Crypto Groups Urge SEC to Tailor Rules for Novel ETFs, With Solana Products in Focus
Crypto industry participants are split over how the SEC should regulate a new generation of exchange-traded products, including crypto vehicles that could affect the path for future Solana offerings.
Crypto firms, asset managers, market makers and consumer advocates have submitted competing recommendations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over how to regulate a new generation of exchange-traded products. The debate includes digital-asset vehicles, private-market products, event contracts and leveraged strategies, with implications for the future design and approval of Solana investment products.
Calls for Regulatory Parity
The submissions followed the SEC’s June request for comment on whether existing rules adequately protect investors and whether registration procedures should be updated for “novel ETFs.” The comment period closed Monday, with responses from the Crypto Council for Innovation, Andreessen Horowitz, the Solana Policy Institute, Grayscale, Chainalysis, Charles Schwab, Jane Street, Franklin Templeton and others.
The Crypto Council for Innovation argued that non-ETF exchange-traded products should receive regulatory efficiencies similar to those available to ETFs. Many spot crypto products use commodity-trust structures rather than registering as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
- CCI urged the SEC to promote regulatory parity between ETFs and other exchange-traded products.
- The group opposed changing the statutory definition of an investment company, warning that doing so could introduce uncertainty.
- A16z said products should be assessed according to their underlying assets, market structure and risks rather than treated as one broad category.
A16z also said crypto exchange-traded products already benefit from exchange listing standards and established disclosure requirements. It proposed closer coordination between fund-registration and exchange-listing reviews, including standardized timelines and shorter review periods for certain products. That position could matter for digital-asset products tied to Solana, whose structure and liquidity considerations may differ from vehicles holding illiquid private assets or pursuing less-tested strategies.
Disagreement Over Safeguards and Product Scope
The submissions revealed sharp differences over confidentiality, staking, portfolio restrictions and retail protections. Grayscale supported optional confidential consultations before public filings, while Charles Schwab opposed a fully confidential process and proposed that resulting filings remain public for at least 75 days before taking effect.
Chainalysis argued that public blockchains can support real-time surveillance, independently verifiable portfolio data and machine-readable disclosures. It recommended that the SEC require exchanges listing blockchain-based products to deploy monitoring systems meeting defined standards and report their coverage and limitations periodically.
The debate also extended to event contracts. Kalshi argued that these contracts should remain eligible for registered funds, saying governance, disclosures and coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission could address valuation, liquidity, leverage and surveillance risks. Public Citizen disagreed, warning that retail investors could mistake gambling-like products for diversified, long-term investments.
What This Means
The SEC now faces a choice between a common framework for novel exchange-traded products and separate rules based on each product’s structure and risk. For Solana and the broader crypto market, clearer review procedures and recognition of verifiable on-chain data could support future institutional products, but disagreements over investor safeguards may prolong approvals and produce distinct requirements for digital-asset offerings.