The US Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission have moved quickly to reshape the regulatory framework for digital assets after lawmakers failed to advance the CLARITY Act in the Senate. Their recent actions have offered crypto businesses clearer paths for tokenized stocks, staking products, token markets and leveraged trading—but legal experts say the measures could still face challenges in court or be changed by a future administration.
According to Cointelegraph, the central question is not simply whether the agencies have authority to issue rules. It is whether they have supported those rules with enough legal reasoning, research and economic analysis to withstand judicial review.
Agencies move after failed Senate vote
Two days after the CLARITY cloture vote failed, the SEC announced a five-year exemption allowing the issuance and trading of stock tokens. OXK subsequently partnered with ICE to launch trading in 63 stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Securitize separately introduced 12 Securitize Stocks, including shares linked to Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft.
The SEC has also issued guidance stating that a crypto token does not automatically become a security when its issuer buys back tokens. In a separate position, the agency said liquid staking tokens are not securities. It has additionally proposed new rules covering the custody of crypto assets.
The CFTC has taken steps of its own. It moved to exempt some crypto software providers from registration requirements, proposed a new registration category for a “crypto asset market” and said it intends to permit registered exchanges to offer leveraged trading.
These actions are significant because agencies often use rulemaking and interpretive guidance to apply broad laws to new technologies. A tokenized stock, for example, represents an effort to place an asset traditionally traded through financial-market infrastructure onto blockchain-based systems. The legal classification of those products determines which requirements apply to issuers, platforms and intermediaries.
Why court challenges remain possible
Some industry participants are concerned that the agencies’ policy direction could change again. TD Cowen has described agency rules as among the easiest measures to rescind, pointing to the reversal of policies associated with former SEC Chair Gary Gensler by commissioners appointed during the Trump administration.
The legal environment also changed in 2024 when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine through its decision in Loper Bright. Under the 1984 Chevron precedent, courts generally gave weight to an agency’s interpretation when legislation was ambiguous. Loper Bright rejected that approach and said courts must independently interpret the law, including by applying the principles of the Howey case in securities disputes.
Yuriy Brisov of D&A Partners told Cointelegraph that the SEC does have authority to create rules under the Exchange Act of 1934. The agency was established after the US market crisis of the late 1920s and was given responsibility for developing regulations that apply broad congressional mandates to changing market conditions.
That authority is not unlimited. Businesses or other affected parties can challenge a regulation if they can show that the agency failed to conduct adequate research, imposed an excessive burden or caused damage to the market. Brisov pointed to the 2011 Business Roundtable v. SEC case, in which a business challenge to SEC proxy-voting rules succeeded after the rules were viewed as burdensome and inadequately supported.
A separate case is testing the limits of agency authority over crypto-related businesses. A community-bank group has sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, arguing that the regulator exceeded its authority by allowing crypto companies to obtain national trust bank charters.
Rules, guidance and future administrations
A future SEC or CFTC could not legally reverse a policy merely by saying it disliked the previous approach, Brisov said. If companies invest in infrastructure based on the current rules, regulators would need to consider the effects on those businesses and the potential benefits to the US market.
Any change would require a transparent explanation supported by legal analysis, research and an economic rationale. Brisov said the agencies would need to follow a process often summarized as IRAC: identifying the issue, setting out the rule, analyzing the facts and reaching a conclusion.
That does not mean the current rules are immune from reversal. Courts can reach a different interpretation, particularly after Loper Bright reduced the deference previously given to agencies. But a challenger would still need to demonstrate more than disagreement with the policy.
The distinction between formal rules and staff guidance is also important. Brisov said the SEC’s FAQ on token buybacks is not legislation or a regulation. It functions as an internal manual explaining how staff should understand existing rules and can be changed frequently. It therefore provides less legal certainty than a formally adopted rule, even if businesses may use it as an indication of the agency’s current position.
Brisov said the SEC’s innovation exemption appears to have involved consultation with crypto companies and venture capital firms over an extended period. That preparation could help the agency defend the measure, although it does not prevent a court from reviewing the rule or a future regulator from proposing a different approach.
Moneyiar market picture
Moneyiar data at 21:14 on October 15, 2026, showed Propy (PRO) at $0.3720243815, up 2.07% over 24 hours and 9.7% over seven days.
The latest Moneyiar data available for Incentiv (CENT), recorded at 08:43 on October 13, 2026, showed a price of $0.0036503361, down 10.41% over both 24 hours and seven days. These market movements do not establish a direct connection with the regulatory developments described above.
