FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

SEC Staff Proposes No-Action Relief for Franklin Templeton Blockchain Fund Shares

The SEC staff has proposed allowing Franklin Templeton affiliated funds to custody blockchain-recorded money market fund shares without full compliance with Rule 17f-2, but the matter remains undecided.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 27, 2026, 7:49 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 7:53 p.m. ET
The SEC staff has proposed granting Franklin Templeton no-action relief that would allow affiliated funds to custody blockchain-recorded money market fund shares without complying with certain provisions of Rule 17f-2, according to a report by the National Law Review. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved. The relief was proposed in an proceeding, with the document type being a . The proceeding has been , and the respondent is Franklin Templeton. The National Law Review reported that the SEC staff's proposed action would permit the affiliated funds to hold the digital asset shares in a manner that would otherwise require compliance with specific custody rules under the Investment Company Act. However, the proposal is not final and remains subject to further proceedings.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 27, 2026, 7:49 p.m. ETFirst report

    SEC Staff Grants No-Action Relief to Franklin Templeton for Blockchain-Recorded Fund Shares

    The staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has granted no-action relief to Franklin Templeton. The relief permits affiliated funds to custody blockchain-recorded money market fund shares without complying with certain provisions of Rule 17f-2 under the Investment Company Act.

    The administrative proceeding was instituted by the SEC, and the relief was granted in the form of a No-Action Letter. This matter is at the charging stage and remains undecided.

    Further details of the relief were not disclosed.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 23:53current

    First published.

  2. Version 127 Aug 2026, 23:49current

    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.