The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed new rules called “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The proposal aims to create a “tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets”. It follows the SEC’s March 2026 interpretation, which had already clarified how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets and related transactions. Together, both efforts try to solve one core problem. Existing SEC disclosure rules were built for “traditional securities (e.g., stocks and bonds)” and do not suit crypto offerings. 

As a result, issuers often end up disclosing information that is irrelevant to token buyers, while missing details that actually matter, such as network security, token supply, and governance. Comments on the proposal remain open for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. 

What counts as a “covered investment contract”: The rules do not apply to all crypto offerings. They apply only to a narrower category the SEC calls a covered investment contract. This is a contract, transaction, or scheme that qualifies as an investment contract, where three conditions must all be met: a crypto asset is subject to the contract, that crypto asset is not itself a security, and no other asset, security or otherwise, is bundled into the same deal. So, an offering involving equity alongside a token, for instance, would fall outside this framework entirely. Issuers in that situation would instead have to use other existing routes, such as a standard public offering or private placement.

Two exemptions let issuers raise money without full registration:

  • A smaller, one-time exemption: This is available over four years, and lets issuers raise “up to $5 million during the four years.” It targets early-stage projects that need seed capital to build their technology. Issuers can use it to distribute tokens to users, including through free token drops known as airdrops, in return for help building or promoting the network.
  • A larger, recurring exemption: This allows raises of “up to $75 million during every 12 months,” and comes in two tiers:
    • Under the first tier, issuers can raise to $20 million a year, capped at $6 million from insider resales, and do not need audited financial statements.
    • Under the second tier, issuers can raise the full $75 million, capped at $22.5 million from insiders. However, they must provide financial statements and keep filing periodic reports for as long as they rely on the exemption.

Both offering limits, moreover, would be periodically adjusted for inflation, so issuers do not lose real capacity to raise funds as prices rise over time.

Disclosures follow broad principles, not a fixed checklist: Rather than prescribing a rigid form, both exemptions require issuers to give investors “principles-based narrative disclosures.” Issuers must describe material information in their own words, tailored to their specific project and its stage of development. The SEC still expects this information to be “clear, concise, and understandable,” without excessive jargon, and consistent with whatever the issuer has already said publicly, whether on its website, on social media, or in whitepapers.

Substantively, disclosures must cover ten broad areas:

  • The investment contract itself
  • The terms of the offering
  • The crypto asset in question
  • Management and any conflicts of interest
  • The underlying network or application
  • Its security and source code
  • Token economics and allocation
  • Governance
  • The wider token ecosystem
  • Risk factors

On the offering specifically, issuers must state:

  • How many tokens are for sale, and at what price
  • How long the offer runs
  • How proceeds will be used
  • Where whitepapers or other offering materials can be accessed for free

Separately, disclosures must also name the issuer, its management, and other closely related persons, along with any conflicts of interest or resale restrictions they carry, so that investors can see who actually controls the project.

Issuers with fraud records are locked out entirely: Both exemptions carry a “bad actor” style bar. If the issuer, or people closely tied to it, such as directors, large shareholders, or paid promoters, have prior convictions or regulatory sanctions tied to securities fraud, the exemptions become unavailable to them altogether. This condition exists specifically to protect investors “from fraud” in these lighter-touch offerings. Separately, and regardless of disqualification status, all issuers relying on either exemption remain fully liable under the SEC’s general antifraud and antimanipulation rules.

A conditional safe harbor lets a token stop being treated as a security: This is arguably the most consequential provision in the proposal. Once its conditions are met, a covered investment contract is deemed to have “ceased to exist,” and the underlying crypto asset stops being treated as a security under US federal law from that point onward. Two conditions apply:

  • Managerial efforts must be complete: The issuer must have “completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts” that it had promised to undertake, and must not plan to make any similar promises again. In effect, once a network becomes functional and self-sustaining, and the issuer’s promised work is done, this condition is satisfied.
  • A public transition filing is required: The issuer must publicly file a “transition report” confirming it meets that first condition, along with a written analysis explaining its reasoning. That filing itself doubles as a public notice, informing token holders that the project has wound down its core development efforts, so they can take any steps needed to protect their own interests in the future.

The safe harbor also comes with a few important caveats:

  • It builds directly on the SEC’s earlier interpretation, under which a token separates from its investment contract once the issuer either fulfils its promises, or investors can no longer reasonably expect it to. This proposal turns that informal position into a formal, filable process.
  • It is not an automatic shield. The SEC states it remains “not precluded from challenging” an issuer’s claim that it actually met the conditions, for instance if a transition filing misrepresents the facts.
  • It only binds the SEC itself. It does not stop other parties, including private litigants, from separately arguing that a given token still qualifies as an investment contract.
  • It is available broadly. Issuers who used either exemption can rely on it, and so can issuers who never used either exemption at all.

Compliant offerings are shielded from separate state-level securities laws: In the US, individual states run their own securities laws alongside federal ones, and companies typically must satisfy both sets of requirements. Under this proposal, offerings that qualify for either exemption would be exempted from separate state registration and qualification requirements. This protection extends beyond the initial sale, too, covering certain resales of these tokens on secondary markets, as long as the issuer keeps meeting its federal disclosure and reporting duties for that asset. 

Also read: