects such as creator economy, content revenue rights, and real estate claims:
- Tokens representing usage rights, membership benefits, and advertising points are closer to digital tools or products;
- Fragmented tokens representing future cash flow sharing, equity, or debt should be openly included in the "Digital Securities/RWA" framework and issued in compliance with regulations through private placements, qualified investors, etc.

- For the Chinese-speaking market and Chinese companies:
- Crypto-related businesses that are listed in the US or raise funds from US investors will have a clearer compliance path to follow;
- At the same time, this US framework is likely to become a reference template for other major jurisdictions to design their own cryptography and RWA regulations.

The fog of a decade has now lifted at least half. The remaining half will be gradually filled in over the next few years through formal legislation by Congress and practical operations by various regulatory agencies. For Web3 x RWA participants, understanding and proactively aligning with this classification and "lifecycle" concept is no longer an option, but a prerequisite for "entering the long-term game" in the next stage.

(Image caption) The future creator economy will form a two-tiered structure: the upper tier will be a tool-type token for fans and brands, and the lower tier will be a revenue-sharing or asset-type RWA for investors, realizing the institutional separation of "right of use" and "right of investment".



Editor's Note: A Key Turning Point for the Creator Economy and RWA

For platforms that are developing creator economies and content revenue rights (RWA), this interpretation by the SEC/CFTC is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it acknowledges that most tokens can be considered commodities, tools, or collectibles, opening up space for designs such as "fan benefits, ad points, and membership certificates," without necessarily fitting them into the securities framework. On the other hand, it also clearly categorizes "fragments of rights with revenue sharing and investment expectations" as digital securities, effectively requiring creator projects to consciously separate "usage rights" from "investment rights" in their design.

In the future, truly viable creator economy RWA models will likely evolve into a two-tiered structure: the surface layer consists of tools and experience tokens for fans and brands, while the underlying layer represents the revenue rights, royalty rights, and IP rights of qualified investors. Whoever can clearly and effectively communicate and execute both layers in terms of product and narrative will have a greater chance of remaining within Web3 and entering mainstream finance under the new regulations.