Chainlink, Cardano and other blockchain groups press SEC to treat digital commodities as non-securities
Six major blockchain organizations, including Chainlink and Cardano, formally urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to recognize digital commodities as non-securities within its proposed regulatory framework, according to reporting on Oct. 21, 2026. The groups asked the SEC to adopt language that would carve out broad categories of digital assets from securities regulation, a classification they said is essential to clarify compliance obligations across the industry.
What the groups requested
The organizations pressed the SEC to explicitly treat certain digital assets as commodities rather than securities in the agency's developing regulatory approach. Their appeal centers on establishing a clear, predictable standard that differentiates token types and the activities tied to them. The paper argued that formal recognition in rulemaking or guidance would reduce legal uncertainty for developers, exchanges, custody providers and institutional market participants.
Why this matters for the crypto market
Legal classification determines which regulator has primary authority, and whether a wide range of market practices would be treated as securities transactions. If the SEC were to formally recognize a class of digital commodities as non-securities, it could have wide-ranging effects on market structure and participant obligations. Exchanges and custodians would face clearer rules on custody, listing and trading operations; institutional investors would have a better framework to assess compliance risk; and projects could adjust token economics and governance with greater regulatory certainty.
Major assets such as Bitcoin and Ether have long been discussed in debates over statutory status, and this effort by blockchain groups aims to extend an explicit non-security designation to additional token categories. Clarity from the SEC could also influence how other regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and banking agencies, approach oversight of trading platforms, derivatives, and custody services tied to digital assets.
Implications for institutions, liquidity and infrastructure
For institutional participants, clearer classification can reduce compliance costs and operational risk, which are major drivers of participation in spot trading, custody arrangements and exchange-traded products. Market infrastructure providers — including custodians, settlement services and spot exchanges — would gain firmer legal footing to build products and services, potentially improving liquidity and narrowing trading spreads for major tokens.
Conversely, the precise scope of any non-security carve-out will matter. If narrowly defined, many tokens could remain subject to securities law, preserving uncertainty and potential enforcement risk. Stablecoins, tokenized assets and newer protocol-native coins could be treated differently depending on how the SEC frames activities such as fundraising, secondary-market trading and ongoing promises by issuers.
Market participants will likely watch the SEC’s next moves closely. Observers should monitor whether the agency issues formal guidance or incorporates the groups’ recommendations into rulemaking, the timing and content of any public response, and secondary effects on exchange listings, custody contracts and institutional product launches. Developments could also prompt reactions from other federal regulators and influence litigation or legislative efforts concerning crypto oversight.