Recently, the U.S. SEC's crypto special working group and Chief Legal Counsel Taylor Lindman publicly proposed a five-year "innovation exemption" framework. According to a single source, this framework allows qualified platforms to attempt to bring U.S. stocks to on-chain trading through automated market makers and on-chain liquidity pools in a permissioned model, provided that each participating institution has a clearly identifiable operational entity responsible for compliance. While regulators emphasize that "this is more oriented towards on-chain finance than real DeFi," the mechanism requires approved addresses to participate in liquidity, publicly notify operations, and report to the SEC within one business day, leaving a trail for future accountability, while also indicating that the first batch of compliant tokenized stock trading venues is expected to emerge in the next quarter. Almost simultaneously, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong defined the language around his company's USDC yield products on the Money Rehab podcast—users receive “rewards” rather than bank interest, classified as a loyalty reward program; official materials specify that USDC Rewards are funded by Coinbase, thus Armstrong argues that they should not be subjected to the same capital and liquidity regulatory requirements as bank deposits. When the SEC incorporates on-chain U.S. stocks into the traditional regulatory framework using innovation exemptions, requiring someone to "stand in front" and take responsibility, while leading platforms strive for lighter regulatory burdens by labeling yields as "rewards" and implementing permissioned AMMs, a clear main line emerges: the crypto business is being systematically pulled into the old regulatory framework, but who will apply which qualitative standards will become the core battleground of regulatory games in the coming years.

Five-Year Experiment Window: SEC Allows On-Chain U.S. Stock Trading

Under the leadership of the crypto special working group and Chief Legal Counsel, the SEC has placed this five-year innovation exemption as a "temporarily open" institutional window: qualified platforms can test tokenized stock trading on public chains, but all actions must be completed within a traceable, accountable framework. The five-year period does not imply permanent permission but clearly informs the market—this is a controlled experiment with a start and an endpoint, and during this time, regulators will assess risks and benefits before deciding whether to tighten, extend, or convert it into a conventional licensing path. Compared to the previously conservative attitude towards tokenized securities, this framework neither imposes a blanket ban nor completely disregards on-chain finance, but acts as an "upgraded regulatory sandbox," leaving room for trial and error for both institutions and regulators.

In the specific compliance framework, the SEC allows qualified platforms to operate tokenized U.S. stock trading on public chains but requires liquidity provision through permissioned automated market makers and on-chain liquidity pools: addresses participating in market making and funding injection must be pre-approved, and each platform must have identifiable operational entities bear compliance responsibilities. This makes the model more akin to "brokerage/alternative trading systems on-chain" rather than a completely unmediated, unaccountable DeFi experiment. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and Taylor Lindman characterized it as "more oriented toward on-chain finance than true DeFi." In this framework, traditional brokers, alternative trading systems, and technology service providers responsible for building permissioned AMMs and reviewing addresses become direct targets of the innovation exemption: those willing to put their names in reporting documents, accept transparent operations on public chains, and face post-event accountability will have the opportunity to enter this compliant on-chain U.S. stock experimental track ahead of others, while anonymous teams unwilling to step forward will be excluded from this institutional experiment.

Permissioned AMM Emerges: Who Can Benefit from Tokenized Stock Dividends

Under the innovation exemption framework, the approved experimentation does not involve an open market-making pool accessible to everyone but a "permissioned model AMM": addresses providing liquidity must pass prior audits, leaving clear entities and technical touchpoints for regulatory accountability (according to a single source). The most significant distinction from traditional DeFi AMMs lies in access and responsibility—where previously any wallet could enter and exit pools at any time, and protocols could be maintained by anonymous teams, making it difficult to identify an accountable entity when manipulation or information disclosure issues arose. Now, each platform must have a clear operational entity taking compliance responsibility, and liquidity addresses are included on a list that is identifiable, freezeable, and accountable. SEC officials classify it as “on-chain finance rather than true DeFi,” openly acknowledging that in the tokenized stock business, intermediary institutions have not been eliminated but instead have been moved onto the public chain to continue performing their roles, with the execution logic merely transforming into contract code.

Who can share in this portion of dividends? The answer is actually written into the tone of the framework's details. The most likely candidates are those players who already operate in the licensed world—traditional brokers, alternative trading system operators, and tech service providers willing to take on the construction of permissioned AMMs and address reviews under corporate names. As long as they meet undisclosed entry standards, including institutional qualifications, technical security, and investor protection requirements, they are expected to incorporate on-chain U.S. stock business into their compliance landscape. In contrast, those insisting on "any address can enter and exit, protocols operate with no one in charge, all managed by DAO voting" in a pure DeFi model are almost excluded from the innovation exemption at this stage: without introducing identifiable operational entities and review mechanisms, they cannot cross the threshold of “on-chain finance” and thus will be unable to participate in the first round of institutional distribution of tokenized stocks under regulatory scrutiny.

Reporting Obligations and Information Delays: How Will the First Platforms Appear

Once the label of "on-chain finance rather than true DeFi" is established, who dares to be the first to put their name on this experimental field? The SEC has provided a highly procedural answer. According to a single source, any institution planning to operate tokenized stock trading under the innovation exemption framework must first release an operational notice to the market and complete the report to the SEC within one business day. This seemingly simple two-step process transforms the entire entry approach: the operational notice must be publicly released, meaning platforms cannot secretly launch or test the waters; every statement of “I want to enter the tokenized stock track” will be simultaneously captured by investment institutions, competitors, and regulatory observers; the subsequent one-day reporting then converts this public commitment into regulatory documentation, escalating the entry action from a market movement to a traceable, accountable compliance event.

However, the SEC's chief legal counsel also reminded of another temporal constraint: there will likely be a delay in businesses submitting their notices, with related reports mainly concentrated in the next quarter. This rhythm of "first having a public operational notice, then accumulating reports on a quarterly basis" creates a gameplay window for the first batch of listings that lies between transparency and ambiguity. Traditional capital market participants can view the public operational notice as a pre-signaling clue, allowing them to make prospective trades and queue bets based on different institutions' sizes, past compliance records, and technical capabilities before the formal reports concentrate. Professional crypto users will be even more sensitive to the timing differences—who rushes to issue notices this quarter and who chooses to delay is seen as an indirect statement of regulatory friendliness and risk tolerance. As operational notices and reporting timelines are institutionalized, the first on-chain U.S. stock platforms will no longer “suddenly emerge” as black boxes, but will gradually appear through a series of observable procedural signals, forcing market entry decisions to recalibrate around this signal system.

Coinbase's Language Games

At the same time that the SEC was building the "innovation exemption" experimental field for on-chain U.S. stocks, Coinbase was waging a war of language on another front. Brian Armstrong repeatedly emphasized on the Money Rehab podcast: users holding USDC receive “rewards,” not interest; this is a loyalty reward program. Coinbase's official materials also intentionally use "platform-funded reward programs" to describe USDC Rewards, rather than any terms close to "deposit" or "interest"—the earnings resemble interest, and the settlement method resembles interest, but the legal terminology intentionally deviates from the semantic coordinates of banking practices.

This characterization is backed by a meticulous calculation of regulatory labeling: once viewed as similar to interest on deposits, bank capital and liquidity rules could be imposed on crypto businesses. Armstrong publicly asserts that USDC Rewards have a "different nature" and should not be subjected to the same requirements as bank deposits. In the long-standing debate over whether stablecoin yields constitute securities or deposits, this represents a semantic offensive aimed at positioning the product within the framework of a "self-funded reward program" rather than "externally soliciting deposits." Currently, regulatory agencies have not given a final characterization of USDC Rewards, and the direction of future responses will directly affect whether similar products can continue to use reward narratives to circumvent bank licensing and capital constraints; meanwhile, within this uncertain interval, users' understanding of their rights and risks is also being quietly rewritten—they receive a "reward commitment" determined by the platform rather than a protected financial entitlement that has been clearly defined by the regulators.

Compliance Framework Approaches: The Game of Crypto Platforms at the Regulatory Boundaries

When the SEC uses a five-year innovation exemption to incorporate tokenized stocks and permissioned AMMs into a controllable experimental field and clearly state that "there must be operational entities taking responsibility, which resembles on-chain finance more than true DeFi," regulators have provided a roadmap: it is not about abandoning traditional structures but embedding on-chain businesses within existing securities and market regulatory grammar. Concurrently, Coinbase deliberately employs terms like "rewards" and "loyalty programs" regarding USDC yields, emphasizing that they are funded by the platform itself, attempting to separate the yields of these U.S. dollar-denominated on-chain tools from the typical templates of "deposit interest" and "securities products," squeezing them into a regulatory gray area that has not yet been conclusively defined. The convergence of these two threads outlines the main line of current crypto compliance games: regulators tighten boundaries through innovation exemptions, requiring identifiable subjects and accountable structures, while companies seek lighter regulatory paths through product design and language choices within those boundaries. True uncertainties lie ahead—the timing and identity of the first platforms operating compliantly within the innovation exemption framework remain solely based on the expectation of “the next quarter at the earliest” from a single source; the ongoing debate over whether dollar-pegged on-chain asset yields should be classified as securities, deposits, or another new category also remains unresolved among regulatory bodies. Platforms and users will need to make choices among these variables not yet written into regulatory texts; each layout essentially locks in different compliance costs and business spaces for themselves.

Join our community to discuss and get stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。