TheCorporateCounsel.net

Meredith recently noted Chair Gensler’s statement in opposition to legislation in the House of Representatives known as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, which would amend securities and commodities laws to address the regulation of digital assets. The House passed the legislation, by a vote of 279 to 136. As this Mayer Brown alert notes, the legislation would clarify the responsibilities of the SEC and CFTC with respect to digital assets:

The bill would create three categories of digital assets, which would determine whether a digital asset falls under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction; i.e., as a:

– “restricted digital asset” subject to SEC jurisdiction;
– “digital commodity” subject to CFTC jurisdiction; or
– ”permitted payment stablecoin” subject to either SEC or CFTC jurisdiction, depending on the nature of the intermediary involved in a transaction.

Under the bill, a digital asset would generally be considered a “restricted digital asset” unless it meets the definition of a “permitted payment stablecoin,” or is self-certified as a “digital commodity.” The bill would establish criteria for determining whether a digital asset can be considered a “digital commodity” or a “restricted digital asset” based on:

(1) the level of decentralization and functionality of the digital asset’s underlying blockchain system;
(2) the method of acquisition of the digital asset by an end user; and
(3) the party holding the digital asset (e.g., issuer or unaffiliated third party).

For illustration, it would be likely that a digital asset would meet the criteria for being a “digital commodity” if it (1) is issued through a distribution that is not used for fundraising (i.e., involves only an exchange of nominal value for the digital asset) and is open to all participants equally (i.e., a rewards program) or acquired through a digital commodity exchange; and (2) relates to a blockchain protocol that is functionally decentralized. On the other hand and in contrast, a digital asset would likely to be considered a “restricted digital asset” if it is not related to a functionally decentralized network and is obtained through an issuer distribution in exchange for meaningful value.

The bill would create a self-certification process for “digital commodities,” under which any person could file a certification with the SEC (not the CFTC) that the blockchain system to which a digital asset relates is a decentralized system (while the SEC oversees self-certification, both the SEC and CFTC are directed to engage in joint rulemaking on the self-certification criteria).

The SEC would have 60 days to reject the certification before the assets on such a system would be considered “digital commodities” subject to CFTC jurisdiction. Under this determination by the SEC, a “restricted digital asset” could initially be issued as a security—subject to SEC disclosure and offering requirements similar to those that apply to traditional securities, but specific to digital assets—and later become a “digital commodity” through self-certification. Importantly, a digital asset certified as a “digital commodity” may still be considered a “restricted digital asset” at the same time and is determined based on the holder (e.g., the units held by the issuer, an affiliate of the issuer, or who beneficially owns 5% or more of the outstanding units).

The bill would also address stablecoins and provide for the registration of digital asset intermediaries with the SEC and CFTC, while also establishing a CFTC-SEC Joint Advisory Committee on Digital Assets, which would be comprised of “a group of 20 nongovernmental stakeholders (10 appointed by each of the CFTC and SEC), which would provide advice on digital asset rules, regulations, and policies to the CFTC and SEC, including on how to the agencies should measure and quantify decentralization, functionality, information asymmetries, and transaction and network security of digital assets.” The legislation would direct the SEC and CFTC to engage in numerous rulemakings to implement the new regulatory framework.

As for where this legislation goes from here, the Mayer Brown alert notes:

Even with the strong support for FIT21 in the House, however, its future in the Senate is very uncertain. Most importantly, President Joe Biden does not support the legislation in its current form. Prior to the House vote, the White House released a Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP) stating that the Administration opposed passage of FIT21. The SAP stated that the “Administration is eager to work with Congress to ensure a comprehensive and balanced regulatory framework for digital assets, building on existing authorities,” but that FIT21 “lacks sufficient protections for consumers and investors.” As a result, it is highly unlikely that the Democratic-controlled Senate would bring up FIT21 for a vote unless the bill was amended to secure President Biden’s support. However, if FIT21 is considered by the Senate, the Senate’s recent 60 – 38 vote to pass the joint resolution of disapproval of the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 (which imposes high regulatory requirements on public companies, including publicly traded banks, to custody digital assets) under the Congressional Review Act suggests that the 60-vote majority needed to overcome a Senate filibuster may exist in the Senate.

In the meantime, the status quo at the SEC and CFTC will prevail when it comes to digital assets regulation.

– Dave Lynn