Winds of Change at the SEC
A New Era for Crypto Regulation
After a month of travel (from Cincinnati to Denver, Chicago, St. Thomas, and New York, with a few layover airports in between), it feels like I have my feet underneath me, just in time for a market implosion. Sigh. Nevertheless, travelling did provide some opportunity for reading, and I hope to draft some breakdowns or takeaways and publish them here. In the interim, the industry and the regulatory regime around it continues to move at a breakneck pace, and it felt like a good time for some high level updates.
The winds of change in U.S. cryptocurrency regulation are blowing at gale force. Since the start of the Trump Administration’s second term, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dramatically pivoted from the aggressive enforcement stance of the prior leadership. For an international tech-focused legal audience, this shift raises critical questions: What does the new SEC approach mean for digital asset businesses worldwide? How should multinational tech companies adjust their compliance and risk strategies in the face of rapidly evolving U.S. policies? The short answer seems to be that there is reason for optimism (coupled with reasonable, measured restraint).
From Crackdown to Retreat: The SEC’s Rapid Reversal
Under former Chair Gary Gensler (2021–2025), the SEC took an assertive, hardline stance on crypto. Gensler emphasized investor protection and market integrity, often arguing that many cryptocurrencies function as unregistered securities. This translated into a flurry of enforcement actions against major crypto players – Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, Ripple Labs, among others – in a bid to bring the industry to heel. While some targets (like certain lending platforms) settled with fines and undertakings, others fought back in court, creating high-profile showdowns over the application of decades-old securities laws to cutting-edge technology.
The climate shifted abruptly on January 20, 2025, with the inauguration of President Trump and the resulting change in SEC leadership. Republican Commissioner Mark Uyeda assumed the role of Acting Chairman, and the incoming administration signaled a friendlier approach to digital assets. In one of its first moves, the new SEC launched a dedicated Crypto Asset Task Force (helmed by crypto-supportive Commissioner Hester Peirce) to develop a clearer regulatory framework for digital assets. The Task Force’s mandate is telling: “to help the Commission draw clear regulatory lines, provide realistic paths to registration, craft sensible disclosure frameworks, and deploy enforcement resources judiciously.” In other words, the SEC acknowledged the criticisms of the past approach – lack of guidance, regulation by enforcement – and set out to hit the reset button.
Concrete policy reversals followed almost immediately. On January 23, 2025, just three days after the administration change, the SEC issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 122, effectively rescinding the controversial SAB No. 121 that had been imposed in March 2022. SAB 121 had required companies safeguarding crypto assets for customers to recognize those assets (and corresponding liabilities) on their balance sheets, a mandate widely panned by the industry and even a bipartisan swath of U.S. lawmakers. Critics argued SAB 121 forced custodians to record liabilities for assets they didn’t actually own, distorting balance sheets and deterring banks and custodians from servicing the crypto sector. The new SAB 122 reverses that requirement, instructing companies to revert to normal contingency accounting standards (under U.S. GAAP and IFRS) for any risks associated with safeguarding digital assets. This accounting rollback was more than bookkeeping trivia – it removed a significant obstacle to traditional financial institutions entering the crypto custody market, and it aligned U.S. accounting treatment more closely with international standards. Global banks and fintech custodians cheered the move as it “makes it easier to custody crypto assets”, leveling the playing field for U.S. institutions to compete in digital asset services without punitive accounting rules.
Hitting Pause on Crypto Litigation
The new SEC didn’t stop at rewriting bulletins. In February 2025, it began hitting pause on a number of pending crypto lawsuits initiated under the prior regime. In case after case, the Commission asked courts for delays or stays, citing the work of the freshly minted Task Force as a reason to reconsider and potentially resolve matters out of court. For example:
SEC v. Binance and Changpeng Zhao: On February 11, 2025, the SEC and Binance jointly requested a 60-day stay of proceedings in the SEC’s lawsuit accusing Binance (and its founder CZ) of securities law violations. The SEC indicated that the Task Force’s ongoing efforts might “impact and facilitate the potential resolution” of the case. This was a stark departure from the previous hard-charging approach and suggested a willingness to negotiate or reevaluate the charges with fresh eyes.
SEC v. Cumberland DRW LLC: In an enforcement action against Chicago-based trading firm Cumberland (for allegedly operating as an unregistered dealer in over $2 billion of crypto assets), the SEC similarly sought an extension of time to respond to defense motions. Again, the justification was to allow the Task Force to do its work – signaling the agency’s openness to a settlement or different outcome than the originally intended crackdown.
Lejilex v. SEC: In a somewhat unusual scenario, a crypto startup (Lejilex) had sued the SEC preemptively, seeking a court declaration that its planned token business did not violate securities laws. The SEC’s new leadership moved to postpone oral arguments in that case, indicating that the Task Force’s review of crypto policy could bear on the issues at hand. Postponing a chance to argue in court suggests the SEC was rethinking whether it even wanted to contest such business models under its new philosophy.
Even a broadside from state regulators saw a timeout. Eighteen U.S. state attorneys general had filed a joint lawsuit against the SEC late in Gensler’s tenure, accusing the agency of overstepping its authority by treating essentially all secondary sales of tokens as securities transactions (and trying to regulate crypto trading platforms as securities exchanges without clear authority). On February 7, 2025, the SEC requested more time to respond to that complaint. This pause hinted that the SEC might be considering concessions or settlements to diffuse tensions with state authorities – a notable de-escalation of an intergovernmental battle that could have had sweeping implications for jurisdiction over crypto markets within the U.S.
In aggregate, these litigation pauses sent a powerful message: the SEC, now under new management, was prepared to strategically retreat from the confrontational posture of the Gensler era. Rather than doubling down on enforcement for enforcement’s sake, the agency appeared to acknowledge that some of these cases might be better resolved (or abandoned) in light of new policy goals. Internationally, observers noted this as evidence of a more pragmatic and coordinated approach – one that values consistency and clarity over shock-and-awe lawsuits. For multinational companies that had been watching U.S. regulatory lawsuits nervously, the pause offered a bit of relief and the hope that rules might eventually be made through formal processes rather than court battles.
High-Profile U-Turns: Ripple, Coinbase, Kraken and More
If February was characterized by pumping the brakes, March delivered the full about-face. In a series of virtually unprecedented decisions, the SEC moved to drop major enforcement actions that had loomed over the crypto industry for years.
Perhaps the most symbolic was the Ripple Labs case. The SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple (filed in December 2020) alleged that the company’s sales of XRP were unregistered securities offerings – a case that became a cause célèbre in crypto circles. In mid-2023, Ripple scored a partial victory in district court, where a judge ruled that programmatic sales of XRP (on exchanges) were not securities sales, though institutional sales could be. The Gensler SEC had been pursuing an appeal to challenge aspects of that ruling. But on March 19, 2025, Ripple’s CEO Brad Garlinghouse triumphantly announced on social media that the SEC would “drop its appeal – a resounding victory for Ripple, for crypto, every way you look at it.” Indeed, the SEC formally withdrew its appeal, essentially conceding defeat and letting Ripple’s win stand. This was a watershed moment: a regulator walking away from a high-stakes appellate fight it had initiated, and by all accounts, because the new leadership saw little merit in prolonging a legal war that was increasingly unpopular politically. For global crypto companies, this move signaled that the new SEC might favor settlement and dialogue over protracted courtroom battles – even if that meant ceding ground on points of law that were once non-negotiable.
Just days earlier, another bombshell: on February 27, 2025, the SEC filed a joint stipulation to dismiss its enforcement action against Coinbase (both the publicly traded Coinbase Global Inc. and its affiliate Coinbase Inc.). This case, filed in mid-2023, had accused Coinbase of operating as an unregistered securities exchange/broker by listing certain tokens, among other things. Dismissal of the case was voluntary and with prejudice (meaning the SEC can’t simply refile it next week) – a clear indication that the Commission had lost appetite to pursue one of its marquee crypto prosecutions. In an official statement accompanying the dismissal, the SEC noted that exercising its discretion to drop the case “will facilitate the Commission’s ongoing efforts to reform and renew its regulatory approach to the crypto industry.” In plainer terms: fighting Coinbase in court was seen as counterproductive to the new goal of writing better rules and coaxing compliance through guidance rather than litigation. For Coinbase – a company that had long pleaded for clearer rules and even sued the SEC at one point for failing to provide regulatory clarity – this was vindication and respite rolled into one.
The Kraken exchange also found itself off the SEC’s hit list. Kraken had been sued by the SEC in 2023 over its staking-as-a-service program (a case it settled back then by discontinuing the service and paying a fine). However, Kraken was reportedly under additional SEC investigation for other aspects of its business. On March 3, 2025, Kraken announced in a celebratory blog post titled “A Win for Fairness” that the SEC staff had agreed in principle to dismiss its remaining lawsuit against Kraken with prejudice, with “no admission of wrongdoing, no penalties paid and no changes to our business.” Kraken hailed the SEC’s reversal as “a turning point for the future of crypto in the U.S.,” saying it “ends a wasteful, politically motivated campaign, lifts uncertainty that stifled innovation and investment, and clears the path toward a stable, forward-thinking regulatory regime.” Shortly thereafter, on March 27, 2025, the SEC formally terminated the action against Kraken. For industry watchers, seeing such language used by a defendant to describe the SEC’s own decision was remarkable – it painted the prior enforcement push as misguided and framed the new SEC as righting a wrong. Clients in the fintech and exchange space worldwide took note: U.S. regulators were seemingly willing to reverse course to prevent further chill on innovation.
The SEC didn’t stop at the big names. Also on March 27, 2025, the Commission quietly dismissed enforcement actions against Consensys Software Inc. and Cumberland DRW LLC, two significant cases that had not yet reached the limelight of a trial. Consensys – a major U.S. blockchain software firm (known for its Ethereum infrastructure tools) – had been charged in mid-2024 for an allegedly unregistered token offering, a particularly contentious case because Consensys had proactively sued the SEC first, seeking clarity on whether Ethereum could be deemed a security. Cumberland DRW, a trading firm, had been charged in October 2024 with operating as an unregistered dealer for facilitating large crypto trades. By dropping both cases with prejudice, the SEC effectively told the market that it does not intend to pursue these theories further at this time. Notably, in all these March 27 dismissal orders (Coinbase, Kraken, Consensys, Cumberland), the SEC included a caveat: the decision to dismiss was “not based on any assessment of the merits” and “does not necessarily reflect the Commission’s position on any other case.” In other words, the SEC is reserving the right to take action in the future under different circumstances. This fine print is important for legal practitioners – it warns that companies shouldn’t become complacent or assume blanket immunity. The regulatory pendulum has swung, but the SEC can still swing it back if provoked (or if a company engages in outright fraud or egregious misconduct).
Rounding out the reversals were instances where the SEC closed investigations before they even became formal charges. Retail trading app Robinhood had disclosed a Wells Notice (a warning of potential enforcement) from the SEC in late 2022 related to its crypto offerings. In a February 21, 2025 update, Robinhood announced that the SEC’s Enforcement Division had decided to close its investigation with no action – effectively a green light to continue its crypto brokerage operations without an SEC case hanging overhead. Similarly, Crypto.com, which had reportedly received an SEC Wells Notice in October 2024, revealed on March 27, 2025 that the SEC dropped its inquiry and would not be bringing any enforcement action. In both instances, what could have been the next Coinbase-type lawsuits fizzled out under the new philosophy.
For executives and counsel at global crypto firms, these developments underscore a dramatic reduction in near-term enforcement risk emanating from the U.S. SEC. The fear that any misstep or innovative product launch would result in an immediate SEC lawsuit has, for the moment, receded. But this also places the onus on the industry to engage constructively: with the regulators stepping back from adversarial postures, companies have a golden opportunity to help craft sensible regulation or to clean up practices voluntarily without waiting for litigation to force the issue.
NFTs and Novel Assets: Course Correction in the Digital Art Sphere
The SEC’s change in attitude has not been limited to cryptocurrencies and exchanges; it also extended to the realm of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Under Gensler’s tenure, the SEC dipped its toe into NFT enforcement for the first time, taking action against a media company (Impact Theory, LLC) in mid-2023 for an NFT drop that the SEC argued was an unregistered securities offering. That case, along with a similar action against the creators of the Stoner Cats animated series (for funding through NFT sales), sent a chill through the digital art and collectibles community. Suddenly, there was a real concern that the SEC would treat many NFTs as securities (using an expansive reading of investment contracts) and crack down on platforms and creators accordingly.
Fast forward to early 2025: the new SEC seems to be walking back the notion that ordinary NFTs should be regulated like stocks or bonds. The clearest indicators came via social media pronouncements from industry leaders, coinciding with the SEC quietly closing certain probes. Devin Finzer, founder of NFT marketplace OpenSea, posted on February 21 that “The SEC is closing its investigation into OpenSea. This is a win for everyone who is creating and building in our space. Trying to classify NFTs as securities would have been a step backward—misinterpreting the law and slowing innovation.” Around the same time, Yuga Labs (creator of the famous Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs) announced that after a 3+ year inquiry, the SEC had officially closed its investigation into Yuga with no enforcement action, calling it “a huge win for NFTs and all creators pushing our ecosystem forward. NFTs are not securities.” While these statements came from the companies, not the SEC itself, there’s little doubt they were made with the Commission’s tacit blessing – neither OpenSea nor Yuga would proclaim such outcomes unless the SEC had effectively indicated it was backing off.
For international companies involved in NFTs, whether marketplaces or brands exploring NFT-based engagement, this reversal is significant. It suggests that the U.S. is refraining, at least for now, from blurring the line between collectibles and securities. Other jurisdictions have been watching the U.S. approach to NFTs; a heavy-handed classification by the SEC might have influenced regulators in Europe or Asia to consider similar treatment. Instead, the SEC’s retreat may reinforce the global view of NFTs as a distinct category requiring perhaps consumer protection or anti-fraud oversight, but not necessarily full securities regulation. That said, caution remains warranted – the SEC’s existing NFT enforcement cases (Impact Theory and Stoner Cats) did result in settlements and are on the books. The new leadership has not (and likely will not) invalidate those actions, but by closing investigations into the largest NFT players, it’s sending a message that genuine digital art and collectibles, in and of themselves, aren’t the target going forward. This more nuanced approach will be welcome news to tech companies dabbling in NFTs for customer engagement, gaming, or brand loyalty programs. It reduces the legal uncertainty in launching NFT initiatives, though prudent counsel will still ensure such offerings are structured to avoid any promise of profits or investment-like language that could attract regulators in the future.
The Political Winds Behind the Regulatory Shift
No regulatory change happens in a vacuum. The radical shifts at the SEC are a direct product of political turnover and pressure. It’s important for international observers to understand the U.S. context: these policy reversals are not random but rather stem from a philosophy change at the top echelons of government that could just as easily shift again with future administrations.
Driving the current change is the fact that Republicans, broadly more sympathetic to the crypto industry’s calls for innovation-friendly rules, have taken control of both the White House and (as of early April 2025) the Senate. Acting Chair Mark Uyeda and Commissioner Hester Peirce have been vocal for years in critiquing the previous SEC’s approach as overly stringent, innovation-stifling, and lacking clear rules. They finally have the mandate to put those ideas into action. Moreover, President Trump’s nominee for permanent SEC Chair, Paul Atkins, is a known advocate of lighter-touch regulation in the financial markets. Atkins, himself a former SEC Commissioner in the mid-2000s, has a track record of pushing back on regulatory overreach and favoring market-driven solutions. On April 3, 2025, Atkins’ nomination cleared the Senate Banking Committee and headed to a full Senate vote, where confirmation is expected given the Republican majority. Once in place, Chair Atkins will likely amplify the current trajectory: we can anticipate efforts to formally revise or replace Gensler-era policies with new rules (perhaps new definitions for digital asset securities, or safe harbor provisions for token sales, etc.).
It’s also worth noting the broader industry and legislative pressures that set the stage for this reversal. Even before the 2024 election, there was mounting bipartisan frustration with the SEC’s one-size-fits-all enforcement strategy. For example, in 2023, a bipartisan group in Congress invoked the Congressional Review Act to try and nullify SAB 121 (the crypto custody accounting rule), reflecting concern that the SEC was encroaching on banking innovation; although that attempt was vetoed by President Biden, it sent a clear signal. Additionally, multiple lawsuits (as mentioned earlier) challenged the SEC’s authority – from industry groups fighting the Dealer Rule to the state AGs contesting the SEC’s view of secondary markets. The combined weight of these challenges made it increasingly likely that the SEC would face court losses or legislative curbs if it stayed its course. The Trump administration’s arrival simply accelerated an inevitable inflection point.
Multinational Companies Get a Bit of Footing (But the Floor is Still Slippery)
For multinational tech companies operating in the blockchain and digital asset space, the evolving U.S. stance is both promising and challenging. The promise lies in the likelihood of a more consistent and navigable regulatory environment in the U.S., which has been one of the more unpredictable jurisdictions in recent years. If your company issues a token or runs a crypto exchange that touches U.S. users, you may no longer be dealing with a regulatory Wild West where any action could trigger a lawsuit without warning. The SEC’s commitment to clearer guidelines could result in rulemaking or at least informal guidance that aligns with what many other countries are doing – defining which digital assets are within regulatory scope and which are not, setting registration pathways for exchanges and brokers, and tailoring disclosure requirements to the crypto context.
However, a friendlier SEC does not erase the patchwork of international regulations that global companies must navigate. In fact, divergent global approaches might become even more pronounced in the short term. Consider that Europe’s MiCA regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets) is coming into effect, bringing a comprehensive licensing regime to the EU for crypto-asset providers. MiCA will impose its own set of disclosure, reserve, and conduct requirements, regardless of how the U.S. is handling things. If the U.S. now leans toward calling fewer things “securities,” some assets that might be unregulated in the U.S. could still be regulated under MiCA or by other national laws (for instance, certain tokens might fall under e-money or other categories abroad). Global firms must therefore maintain a multi-jurisdictional compliance strategy: just because a token or product is given a green light (or at least a yellow light) in America does not guarantee the same treatment in the EU or Asia.
There’s also the risk of regulatory arbitrage and backlash. Other countries may view the U.S. pullback with skepticism, worrying that it could lead to risky products flowing into their markets if not checked. For example, if an American crypto exchange, newly unburdened by SEC lawsuits, expands aggressively overseas, European or Asian regulators might step up scrutiny on that platform’s local operations to protect their investors. Multinational clients should be prepared for potential asymmetry in enforcement: the U.S. SEC might be easygoing now, but foreign regulators (or even U.S. state regulators and other federal agencies) could fill any perceived void. The U.S. Department of Justice and financial crimes regulators (like FinCEN) haven’t signaled any laxity – anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement and sanctions compliance in crypto remain as critical as ever globally. So while securities law pressure might lessen, compliance in areas like AML, tax, and consumer protection must remain top of mind across all jurisdictions.
Another cross-border consideration is how U.S. regulatory philosophy might influence global standards. Historically, U.S. financial regulation has often set a benchmark that others follow. If the SEC’s new framework (once developed by the Task Force) turns out to be industry-friendly and successful at encouraging compliance while preventing fraud, we might see other countries adopt similar approaches to stay competitive. Jurisdictions that aspire to be crypto hubs (such as Singapore, the UK, or the UAE) will certainly take note of the U.S. shift – it could spark a sort of “race to the top” in terms of creating welcoming yet safe regulatory environments. On the flip side, if the U.S. shift is perceived as too lenient and results in high-profile failures or scams, it could vindicate the stricter stances elsewhere and even cause the U.S. to reverse course again. Global companies need to be voices in this international conversation, sharing their on-the-ground experiences with different regulatory regimes to help shape balanced rules everywhere.
Finally, multinational tech firms should consider the operational impacts of these regulatory changes. For instance, the rescission of SAB 121 (the accounting rule) not only improves U.S. balance sheets but also harmonizes accounting treatment of custodial crypto assets with international standards (such as IFRS). A company that reports under both U.S. GAAP and IFRS will find it easier to have consistent financial reporting for its crypto asset holdings or custodial obligations. This reduces compliance complexity and the risk of confusing disclosures. It also may make U.S.-listed crypto businesses more attractive investments globally, now that their financial statements won’t carry the heavy liabilities that SAB 121 required. In a broader sense, a de-escalation of U.S. enforcement risk can free up management bandwidth in global firms – less time spent fighting regulators means more time focusing on product development and cross-border expansion. Legal budgets once reserved for U.S. litigation defense might be redirected to proactive compliance design, and to engaging counsel in multiple jurisdictions to ensure a unified approach.
Navigating the New Regulatory Landscape: Strategies for Tech Companies
How should companies respond to this “new normal” of U.S. crypto regulation? Here are a few strategies and considerations for legal and compliance teams, especially those working at international tech companies dealing with blockchain or digital assets:
Engage Proactively with Regulators: The creation of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force is an invitation for industry participants to share input. Firms should not squander this chance. Consider submitting comment letters, participating in roundtable discussions, or leveraging industry associations to communicate your business model needs. For example, if your company is considering launching a token or a new crypto product, now is an ideal time to approach the SEC (perhaps through counsel) to ask for guidance or no-action assurances under the evolving framework. Early engagement can help shape guidelines that work for your business and pre-empt misunderstanding down the road.
Stay Vigilant on Compliance (Don’t Assume a Free Pass): Just because the SEC has pulled back on enforcement doesn’t mean companies should play fast and loose. Fraud, misrepresentation, and Ponzi schemes are still very much in the crosshairs; the SEC’s “judicious use of enforcement” implies it will still come down hard on clear bad actors. Moreover, other regulators like the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), state securities regulators, and enforcement bodies abroad have not necessarily relaxed their posture. Ensure your compliance programs for things like token listings, custody of assets, and investor disclosures remain robust. Use this period of regulatory goodwill to double-check that your operations would pass muster under a reasonable regulatory framework – because that framework is likely coming. In short, treat the current lull not as a holiday, but as a time to get your house in order ahead of anticipated new rules.
Monitor Litigation and Legal Precedents: Several court decisions that came out of the last few years (such as rulings in the Ripple case and others) still form the backdrop of legal risk. While the SEC dropping appeals gives immediate relief, it also means some legal questions remain unresolved by higher courts. Keep an eye on private class actions or other litigation where these issues might still be hashed out. For example, if investors sue a crypto project for losses claiming the token was an unregistered security, a court might have to opine on that even if the SEC isn’t pressing the issue. Companies may still be indirectly affected by how U.S. jurisprudence around crypto evolves. Global firms should also watch if U.S. Congress steps into the arena – a comprehensive crypto regulatory bill could emerge to solidify (or override) what the SEC is doing. Align your long-term planning with the direction of travel in legislation and case law, not just the SEC’s current enforcement choices.
Hedge Against Regulatory Whiplash: As noted, politics can change. Build flexibility into your operations. For instance, if you ceased offering a particular product in the U.S. due to regulatory pressure (like crypto staking services or certain high-yield products), you might cautiously reintroduce them under the new regime but design them in a way that you could pull back or modify quickly if the winds change again. Diversify your market focus so that the company’s fate isn’t overly tied to one country’s regulatory climate. Many savvy crypto firms during the past U.S. crackdown expanded in friendlier jurisdictions (like setting up hubs in Europe or Dubai). That wasn’t wasted effort – those diversified operations make you resilient if the U.S. environment shifts yet again. In other words, enjoy the sunshine in the U.S. right now, but keep a raincoat handy.
Cross-Border Coordination: Use the U.S. reprieve as a chance to streamline cross-border compliance. If the U.S. is now taking a principles-based, collaborative approach to crypto regulation, there may be best practices emerging that you can apply across all the countries where you operate. Work with counsel in different jurisdictions to compare notes on regulatory trends. Perhaps develop a unified policy that meets the highest standard of any jurisdiction you’re in – this way, if one country (be it the U.S. or another) suddenly raises the bar, you’re already there. Conversely, if one jurisdiction lowers burdens (like the U.S. effectively has), that might free up resources to allocate to tougher jurisdictions. A coordinated approach can prevent a scenario where your compliance team in one country builds something completely at odds with what’s happening elsewhere.
Conclusion: A Global Perspective on the SEC’s Crypto “Reset”
In just a few months, the U.S. SEC has gone from crypto’s most feared adversary to something closer to an uneasy ally. The “winds of change” under the new SEC leadership are real and strong – sweeping away certain enforcement actions, loosening constrictive rules, and opening the door for dialogue and reform. For an international legal practitioner or a tech executive, it’s a development to be welcomed, but also one to scrutinize carefully. The key is to leverage this moment: push for sensible regulations that can bring certainty across borders, while maintaining vigilance because regulatory reprieves can be temporary.
Multinational tech clients should view the U.S. pivot as an opportunity to re-engage with a major market under more favorable conditions. Those who sat on the sidelines fearing U.S. enforcement may consider re-entering or expanding U.S. operations, albeit with prudent legal safeguards. Those already embroiled in U.S. legal challenges may find avenues to resolve them and move forward. At the same time, the global regulatory mosaic means one must keep an eye on the whole picture – align U.S. strategy with European, Asian, and other regulatory expectations to ensure a cohesive approach. It would be ironic and unfortunate to survive the SEC’s storm only to get caught in a monsoon elsewhere.
In this season of change, collaboration is paramount. The industry and regulators (in the U.S. and globally) have a chance to reset the relationship. Rather than adversaries across a courtroom, they can become partners in crafting rules that protect users and enable innovation. The companies that thrive will be those that read the winds correctly – adjusting their sails to navigate the new SEC approach, while keeping a steady compass on long-term compliance and global regulatory engagement. The storm clouds of aggressive enforcement have parted for now, but navigating the crypto seas will always require skill, foresight, and a healthy respect for how quickly the weather can turn. The best we can do is prepare, adapt, and, whenever possible, help shape the conditions for smoother sailing ahead.