Federal regulatory bodies are establishing specific frameworks for digital assets through administrative rulemaking, stepping into the void left by stalled Congressional legislation.
On Tuesday, the Securities and Exchange Commission unveiled a proposal for capital formation exemptions under the Securities Act of 1933 for crypto asset investment contracts. The SEC's proposal outlines two distinct pathways: offerings up to $5 million during a four-year period, or up to $75 million within each 12-month period.
Simultaneously, the Financial Accounting Standards Board published proposed accounting standards that would treat certain digital assets—particularly stablecoins tied to fiat currencies—as cash equivalents, provided they maintain sufficient value stability and liquidity.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in a press release that "Regulation Crypto Assets seeks to provide crypto asset entrepreneurs and market participants with clear pathways to raise capital under the federal securities laws." He characterized the framework as advancing "the rule books for the modern era" and onshoring "innovation in crypto asset markets."
The approach has drawn criticism. Accounting columnist and academic Francine McKenna argued that the Atkins-led SEC is "subverting the legislative process" by advancing rulemaking while the crypto-friendly Clarity Act remains stalled in Congress. McKenna noted that Atkins criticized similar agency-led regulatory action during the previous administration.
The FASB's proposal remains open for public comment through Nov. 19. The board initiated work on stablecoin accounting less than a year ago, voting in October 2024 to address the issue. The Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, established by President Donald Trump, advocated for FASB action in a July 2025 report, specifically recommending that "FASB should consider whether to treat payment stablecoins as cash equivalents."
These actions proceed as the Clarity Act—intended to define regulatory jurisdiction for digital assets—continues to stall in Congress. The parallel moves by the SEC and FASB reflect a strategy to establish clearer guidelines absent comprehensive legislative solutions.
