SEC’s Crypto Custody Guidance Sparks Debate Among Commissioners
Regulating cryptocurrency in the United States has long been a challenge, but recent guidance from the SEC is starting to bring clarity to crypto custody. The agency’s Division of Investment Management issued a no-action letter that allows registered investment advisers and regulated funds to hold crypto assets in custody with certain state-chartered trust companies without fear of enforcement. While some commissioners, including Hester Peirce, welcomed this move as a positive step, Caroline Crenshaw expressed strong concerns about its implications.
In brief
- The SEC issued guidance clarifying how registered investment advisers and regulated funds can hold crypto assets with state-chartered trust companies.
- Commissioners split on the guidance with Hester Peirce supporting it for clarity and investor protection while Caroline Crenshaw warned it weakens safeguards and creates inconsistent rules.
- The guidance comes as the SEC advances Project Crypto and Congress works on legislation to establish a more consistent regulatory framework for digital assets.
SEC Provides Guidance on Crypto Custody
The no-action letter provides clarity on how existing custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act apply to digital assets. Until now, it was unclear whether state-chartered trust companies could be considered “qualified custodians.”
The Division of Investment Management has now clarified the matter , stating that it “would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission under the Custody Provisions against a Registered Adviser or Regulated Fund for treating a State Trust Company as a “bank” with respect to the placement and maintenance of Crypto Assets and Related Cash and/or Cash Equivalents.” This guidance signals a potential shift in how the SEC approaches custodians for digital assets.
Peirce Sees the Letter as a Positive Step for Crypto Custody
Hester Peirce, a commissioner supportive of clearer crypto guidance, described the letter as a helpful step for advisers and funds that already invest or wish to invest in crypto. She emphasized that the letter does not alter the legal definition of custodians under the Advisers Act or the 1940 Act. Instead, it clarifies that some state trust companies already meet the standards to act as custodians if they operate under regulatory frameworks that offer investor protections comparable to other approved custodians.
Peirce also noted that the guidance will benefit investors and fund shareholders by reducing uncertainty. She suggested that it could provide an opportunity to review and update custody requirements for registered advisers and funds, moving toward more flexible, principles-based regulations that focus on protecting investors rather than relying solely on technical definitions.
Crenshaw Criticizes No-Action Letter and Custody Relief
Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw opposed the no-action letter , arguing that it weakens existing rules by allowing a new class of custodians that do not meet current standards. She said the decision lacks sufficient factual and legal support and could undermine statutory protections designed to safeguard investors.
Crenshaw also highlighted issues of fairness and consistency. The policy allows state trust companies to bypass the full application process required of other institutions by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. She argued that this could expose investors and markets to inconsistent protections across states, describing it as a “50-state regulatory roulette” that favors the crypto industry while potentially compromising investor safety.
The only justification for the relief seems to be a false narrative that no other entities are available to custody crypto assets consistent with our rules. But today’s relief jumps the gun: it gets ahead of Commission rulemaking, ahead of applications for federal charters with the OCC, and ahead of interest from trusted custodians who already operate within the relevant regulatory framework.
Caroline Crenshaw
The no-action letter comes as the SEC, led by Paul S. Atkins, pursues broader efforts to modernize digital asset oversight. Through Project Crypto , the agency is working to modernize its approach to digital assets and establish a clearer oversight framework. At the same time, U.S. lawmakers are pushing for a unified legal framework to bring more clarity to the digital asset market.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
Wall Street giants collectively raise rate hike forecasts, US Treasury futures continue to fall, gold drops over 1% to break 4000
After the US October CPI exceeded expectations, Goldman Sachs and Nomura added a forecast for an interest rate hike in March next year, while Deutsche Bank included a forecast for a rate hike in January next year. Currently, the market has fully priced in a 25 basis point rate hike in December, with a 13% probability for a 50 basis point hike. On Wednesday, the US Treasury spot market was closed, but Treasury futures continued to fall, with corresponding yields rising by about 2 to 4 basis points, and spot gold came under pressure, dropping by 1.1%.
No Need to Worry About the Cooling Down of AI Data Center Construction? The US Import Boom Is Unlikely to Subside in the Short Term, Real Impact May Come in 2029
It takes an average of 4.8 years from finalizing investment to starting construction of a data center project, and an additional 2.6 years from construction start to becoming operational. Servers usually cannot be installed until after the building structure and racks are completed. For trade partners such as Taiwan (China), South Korea, and Mexico who rely on US data center supply chain demand, the inertia in construction timelines provides at least a one- to two-year buffer for future exports.
Federal Reserve Major Debate: When Should the Tenure of “Number Three” Williams End?
The main point of contention is whether Williams should step down in June 2028, upon completing a full 10-year term, or in June 2027, when he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 65. Analysts point out that the Federal Reserve Board holds ultimate discretion; if he leaves early, Fed Chair Waller would be able to assert greater control over the appointment to this critical position. However, forcing Williams to shorten his term could easily be interpreted as political manipulation. Williams himself is expected to serve until June 2028.
Crypto prices
More
