In the past few years, the core controversy surrounding cryptocurrency regulation in the United States has always revolved around one fundamental question: Is a Token a security or not?

Now, the answer has finally been settled.

Recently, from the SEC's introduction of the "Token Safe Harbor" framework, to the joint definition of "digital commodities" with the CFTC, and the acceptance of crypto assets by traditional financial infrastructures such as the CFTC and the New York Stock Exchange, all signs indicate that U.S. regulation is systematically rewriting the rules of the game.

The most significant news came on March 17, when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance on crypto assets, clearly stating that digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment stablecoins (as defined by the GENIUS Act) do not constitute securities, and only tokenized forms of traditional securities will clearly fall under regulatory oversight as digital securities.

This marks the end of the "enforcement-style regulation" era initiated by Gary Gensler, replaced by a clearly defined institutional framework, and signifies that the assets we hold are accelerating their transition from the "grey zone" into the mainstream financial system.

1. Clear Identity: Tokens are No Longer Defaulted as "Securities"

Objectively speaking, the SEC's release of the "Token Safe Harbor" framework is highly consistent with the statements made by the new chairman Paul Atkins since taking office.

Combined with the SEC and CFTC’s clear definitions of Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and 13 other mainstream tokens as "digital commodities," it indicates that these assets will primarily be regulated by the CFTC, rather than being subject to securities laws. This also marks the first clear delineation of the regulatory scope between the CFTC and the SEC, where "whether a Token is a security" is no longer left in a vague grey zone.

In the future, Tokens and digital securities will likely evolve into two completely different industry paths—where the SEC’s regulatory focus will concentrate on "the tokenized forms of traditional securities."

This effectively ends the grey area; the determination of "whether a Token is a security" no longer requires the ambiguous Howey test to be judged one by one, and regulatory jurisdiction has achieved a clear physical separation for the first time.

Moreover, the SEC has also pointed out an interesting aspect, which is that investment contracts can be terminated; as long as the project party fulfills its core obligations, a Token can shed its security attributes, indicating that securities will no longer be a static label but can change according to the project's development phase.

In short, a project can change from a security to a non-security and vice versa, navigating between the regulatory scopes of the SEC and CFTC at different stages.

If the identity definition confirms legal status, then the new initiatives from the New York Stock Exchange and CFTC represent substantial financial incentive.

On one hand, the New York Stock Exchange has removed the ETF quota for BTC/ETH, eliminating the holding limits on 25,000 contracts; on the other hand, the CFTC allows BTC/ETH/stablecoins to be used as margin, with BTC/ETH counted at 80% of their value and stablecoins at 98% of their value.

Although this collateral rate is still not as high as the 90%-95% of exchanges (for example, Binance's BTC collateral rate reaches 0.95, and stablecoins are generally at 1:1), it marks an important beginning. Traditional financial institutions and institutional players can use crypto assets as collateral for leverage and portfolio trading, which is beneficial for further incorporating crypto assets into their asset allocation.

The simultaneous occurrence of these two events also indicates that Crypto is accelerating its integration into the traditional financial risk system, expanding beyond a single trading asset to include collateral and other attributes.

2. Global Stablecoin Regulation Accelerates: Locking in Payment Tools, Cutting Yield Attributes

As the properties of crypto assets become increasingly clear, the regulatory attitude towards stablecoins is also becoming more precise.

Over the past two years, the narrative around stablecoins has been heating up, largely because they are no longer just a medium of exchange but increasingly resemble an on-chain dollar interface, settlement tool, and, in some cases, even take on functions akin to savings and yield accounts, which has rapidly increased the tension between stablecoins and the traditional banking system.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that discussions surrounding the revised "CLARITY Act" in the U.S. have once again stalled, with one of the core points of contention being whether to prohibit users from earning yield solely for holding stablecoins. According to the disclosed discussion content, the bill prohibits paying interest to consumers, though certain versions do allow for rewards or incentive arrangements linked to specific activities such as payments or loyalty programs.

It is precisely because this distinction still exists that the banking industry continues to exert pressure, arguing that even "rewards" rather than "interest" could substantially siphon off deposit funds.

Against this backdrop, on March 24, Circle experienced a sharp decline of about 20%, and Coinbase fell nearly 10%, making the recent market reactions to stablecoin-related companies' stock prices understandable from this viewpoint.

This may also relate to USDC's strategy. USDC has been expanding rapidly over a period, and an important part of its strategy involves subsidies, profit-sharing, and incentives to compete for distribution channels with exchanges, platforms, and users. Now, if the path of earning yields through static holding is blocked, future returns are likely not to disappear but to shift into more complex structures, such as activity incentives, DeFi, RWA, or trading scenarios.

This is also why, on the surface, limiting stablecoin yields seems tightening, but from a deeper market structure perspective, it may also be reshaping the direction of the next round of yield distribution—where truly competitive stablecoins may not necessarily be the ones offering the most but rather those that have the deepest liquidity, the broadest access, the strongest scenarios, and the highest settlement efficiency.

In this sense, this regulatory change may not necessarily be a natural bearish factor for USDT, as USDT's core competitive advantage has long been built not by attracting market share through "deposit-like yields" but through establishing advantages based on global liquidity, first-mover network effects, and extensive coverage capability.

Conversely, if the model of "earning yields through static holding" is further compressed in the future, those paths relying more on subsidies and incentives for distribution will face greater adjustment pressure. Reuters also noted that banks are concerned that stablecoins might lead to deposit outflows, with some research even predicting that the U.S. banking system could lose hundreds of billions in deposits by 2028, which explains why regulators are highly vigilant about yield-generating stablecoins.

Ultimately, what the U.S. wants in stablecoins is not "high-yield accounts on-chain," but "on-chain dollar interfaces" that can enter payments, clearing, cross-border circulation, and financial infrastructure, but do not wish to become direct substitutes for liabilities in the traditional banking system.

3. Compliance of Prediction Markets: The Cost of Becoming "Truth Machines"

If the categorization of Tokens and regulation of stablecoins address issues of asset properties, then the changes in prediction markets seem to reflect the regulatory body beginning to redefine the relationship between Crypto and high-sensitivity events in the real world.

Over the past year, prediction market platforms like Polymarket have frequently entered the spotlight during the U.S. elections, macro data releases, and geopolitical events, leading more people to realize that prediction markets are not merely "guessing games" on-chain entertainment, but could be a highly market-driven information aggregation mechanism.

Michael Selig, the Chairman of the CFTC, even expressed in a recent public speech his hope that by combining prediction markets with blockchain, they could become a force against false information, distorted narratives, and financial exclusion, a statement that many have summarized as prediction markets potentially becoming "truth machines."

However, the CFTC is actually accelerating the incorporation of prediction markets and event contracts into key regulatory topics. Once prediction markets begin to deeply bind with real-world sensitive events such as politics, sports, entertainment, war, and public policy, they are no longer just pure information markets, but will quickly encounter issues such as manipulation, insider trading, gambling boundaries, and misaligned real-world incentives.

This is why recent actions in this area almost all show a common characteristic: recognizing their informational aggregation value while accelerating the cutting of the most likely problematic scenarios.

For example, Kalshi has publicly stated it will prohibit political candidates from trading in markets related to their own campaigns and will also prevent relevant parties such as athletes, coaches, and referees from participating in trading related to their own events; Polymarket also updated its market integrity rules in March, expressly prohibiting trading using stolen, illegally obtained information and other improper sources, and has strengthened constraints on market manipulation and information abuse.

Objectively, the logic behind these actions is becoming clearer; if a particular match, election, or policy outcome has a sufficiently large market, then theoretically, insiders, related parties, interest groups, and those with informational advantages have a greater motivation to influence the outcome itself or engage in preemptive trading using undisclosed information.

The sensitivity of sports and entertainment lies particularly in their high frequency, mass appeal, emotion-driven nature, and participants' direct influence over outcomes, making them easily perceived by regulators as "disguised gambling" rather than serious information markets.

In summary, the recent changes in U.S. regulation have become a more systematic, layered, and structured rule remodeling rather than simply repression or indulgence:

• The SEC no longer defaults to viewing Tokens as securities;
• The CFTC and SEC have begun promoting clearer division of labor and coordination;
• BTC, ETH, and stablecoins are gradually being incorporated into options, margin, and risk management systems;
• Stablecoins and prediction markets are being pushed towards "payment tools" and "restricted information markets," respectively;

In other words, Crypto is no longer treated as a vague whole but is beginning to be broken down into different asset categories, different functional interfaces, and different real-world scenarios, each falling into their corresponding institutional frameworks.

For users, this signifies that a more predictable environment is being formed; for the industry, it means that the next round of competition will not just occur in storytelling abilities but increasingly happen in who can better adapt to the new institutional boundaries and who can better integrate on-chain innovations into the real financial system.

2026 may not be the year Crypto entirely breaks free from regulation, but it will likely be the year it truly enters a phase of rule diversification, value reassessment, and institutional repositioning.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。