Facade of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Crypto Industry Pushes SEC for Predictable Rules on Novel ETFs

By Isaac • September 2, 2026 7:23 am • Comments

The crypto industry’s message to the Securities and Exchange Commission is straightforward: new products should face serious review, but “novel” should not become a catch-all reason to slow everything down.

Grayscale, Andreessen Horowitz and the Crypto Council for Innovation submitted comments as the SEC closed its consultation on novel exchange-traded funds.

The SEC’s public docket for File No. S7-2026-24 records the filings received around the Aug. 31 deadline, including submissions from asset managers, trading firms, investor advocates, fund-industry groups and exchange operators.

Trending: Goldman, Citi and 19 More Financial Giants Target a Joint Dollar Stablecoin for 2027

The three commenters did not ask the agency to ignore risk. They argued that the SEC should judge products by what they actually hold, how they operate and what protections they provide—not automatically subject every unfamiliar structure to the same restrictions.

That distinction matters for crypto. Spot Bitcoin and other digital-asset products often use legal structures that differ from conventional open-end funds.

Sweeping them into a single “novel ETF” bucket could create new requirements even where an issuer already has an established disclosure and compliance framework.

The docket also shows that this was a broad market review, not a crypto-only fight. Asset managers, trading firms, investor advocates and exchange operators all filed responses, giving the SEC competing views on innovation, disclosure, liquidity and investor protection.

A Cointelegraph summary of the submissions reported that a16z asked the SEC to coordinate its fund-registration and exchange-listing reviews and provide more predictable timelines. Grayscale and CCI supported optional confidential pre-filing discussions that could identify problems before a public filing.

The common thread is process. Issuers want to know which questions regulators will ask, which office will resolve them and how long the review is likely to take.

The differences are just as important. The firms agreed that one blanket rule would be too crude, but they proposed distinct answers on legal classification, product naming and the role of confidential discussions before a filing becomes public.

The same coordination problem appears in a separate Aug. 25 filing concerning equity perpetual markets.

That request called for clearer treatment of innovative products across the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The SEC opened its request for comment on novel ETFs on June 30. The agency asked whether current rules adequately address products tied to crypto assets, commodities, private assets, event contracts, leverage and other emerging strategies.

It also asked a foundational legal question: when a product primarily holds assets that are not securities, should it be treated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act?

A16z, Grayscale and CCI opposed changing the existing tests in a way that would automatically pull those products into the investment-company framework. Their concern is that a broad classification change could affect commodity trusts and crypto products that were built under a different legal structure.

The commenters did disagree on one visible issue: what deserves to be called an ETF. A16z argued that the label should be reserved for funds registered under the Investment Company Act.

Grayscale said the name should describe a product’s economic characteristics rather than its legal wrapper. CCI favored clearer disclosures so investors can see which framework governs a product.

That is more than a branding dispute. The label can shape what investors believe they are buying, while the legal structure determines registration duties, governance and specific protections.

The market is moving faster than the terminology. Equity- and commodity-linked perpetual markets have expanded rapidly on crypto venues, creating demand for regulated products that offer exposure to new assets and strategies.

An Aug. 28 industry post described that growth and the scale already appearing in real-world-asset derivatives.

That post is market context, not evidence for the SEC submissions. It does illustrate why the agency’s eventual approach will matter: product designers are already building exposures that do not fit neatly into older categories.

The SEC’s consultation did not approve or ban any product. It gathered a record that could guide future rules, staff reviews or disclosure standards.

For crypto investors, the near-term takeaway is not that a wave of new ETFs has been cleared. It is that some of the industry’s largest firms are pressing for a framework that separates genuine risk from novelty itself.

If the SEC produces clearer timelines and product-specific standards, issuers will have a more reliable path to market and investors will have a better idea of what protections apply. If the agency reaches for broad restrictions instead, the next generation of crypto-linked products could face slower launches and more uncertainty even before their individual risks are assessed.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

 

Search ProCoinNews