On March 18, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) made a rare joint appearance, releasing a document that significantly reshaped the regulatory landscape for crypto assets: 16 types of crypto assets have been uniformly defined as “digital commodities”. In this list, the commodity properties of leading assets such as BTC and ETH are formally confirmed, and the focus of regulatory discourse shifts from “whether it involves the issuance of securities” to “how to regulate trading and derivative pricing under a commodity framework.” For the first time, a relatively clear line is drawn between securities and commodities through a joint document—the real suspense lies in how this line will reshape the crypto regulatory structure and market order in the coming years.

Regulatory Duopoly: 16 Assets Included in the Digital Commodity Camp

The joint statement by the SEC and CFTC on the classification of crypto assets is a strong signal in itself. Over the past decade, the two agencies have often been in a “remote confrontation” during congressional hearings, enforcement actions, and public speeches. However, this time, they have set a tone for the attributes of major crypto assets through a joint document, indicating that the U.S. regulatory authorities have formed an operationally consistent position on the top-level classification issues for the first time. This is more binding and predictable for project parties and institutions that have long been in a regulatory gray area than mere verbal statements from a single agency.

The document provides the core definition that these 16 assets are defined as “digital commodities” and references the description: “The value of digital commodities derives from the programmatic operation of the cryptographic system and the supply-demand relationship”. This sentence delineates a key boundary—the value primarily comes from the code rules of the protocol itself and market supply and demand, rather than from the continuous efforts and operational performance of an identifiable management team. Without fabricating a complete list, it can currently be confirmed that leading assets like BTC and ETH are included in this digital commodity series, representing that U.S. regulators are now willing to acknowledge a “commodity-like” logic for mainstream crypto assets instead of categorizing them all as unregistered securities.

This unified classification directly touches on the issue of power distribution between securities regulation and commodity regulation in the U.S. regulatory landscape. Assets regarded as digital commodities will have their spot and derivative markets fall more under CFTC's commodity regulation rather than being completely subject to SEC's jurisdiction over issuance and trading based on securities logic. This does not mean that SEC is excluded; however, at least at the classification level, the foundational status of commodity regulation has been institutionalized and confirmed. This joint document will serve as an important reference for subsequent rules regarding exchange licenses, contract product designs, and information disclosure obligations, moving away from fragmented enforcement.

From Howey Test to Transitioning to Digital Commodity Narrative

To understand this shift, one must return to the long-standing Howey Test used by U.S. courts for decades. In this test, a core criterion is whether investors have a reasonable expectation of profit based on “the reliance on the management or entrepreneurial efforts of others.” Traditional securities—whether stocks, bonds, or certain investment contracts—heavily rely on the ongoing performance of the issuer or management for investors to have a reasonable expectation of returns, providing a legal basis for SEC's stringent regulation under the securities law framework.

The joint document deliberately aims at the other end of the Howey Test. Regulatory agencies emphasize that crypto assets classified as digital commodities are not based on the premise of “profit expectations relying on the managerial actions of others”, but rather highlight that “value derives from programmatic operation and supply-demand relationships.” In other words, regulators logically oppose the two sources of value models—“reliance on others’ management” is closer to securities, while “program rules + market supply and demand” are pushed into the commodity category. By reaffirming this point, the SEC and CFTC have built an argument framework compatible with the Howey test for these 16 assets, but with a different focus.

The differences between the securities narrative and the commodity narrative are not just nominal but involve radically different regulatory pathways and legal responsibilities. Securities imply a higher density of information disclosure, transparency requirements, registration and exemption thresholds, and a strict set of constraints around issuance, sale, custody, and secondary market manipulation; commodities focus more on market integrity, anti-manipulation, anti-fraud, and the compliance of trading infrastructure, with limited attention to the issuance and fundraising activities. The tension between the two narratives determines whether project parties choose to accept SEC’s stringent regulatory approach of “heavy re-disclosure and procedural requirements” or to operate under the CFTC-led commodity framework, mainly accepting constraints around market behavior.

In this context, the emphasized attribute of “not relying on others’ management” in this document is likely to become a reference model for future other crypto assets seeking a “commodity identity.” If project parties can prove that the value of their tokens mainly derives from protocol-level rules and open market behavior rather than the proactive management of a centralized team, they may gain room to be classified as digital commodities in the regulatory game. Of course, whether this logic will be continuously adopted by courts in future rulings remains to be seen, but the contours of standards have been written into the joint document for the first time.

Compliance Crossroads for Project Parties: Who is Running Towards “Commodity Identity”

Once a certain type of crypto asset is defined as a digital commodity, the compliance paths faced by related project parties and ecosystem participants will undergo systematic rearrangement. Under the commodity framework, regulatory focus shifts from “whether registration and information disclosure are completed” to “whether the market is manipulated, whether trading is fair, whether the infrastructure is robust.” This means that, compared to traditional securities issuance, project parties will experience alleviation of strict securities registration obligations and periodic disclosure pressures, while demands around protocol transparency, code openness, and auditability of trading data will be relatively emphasized.

In stark contrast, tokens that are still likely to be considered securities will bear a heavier compliance burden concerning fundraising, secondary circulation, and marketing. Public fundraising aimed at U.S. investors will require complex choices between registration and exemption pathways; secondary market trading may be restricted to compliant securities platforms; any marketing language involving “profit promises” or “team performance binding” may be interpreted as an extension of securities issuance and sales activities. In this fork, the stronger the securities attribute, the harder it is for project parties to avoid SEC's stringent regulation.

Conversely, projects designed to be less centralized, have more transparent governance processes, and have code and parameters closer to “public infrastructure” are likely to gain advantages under the new framework. Reducing reliance on a single team, enhancing DAO governance, and emphasizing community co-governance and automated rule execution are no longer merely “decentralized narrative” self-packaging but are structural choices that genuinely influence regulatory classification, which may increase the likelihood of obtaining a “digital commodity” identity. For new projects that have not entered any list, figuring out how to compress the “narrative of reliance on others’ management” in token economics, governance structures, and public communication will gradually evolve into an explicit “commodification impulse”: not for sentiment but to strive for a wider operational space within the U.S. regulatory system.

Redrawing the Market Landscape: Redistribution of Exchanges, Derivatives, and Institutional Capital

When leading assets are officially included in the digital commodity camp, the most direct impact is felt by spot and derivative trading platforms. For spot platforms, the clarification of commodity attributes means that their businesses may need to systematically integrate with the CFTC and relevant commodity regulatory frameworks: from anti-manipulation rules and market monitoring technologies to the reporting paths for positions and trading data, everything will be incorporated into a compliance blueprint closer to traditional commodity exchanges. For platforms that already provide services within the U.S. or to U.S. users, this poses both compliance pressure and an opportunity for identity upgrade—from “crypto trading website” to “regulated commodity market infrastructure.”

On the derivatives side, CFTC's dominant role in futures, options, and other markets will naturally extend to these crypto assets defined as digital commodities. Futures, options, and even more complex structured products surrounding assets like BTC and ETH are expected to achieve more stable institutional expectations under a clearer commodity regulatory framework. For regulated exchanges and clearing agencies that have already entered the crypto derivatives space, this may lead to product line expansion and the enrichment of risk management tools; at the same time, it means they must apply the same strict standards they use for traditional commodities to manage margin, leverage ratios, and market concentration.

For traditional financial institutions, perceiving leading crypto assets as commodities rather than securities will create a ripple effect on risk assessment, compliance checks, and product structures. The commodity attributes are more easily aligned with existing commodity investments, CTA strategies, and commodity index products, reducing compliance departments’ sensitivity to “unregistered securities risks”, thereby opening space for more funds, notes, and structured allocation products based on BTC, ETH, and others. At the same time, the change in the U.S. position on this issue will also spill over into other jurisdictions through cross-border institutions, global trading platforms, and regulatory dialogue mechanisms: some countries may choose to quickly align to narrow the regulatory arbitrage space; others may deliberately maintain ambiguity to attract businesses and capital constrained by U.S. regulation.

Tug-of-War Between Securities and Commodities: A Temporary Ceasefire in the Regulatory Struggle

In terms of jurisdiction over crypto assets, there has long been a gray area and a competitive-collaborative relationship between the SEC and CFTC: the former emphasizes investor protection and the traditions of securities law, while the latter focuses on the fairness and transparency of futures, options, and commodity markets. The inconsistency in regulatory discourse, coupled with a lack of unified legislation, has led many projects to face an uncertain environment in the U.S. characterized by “ex post enforcement + judicial decisions.” This joint action is, to some extent, like a temporary ceasefire agreement—at least for these 16 assets, the two regulators no longer compete for definitional authority but jointly acknowledge their commodity attributes as priority.

However, this joint document alleviates the pragmatic issue of who governs specific major assets but does not completely diffuse the fundamental controversy of “what constitutes a security.” For a large number of tokens that have not yet been classified, the Howey Test remains a core tool in the SEC's hands, and the CFTC has not abandoned the possibility of asserting regulatory authority over broader crypto derivatives. The real gray area still exists among projects that have both fundraising attributes and claim to be highly decentralized; they will continue to face significant uncertainty in classification and tug-of-war in enforcement and judicial precedents.

In this uncertainty, the assets that have not yet been identified or classified possess not only risks but also gaming space. Project parties, institutions, and industry organizations may adopt various counter-strategies:

● Lobbying and Policy Participation: Pushing legislators to provide a clear classification framework for crypto assets at a higher level through industry associations, think tank collaborations, and congressional hearings, to reduce the discretionary space of any single enforcement agency.

● Lawsuits and Precedent Shaping: When facing enforcement challenges, seeking favorable rulings through judicial processes to define the boundaries of “relying on others’ management” in specific cases, forcing regulatory agencies to adjust their stances.

● Compliance Migration and Multi-Location Layout: Deploying fundraising, governance, and core technical teams to jurisdictions that are more regulatory friendly or have clearer rules while maintaining limited, highly compliant business footholds in the U.S., thereby dispersing systemic risks from policies swaying in a single region.

The combination of these strategies will shape a more complex regulatory landscape for crypto over the next few years, and this joint document is just an important coordinate point in this long-term game.

From a Single List to a Long-Term Framework: The Starting Point of a New Cycle in Crypto Regulation

Defining 16 assets as digital commodities is a highly symbolic act but should be seen as the starting point of regulatory reshaping, not the endpoint. What is truly important behind the list is the logic—the relationship between the source of value, governance structure, and market behavior—these logics will be continually reused in future classification disputes regarding more assets. For project parties and institutions, reconstructing narratives and product designs around the standard of “reducing reliance on others’ management” is no longer just passive defense at the compliance level but relates to whether they can be sustainably accommodated within the mainstream financial system.

In the foreseeable years, ongoing classification, cross-border regulatory coordination, and an ever-increasing number of judicial precedents will continue to draw new boundary lines. Some assets may converge from being “suspected securities” to “digital commodities” through technological and governance innovations; others may be pulled back to the securities track by courts and regulators due to failed decentralization attempts. Globally, the choices made by different countries and regions in benchmarking, observing, and differentiated competition will layer into a complex network of regulatory arbitrage and collaboration.

For readers, a more practical course of action is to treat this joint document as the starting point of a monitoring framework:

● Continuously monitor the expansion or adjustment of regulatory lists, understanding the shifts in classification logic reflected in each addition or removal;

● Assess the compliance cost curves of assets and potential targets in hand, identifying those that may benefit from “commoditization” or be pressured by “securitization”;

● When structuring products and strategies, treat regulatory expectations as a decision variable equally important as fundamentals and liquidity, avoiding a focus solely on prices and technology while neglecting deeper institutional shifts.

This round of classification rewriting driven by the SEC and CFTC will profoundly impact the flow of funds, innovation directions, and risk pricing mechanisms in the next phase of the crypto industry. Those who can understand the underlying signals of this “commoditization” are more likely to take the initiative in the next regulatory cycle.

Join our community to discuss and get stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。