US SEC Crypto Task Force to host the first-ever roundtable on crypto asset regulation

• The first-ever roundtable on crypto asset regulation by the SEC Crypto Task Force begins on Friday.
• It aims to discuss regulatory approaches for crypto assets, building on the SEC’s efforts to foster innovation while protecting investors.
• FXStreet interviewed some crypto market experts regarding their views on this event.

The United States (US) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Crypto Task Force will host a series of roundtables to discuss key areas of interest in regulating crypto assets. The “Spring Sprint Toward Crypto Clarity” series’ first-ever roundtable begins on Friday. It aims to discuss regulatory approaches for crypto assets, building on the SEC’s efforts to foster innovation while protecting investors. Meanwhile, FXStreet interviewed some crypto market experts regarding their views on this event.

Public step by the SEC to address cryptocurrencies’ regulatory uncertainties

The US SEC announced on March 3 that its Crypto Task Force will host a series of roundtables to discuss key areas of interest in regulating crypto assets. The “Spring Sprint Toward Crypto Clarity” series will have its first roundtable on Friday.

This roundtable aims to discuss regulatory approaches for crypto assets, building on the SEC’s efforts to foster innovation while protecting investors. The roundtable will also be open to the public. 

This event is taking place just a day after US President Donald Trump spoke at the Blockworks Digital Asset Summit on Thursday, where he called for US Dollar dominance and vowed to make America a crypto superpower during his speech. The same day, the SEC released a statement clarifying that crypto mining activities do not constitute securities offerings, providing regulatory clarity, reducing uncertainty, and boosting confidence for PoW (Proof-of-Work) cryptocurrency investors.

FXStreet interviewed some experts in the crypto markets regarding this event. Their answers are stated below:

Marcin Kazmiercak, Co-founder & COO of RedStone

The SEC Crypto Task Force roundtable likely aims to gather diverse industry perspectives, establish clearer regulatory frameworks, and balance innovation protection with investor safeguards. The discussions may focus on developing more consistent classification standards for digital assets and addressing jurisdictional questions between regulatory agencies. The roundtable’s outcomes could meaningfully impact market sentiment depending on the regulatory tone established. Clear guidance would likely boost institutional confidence and potentially stabilize markets, while overly restrictive approaches might temporarily suppress the market but provide long-term certainty. The industry seeks regulatory clarity above all else, which could reduce volatility if achieved.

Altan Tutar, Co-Founder and CEO of MoreMarkets

Q: The SEC has withdrawn its appeal against Ripple following the 2023 ruling on XRP. How significant is this decision for classifying cryptocurrencies in general as securities or non-securities?

The SEC's withdrawal of its appeal against Ripple feels like one of those moments in chess where a player sacrifices a piece not because they want to, but because continuing to defend an untenable position would cost them the entire game. It's a strategic retreat, not a surrender of the regulatory war. The decision creates a fascinating precedent for XRP that isn't quite the industry-wide victory crypto enthusiasts might imagine. It's a bit like when the Supreme Court ruled in 1873 that tomatoes were vegetables rather than fruits for tariff purposes- technically correct in one specific context, but not changing the botanical reality elsewhere. The SEC isn't saying all cryptocurrencies are not securities; they're just acknowledging that in this particular battle, with these particular facts, continuing the fight wasn't worth the ammunition.

This reminds me of Turkey's approach to currency regulations in the early 2000s. Having grown up watching the Turkish lira navigate its regulatory labyrinth, I've seen how regulatory bodies sometimes make tactical retreats that look like surrenders but are just regrouping for the next offensive. When the Central Bank of Turkey stepped back from certain interventionist policies in 2001, it wasn't abandoning regulation was recalibrating its approach for the modern financial era.

The crypto industry will celebrate this as vindication, but the SEC hasn't changed its fundamental view that many digital assets are securities. They've just decided that this particular hill isn't worth dying on. The real significance is that the SEC now has to develop more nuanced arguments rather than relying on blanket classifications. It's less "all crypto is securities" and more "we'll need better criteria for determining which crypto is which."

Q: How do you interpret the timing of the SEC’s withdrawal of the Ripple appeal about the upcoming Crypto Task Force roundtable, and what does it suggest about the broader regulatory approach to cryptocurrencies under the current administration?

The timing of this withdrawal, coinciding with an upcoming Crypto Task Force roundtable under the Trump administration, is about as coincidental as finding your car keys and wallet in the refrigerator. Something deliberate is clearly happening. This feels remarkably similar to how central banks telegraph policy shifts before making them. In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan began employing a strategy of "forward guidance," signaling future interest rate changes well in advance of implementation. This created a runway for market adjustment rather than a cliff for markets to fall off. The SEC appears to be doing something similar: signaling a potential shift in regulatory approach while preserving their fundamental authority.

The Trump administration's crypto-friendly posture represents a pendulum from previous regulatory skepticism. Bringing in figures like David Sacks and potentially Paul Atkins is comparable to when President Reagan appointed market-friendly economists like Martin Feldstein to key positions after periods of more interventionist policies. The market responds not just to the policy itself but to the credibility of the people implementing it.

What's counterintuitive here is that regulatory clarity, even if it means more regulation in some areas, could accelerate crypto adoption rather than hinder it. The most dangerous environment for financial innovation isn't tight regulation but regulatory uncertainty. When nobody knows which rules apply, conservative institutional money stays on the sidelines. The SEC's withdrawal might lay the groundwork for more institutional participation by beginning to define the boundaries of the playing field.”

Q: What are the potential implications of this roundtable and the Ripple case for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others, particularly regarding their regulatory status and market dynamics?

The roundtable discussions will likely highlight something that seems obvious but often gets lost in regulatory debates: different crypto assets serve fundamentally different purposes and should be regulated accordingly. This is like how we don't regulate government bonds, corporate equities, and baseball cards under identical frameworks, despite all being "investments" in some sense.

Bitcoin functions as "digital gold", a store of value proposition that makes it suitable for government balance sheets and inflation hedging. This is why El Salvador and other nations have been exploring it as a reserve asset, similar to how central banks have historically maintained gold reserves as a hedge against currency fluctuations.

Ethereum and Solana represent something closer to technological platforms, more like operating systems rather than traditional securities. They're infrastructure for building applications, making them fundamentally different from investment contracts in the classic Howey Test sense.

Ripple (XRP) was designed primarily for institutional cross-border transfers, functioning more like a utility token for a specific payment network. This institutional focus makes its regulatory treatment particularly significant for enterprise adoption.

The fascinating paradox here is that clearer regulations will likely accelerate rather than hinder adoption. The crypto market has matured beyond its Wild West origins, and institutional participants (who control the real money) need regulatory guardrails before committing significant capital. Just as the United States' adoption of more standardized banking regulations after the Great Depression increased financial stability and investor confidence rather than restricting growth, crypto regulations could open floodgates for institutional money currently waiting on the sidelines. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established the SEC, provides a historical parallel where increased regulation ultimately led to greater market participation and economic growth.”

Q: Could the SEC’s actions, including the Ripple case and the roundtable, lead to a more harmonized global regulatory approach for cryptocurrencies, or do you expect continued regulatory fragmentation worldwide?

The idea that the SEC's actions might lead to global regulatory harmony is a bit like expecting all countries to agree on a single tax code- a beautiful theoretical concept that crashes into the reality of competing national interests and regulatory philosophies. While the U.S. still possesses enormous influence over global financial regulation, the days of unilateral American financial hegemony are fading. What we're seeing instead is regulatory competition, with different jurisdictions positioning themselves along a spectrum from crypto-friendly to crypto-skeptical.

The EU has focused extensively on stablecoin regulation through MiCA, while Singapore has emphasized consumer protection. The UAE has created crypto-friendly zones to attract investment, following the same playbook that Dubai used to become a regional financial hub. These divergent approaches reflect different priorities and competitive advantages.

Growing up in Turkey, I witnessed how emerging markets often adopt financial technologies faster than developed nations precisely because they have less legacy infrastructure to protect. When mobile payments were still novelties in the U.S., they were already mainstream in Turkey because the traditional banking infrastructure was less entrenched. This same dynamic applies to crypto adoption in emerging economies.

Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines aren't waiting for U.S. regulatory clarity- they're incorporating blockchain directly into public infrastructure where it solves immediate problems. For nations with significant remittance flows and currency volatility concerns, the utility of efficient cross-border transfers is addressing daily pain points for citizens who constantly monitor USD conversion rates.

The counterintuitive truth is that while the U.S. may lead in crypto innovation and technological development, it may follow smaller, more nimble jurisdictions in regulatory frameworks. The global future of cryptocurrency adoption won't be dictated by Washington; it will emerge from a complex interplay of competing regulatory models, with the most successful approaches gaining adoption through demonstrated effectiveness rather than imposed authority.

The resulting crypto regulatory landscape will likely be a patchwork rather than a unified global framework, with bridges built between compatible systems while fundamental differences persist.  This is a good thing.  Varied approaches drive innovation.”