#美SEC促进加密资产创新监管框架 I recently finished reading Paul Atkins' regulatory framework on "Project Crypto," and to be honest, I was a bit surprised.

This new chairman has finally put a decade-old industry problem on the table: Will tokens always be considered securities? He used the analogy of Florida orange groves—an investment contract is not a permanent label. Once a network is mature enough and control is sufficiently decentralized, why should the asset still carry the “security” tag? The logic is actually quite clear: focus on economic substance instead of clinging to definitions.

For projects that have successfully achieved decentralization, this offers a way to "de-securitize." More importantly, the non-security classifications they’ve listed—digital commodities, collectibles, utility tools—finally provide the market with a clear reference point. No more guessing what regulators are thinking every day.

Of course, Atkins hasn’t forgotten to draw red lines. “Fraud is fraud”—he put it bluntly, no matter how you package the asset. He hasn’t compromised on encouraging innovation or protecting investors.

The most exciting prospect is the "innovation exemption" mechanism that might be introduced by the end of the year. If it actually comes to fruition, the US market could become the testbed of choice for new projects. After all, the regulatory uncertainty in recent months has already driven away quite a few teams; it’s time for a clear stance. If this shift from “regulatory ambiguity” to “categorical guidance” materializes, the digital asset sector could be in for a major shakeup.