SEC Proposes New Rules for Crypto Asset Offerings
The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a new regulation to create a tailored offering regime for certain crypto asset investment contracts.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 21, 2026, 4:55 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 21, 2026, 5:22 a.m. ET
SEC Proposed Rule on Crypto Asset Offerings Takes Effect
The Securities and Exchange Commission's proposed rule on crypto asset offerings, published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2026, is effective as of that date, according to the official record. The proposed rule, designated as 2026-17183, would create a new regulation titled "Regulation Crypto Assets" and includes two exemptions from registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933.
The first exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period, while the second would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Under both exemptions, issuers would be required to make certain principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors. Issuers relying on the second exemption would also be required to provide financial statements and would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. The proposed rules also include a conditional safe harbor from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of "security" under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Commission is accepting comments on the proposed rule until October 20, 2026. The proposal is at the proposed rule stage and has not been finalized.
Aug 21, 2026, 4:55 a.m. ETFirst report
SEC Proposes New Rules for Crypto Asset Offerings
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets, according to a document published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2026. The proposed rules, titled "Regulation Crypto Assets," aim to facilitate capital formation and accommodate innovation in crypto asset markets while ensuring investor protection and providing necessary information for informed investment decisions.
The proposal includes two exemptions from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. The first exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period, and the second would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Under both exemptions, issuers would be required to make certain principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors. Issuers relying on the second exemption would also need to provide financial statements and would be subject to ongoing reporting requirements. All issuers relying on these exemptions would remain subject to the antifraud and antimanipulation provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposed rules also include a conditional safe harbor from the term "investment contract" in the definitions of "security" under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If the conditions are satisfied, a crypto asset would be deemed not to be subject to an investment contract for those definitions.
The SEC is accepting comments on the proposed rule until October 20, 2026. The document is identified as Proposed Rule 2026-17183.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 09:52current
First published.
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 09:22current
First published.
- Version 121 Aug 2026, 08:55current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.