The speech by Chairman Atkins marks a historic turning point for the Web3 industry, transitioning from "barbaric growth" to "compliant development."
Author: Magic Tony
On June 9, 2025, Washington witnessed not just an ordinary roundtable but potentially a "paradigm shift" in the history of U.S. financial regulation. The speech by newly appointed SEC Chairman Paul Atkins was like a resounding icebreaker, announcing that the U.S. regulatory philosophy towards decentralized finance (DeFi) is shifting from "containment" to "guidance." This is not only a significant boon for the Web3 industry but may also trigger a global regulatory competition regarding financial innovation. This article will deeply analyze the core implications of this speech and provide strategic foresight for practitioners, considering China's national conditions and a global perspective.
I. The Three Pillars of Atkins' New Policy: Clearing Core Obstacles for DeFi Development
Chairman Atkins' speech precisely dismantled the three "swords of Damocles" hanging over DeFi, forming the three pillars of his new regulatory policy.
Pillar One: Naming the Core Participants in the Network — "Staking is Not Securities"
Original Quote: “I am grateful to the Division of Corporation Finance staff for clarifying its view that voluntary participation in a proof-of-work or proof-of-stake network as a ‘miner,’ ‘validator,’ or ‘staking-as-a-service’ provider is not within the scope of the federal securities laws.”
Translation: “I thank the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance for clarifying their view that voluntary participation in a proof-of-work or proof-of-stake network as a ‘miner,’ ‘validator,’ or ‘staking-as-a-service’ provider is not subject to federal securities laws.”
The legal significance of this statement is extremely important. It clearly distinguishes the "technical service" activities that maintain the security and consensus of blockchain networks from the financial activities of issuing "investment contracts." Previously, the SEC imposed heavy penalties on exchanges like Kraken for their staking services, reasoning that staking provided a return expectation, fitting the "profit expectation from the efforts of others" criterion in the Howey Test, and thus was considered a security. Atkins' statement essentially provides a regulatory "safe harbor" for the maintainers of these network infrastructures.
We understand that this will directly benefit all mainstream PoS (Proof of Stake) public chain ecosystems. Ethereum: As the largest PoS network, the compliance clouds over its liquid staking protocols like Lido, Rocket Pool, and centralized exchange staking services in the U.S. will greatly dissipate. Meanwhile, Solana, Cardano, Polygon, etc.: These public chains, which also rely on staking to maintain network security, will allow their validators and delegators to participate in network governance and construction with greater peace of mind, attracting more capital and participants from the U.S.
Pillar Two: Defending the Principle of Technological Neutrality — "Code is Not a Crime"
Original Quote: “Engineers should not be subject to the federal securities laws solely for publishing this type of software code… it would be irrational to hold the developer of a self-driving car liable… for a third-party’s use of the car to commit a traffic violation or to rob a bank.”
Translation: “Engineers should not be subject to federal securities laws solely for publishing this type of software code… it would be irrational to hold the developer of a self-driving car liable… for a third party’s use of the car to commit a traffic violation or to rob a bank.”
In-depth Interpretation: This is a strong reaffirmation of the "tool neutrality" principle in the digital age. The arrest of Tornado Cash developers sent shockwaves through the open-source community. Atkins used the analogy of "self-driving cars" to clearly state his position: the law punishes actions, not tools. Developing a decentralized exchange protocol (DEX) or mixer should not be seen as conducting securities business or money laundering unless the developer themselves is involved in illegal operations.
Pillar Three: Opening the Door to Compliant Innovation — "Innovation Exemption"
Original Quote: “I have directed the staff to consider a conditional exemptive relief framework or ‘innovation exemption’ that would expeditiously allow registrants and non-registrants to bring on-chain products and services to market.”
Translation: “I have directed the staff to consider a conditional exemptive relief framework or ‘innovation exemption’ that would quickly allow registrants and non-registrants to bring on-chain products and services to market.”
This is the most forward-looking and disruptive point in the entire speech. Establishing an "innovation exemption" (or regulatory sandbox) signifies a shift in the SEC's role from "post-event punisher" to "pre-event guide."
This move by the U.S. will create significant competitive pressure on other financial centers. Countries like the UK, Singapore, the UAE, and the EU, which have already explored or are exploring similar frameworks, may accelerate their efforts to optimize policies to compete for global Web3 capital, projects, and talent. A global race on "how to better regulate innovation" has already begun.
China's financial regulatory system, with "stability above all" as a key principle, is unlikely to directly emulate the U.S. "innovation exemption" in the short term. However, this initiative will greatly inspire and promote Hong Kong's Web3 policies. As China's "special innovation zone," the openness and flexibility of Hong Kong's virtual asset policies will become crucial in the competition with the U.S. The mainland can continue to strictly guard against financial risks while indirectly participating in the global Web3 innovation wave through Hong Kong.
II. Special Focus: Examining the Tornado Cash Case Under Chinese Law
Atkins defended developers, but the shadow of Tornado Cash still looms. What would happen to developers if this case occurred in China?
According to China's Criminal Law, developing and operating tools similar to Tornado Cash would most likely fall under the charge of "aiding information network criminal activities" as per Article 287-2 of the Criminal Law.
The core element of this charge is "knowingly providing technical support for others to commit crimes using information networks, such as providing internet access, server hosting, network storage, communication transmission, or providing advertising promotion, payment settlement, etc."
The key to legal analysis lies in the determination of "knowingly":
Purely Technical Developers: If a developer merely writes and open-sources the mixing protocol code, does not participate in subsequent operations, and does not gain profits linked to the scale of illegal funds, then proving their "knowledge" that specific users are using their code for money laundering would be difficult. They could argue that they merely created a "technical tool" with privacy protection features.
Operators/Beneficiaries of the Protocol: However, if the developer profits by charging transaction fees, issuing governance tokens, and there is evidence that they are indifferent to the platform being widely used for money laundering activities, or even attract illegal funds through promotion, the risk of being deemed "knowingly" will sharply increase.
Under China's strict judicial practices, even a developer, once their tool is widely used for criminal activities, faces legal risks far higher than in the U.S. Chinese law places greater emphasis on outcomes and the maintenance of social order, with relatively limited space for "technological neutrality" exemptions.
III. Inside the Roundtable: Washington's Web3 Gathering and Their "Gossip"
The guest list for this roundtable itself is a spectacle, featuring top figures in the industry.
Erik Voorhees (Venice AI): A well-known figure in the Web3 circle, a staunch libertarian. The exchange he founded, ShapeShift, has long clashed with regulators for refusing to conduct KYC (Know Your Customer). His presence at the meeting signifies the SEC's willingness to listen to the most "radical" voices.
Peter Van Valkenburgh (Coin Center): He is known as the "crypto evangelist" in Washington, recognized for his calm, rigorous, and persuasive style. He has repeatedly explained the principles of Bitcoin and crypto technology to lawmakers in a manner akin to a university professor during U.S. congressional hearings. He serves as a rational communication bridge between the industry and regulators.
Michael Mosier (Arktouros): This individual has a resume that can be described as the "king of cross-industry," having served as the acting director of the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) before moving to Chainalysis and Espresso Systems as legal counsel. He understands both the "dragon-slaying" techniques of regulation and the "business acumen" of the industry, making him an excellent candidate to bridge both sides.
Rebecca Rettig (Jito Labs): A leading figure in DeFi law, she has served as chief legal officer for several top DeFi projects, including Aave and Polygon. She has extensive practical experience in designing compliant frameworks for decentralized protocols.
This lineup indicates that the SEC is sincerely inviting the industry's most knowledgeable "brains" in technology, law, capital, and regulation to collaboratively seek solutions.
IV. Different Paths: Strategic Divergence in DeFi Regulation Between China and the U.S.
Comparing the attitudes of China and the U.S. towards DeFi, we can clearly see two distinctly different strategic paths.
The U.S. aims to seize the future financial high ground. The U.S. views DeFi as an innovation wave on par with the early internet, with its regulatory strategy centered on maximizing domestic innovation vitality while controlling risks, thereby ensuring U.S. leadership in the next generation of the global financial system. This is an offensive strategy of "embracing risk and leading innovation."
China, on the other hand, firmly upholds financial sovereignty and stability. The Chinese financial system is bank-dominated, and stability is an overriding hard task. The borderless, highly volatile, and "financial disintermediation" characteristics of DeFi fundamentally conflict with China's national strategy of "preventing and resolving major financial risks." Therefore, China has chosen a strategy of "technology available, finance prohibited," strictly preventing DeFi from impacting the existing financial system and firmly maintaining the red line of capital controls. This is a defensive strategy of "building strong defenses while seeking progress in stability."
V. Conclusion: Seize the Opportunity of the Times and Collaborate with Professionals
Chairman Atkins' speech marks a historic turning point for the Web3 industry, transitioning from "barbaric growth" to "compliant development." For all practitioners, this represents an unprecedented opportunity, while also placing higher demands on our strategic wisdom and compliance capabilities.
For founders and developers, what you need to build is not only disruptive technology but also a robust and scrutinizable global legal framework. True decentralization will be your strongest legal moat.
For investors and funds, the reduction of policy risks will unleash tremendous market potential. However, the intrinsic risks of projects—technology, team, and economic model—remain the core of investment decisions. Penetrating the narrative of "decentralization" to identify truly valuable targets will be key to navigating through cycles.
This shift in regulatory paradigm will profoundly impact every participant in the ecosystem. We encourage you to share this in-depth analysis with your partners, team members, and investors to collectively discuss and seize this historic opportunity, gaining an advantage in the midst of transformation.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
