Throughout 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took several steps that many market participants perceive as a refinement of its approach to regulating crypto assets. This was not about changing legislation or introducing new mandatory rules, but rather about clarifying how the regulator frames and communicates its position.
The focus was on public statements by SEC officials regarding tokens without a clear economic function (meme coins), staking directly through blockchain protocols, and mining (technical activity supporting blockchain networks by validating transactions)—areas long considered zones of heightened regulatory risk.
Institutional Context: Task Force
An additional signal of a changing approach was the establishment of a dedicated task force within the SEC responsible for developing approaches to crypto asset regulation. This is not a supervisory or punitive body but an institutional platform for market analysis, risk assessment, and forming a more coordinated regulatory stance.
The creation of such a unit indicates the regulator’s desire to move away from fragmented reactions to individual cases and toward a more systematic understanding of different types of crypto activities. In this context, public statements by the SEC on meme coins, staking, and mining should be viewed as part of a broader effort to differentiate technical, speculative, and investment models, rather than as isolated signals.
For businesses, this does not mean a softening of requirements but the emergence of a more structured approach, where individual models can be assessed differentially based on their actual economic and operational nature.
Key SEC Signals
In general terms, the SEC indicated that:
Certain meme coins, given their structure and lack of economic rights, may not fall under the securities regime;
Protocol-level staking, where users interact directly with the network and retain control over their assets, is not automatically considered a securities offering;
Mining, when considered separately and without additional commercial elements, does not meet the criteria of an investment contract.
These signals are important not because they change the law but because they clarify the logic of the regulatory approach.
What This Really Changes for Business
From a practical standpoint, the key is a reduction in basic legal uncertainty. For several years, crypto projects operated in an environment where even basic network activities could attract regulatory attention without clear guidance.
The 2025 signals point to a more differentiated approach. For properly structured models, this could mean:
Lower risk of immediate federal regulatory action;
More predictable legal risk assessment during product launch or transformation;
Shifting focus from abstract fears to concrete structural solutions: asset control, user autonomy, revenue mechanics, and product communication.
What This Does Not Change
At the same time, these statements do not create legal certainty.
First, public statements by SEC officials are not mandatory rules and do not provide guaranteed regulatory protection. They apply only within the context of specific factual circumstances.
Second, key risk areas remain relevant, including:
Promises or expectations of profitability;
Use of intermediaries or pooled asset models;
Marketing products as investment opportunities;
Asset custody and actual control.
Third, federal signals do not eliminate risks at the state level, from private lawsuits, or under related regulatory regimes, including consumer protection and AML requirements.
Brief International Context
The SEC’s approach differs from other key jurisdictions.
In the EU, MiCA provides a comprehensive and formalized regulatory framework for crypto assets.
In the UK, regulation develops through rules governing the marketing of financial products, including crypto products, and FCA supervision.
For international business, this once again confirms the need for a jurisdiction-specific approach, even for global products.
Strategic Conclusion
The SEC’s stance in 2025 demonstrates a willingness to distinguish between different types of crypto activities instead of applying a universal approach. This opens additional space for business strategies but only if carefully structured and disciplined in compliance.
Regulatory signals can help navigate the market but do not replace legal certainty.
We will continue to monitor the development of this practice and its impact on the regulatory environment.