On April 28, 2026, the lights at the main venue of the Bitcoin 2026 Conference dimmed as SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Chair Mike Selig walked on stage side by side. This scene itself broke the norm that had persisted over the past few years—two agencies long tugging at the question of “who regulates crypto assets” now stood before the same microphone, addressing the same audience. Shortly after the opening, Atkins threw out a key signal: the regulation of digital assets in the United States is entering a “new phase,” and this new phase is no longer just a series of individual enforcement actions but a coordinated push under the same framework by the SEC and CFTC.

The clues of this joint statement were clear yet complicated enough. One main line is the “handshake” following jurisdictional disputes: the two agencies are no longer using individual cases to draw territorial lines but are instead using jointly released token taxonomy guidance as an axis to categorize digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities, attempting to draw a clear line on the long-ambiguous regulatory boundaries. Another main line is the more strategically significant onshoring direction—Atkins and Selig both emphasized that they hope to promote crypto assets and tokenized businesses domestically in the U.S. or onshore, aiming to more firmly integrate this trillion-dollar market into the local financial system and regulatory oversight by “bringing it back to the U.S.”

The language on stage remained at the principle level: coordinated regulation, “onshore operations,” unified guidance, while the specific supporting details, future enforcement intensity, and rhythm were deliberately left blank. For projects and funding parties that have already dispersed globally, a more defined and seemingly more predictable era of U.S. regulation is beginning. But the real suspense has only just appeared—when the SEC and CFTC redefine the rules with a classification guidance and an onshoring logic, will the U.S. again become the core coordinate of the global crypto map, or will it force the industry map to shift once more, pushing the new center elsewhere? Is this “new phase” a return, a reconstruction, or the starting point of a wider migration?

Turning from High-Pressure Enforcement to Cooperative Regulation

To understand the outline of this “new phase,” one must first return to the familiar old path of the past few years: U.S. regulation of crypto has grown more from courtrooms than from rulebooks.

For a long time, the main theme of the SEC in the crypto field has been “enforce first, explain later.” Many projects first genuinely understood their identity in the eyes of regulators after receiving investigation letters, settlement terms, or even lawsuits. Regulatory boundaries have not been drawn through prior classification guidance or licensing systems but have been pieced together through one case after another in enforcement—hence the industry often summarizes this path as “enforcement-led regulation.”

Simultaneously playing out is another undercurrent: the long-standing friction between the SEC and CFTC over “commodities vs. securities.” Which tokens should be regarded as commodities and enter the CFTC’s derivatives and commodities regulatory system; which ones are securities and fall under the SEC’s disclosure and issuance rules, has always been ambiguous in legal texts. As a result, there have been jurisdictional disputes between the two agencies over whether crypto assets belong to commodities or securities in regulatory practice, forcing market participants to waver between the two narratives—the same type of asset may be understood as a “commodity” in one regulator’s context and more like “securities” in another’s.

In this context, the joint statement at the Bitcoin 2026 Conference is seen as a clear shift in direction. On April 28, SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Chair Mike Selig made a joint appearance for the first time, collectively releasing signals regarding digital asset regulation in the same forum. Compared to the past when each agency would throw out opinions sporadically at different occasions and times, this time, the two regulatory agencies synchronized their rhetoric, locking in on the keywords “coordinated advancement” right from the start.

Atkins clearly stated on-site that U.S. digital asset regulation is entering a “new phase” and specifically named that the SEC and CFTC would “jointly promote” the digital asset regulatory framework; Selig echoed this, emphasizing the hope to drive crypto assets and tokenized businesses to operate as much as possible within the U.S. or onshore. This was not merely a gesture of “we will collaborate” but rather accompanied by a concrete institutional tool—the jointly released token taxonomy guidance by both agencies.

This guidance is the first official attempt to distinguish among the major categories of digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities, aiming to provide clearer regulatory ascription for different types of tokens. In other words, the SEC and CFTC are no longer just jockeying for “whose case this is” in existing cases, but are sitting at the same table, trying to draft classification rules first before discussing their respective boundaries. This combined action is interpreted by the market as a key step for the two agencies to reconcile their differences in crypto regulation and attempt to unify the regulatory framework, also symbolizing a shift from “enforcement first” to “rules and cooperation first.”

For the industry, the real change lies not in the language turning milder but in the restructuring of cost structures and risk expectations. In the past, a large portion of compliance costs stemmed from “not knowing who exactly is constraining you and based on what rules.” Projects needed to prepare multiple sets of narratives for the same business to respond to potentially different labels given by various agencies; attorney fees and potential litigation risks were viewed as the “invisible tax” for conducting business in the U.S. In this environment, many decisions were not based on clear rule-based cost-benefit calculations but rather on guesses about future enforcement.

When the SEC and CFTC clarify token types through joint guidance, market participants face a different way of calculation: which type of token needs to face which regulatory path, which business model is more viable in the U.S. or onshore, and which elements must reserve resources for precompliance design. Costs may not necessarily decrease, but the shift from “reactive measures” to “proactive planning” itself implies a reassessment of risk premiums—companies can transfer part of their budget originally earmarked for potential litigation and settlement to compliance teams, internal risk control, and structural design.

More importantly, the shift in risk expectations is a key change. The joint statement does not imply that enforcement will disappear; on the contrary, future enforcement is more likely to be embedded within a set of pre-announced classifications and frameworks. For the market, this predictability reduces the “black swan” events caused by sudden policy shifts while increasing confidence in the medium- to long-term regulatory environment. Meanwhile, since specific supporting details and rules have not been fully implemented, the industry remains cautiously observant—while the outline of the new phase has been drawn, how thick and firm the lines will be depends on how the SEC and CFTC will concretely flesh out “coordinated regulation” in the subsequent detailed rules.

Token Classification Released: Separating Commodities and Securities

After shouting the slogans for “coordinated regulation,” it swiftly turned into a document—a token classification guidance co-signed by the SEC and CFTC was placed on the table at the Bitcoin 2026 Conference. This document, referred to by both agencies as token taxonomy guidance, is not just a simple glossary but attempts to sketch a new regulatory landscape among the three lines of digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities.

In recent years, the SEC and CFTC have repeatedly tugged over whether crypto assets are “commodities” or “securities,” more often categorizing them through individual enforcement after the fact. This time, with both agencies signing the document together, it is tantamount to building a bridge over the jurisdictional disputes: anything falling under the category of digital commodities is more aligned with commodity regulatory logic; anything regarded as tokenized securities directly connects to the securities regulatory pathway; between the two are digital collectibles, which pertain to identities, art, and community symbols, singled out to differentiate from purely financing-type tokens.

In regulatory discourse, these three categories are not abstract nouns but correspond to different functions and risk profiles. The market’s interpretation roughly is: digital commodities emphasize “usage rights” and network resource consumption, digital collectibles emphasize uniqueness and expressive attributes, while tokenized securities point towards capital raising, rights distribution, and cash flow expectations. For project teams, this means that at the whiteboard stage, they must choose the “fate track” for their tokens—whether to lean towards the commodities line or honestly acknowledge that it is essentially a securitized rights certificate.

With the release of this guidance, the most direct beneficiaries are those teams and organizations that previously hovered on the compliance edge. In the past, they faced a question filled with uncertainties: issuing a token, with no oversight today, does not guarantee that tomorrow a certain agency will not later determine it to be an illegal securities issuance. Now, even if specific regulations have not been fully disclosed, there is at least an officially recognized “classification map”: projects can deduce based on their own functions and economic designs which regulatory line they are more likely to fall under; trading platforms and custodial agencies can build different compliance pathways accordingly rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach to all assets.

This classification brings about path differences—tokens falling under the “digital commodities” narrative can more easily be categorized within the commodity regulatory framework, with institutions familiar with commodity market rules designing trading and risk management; tokens regarded as tokenized securities will need to comply with the entire set of stringent requirements of the securities market in areas such as issuance disclosure, investor suitability, and custodial responsibilities. Digital collectibles are singled out, allowing space for artistic and cultural narratives and providing platforms with a relatively clear line of operation for pricing and compliance disclosures.

More importantly, this classification table is embedded within the larger narrative of “onshoring.” The signals released by U.S. regulators are clear: as long as you are willing to operate under U.S. domestic or onshore structures, there will be a predictable compliance path, rather than being perpetually suspended in a “gray area.” For those holding trillion-dollar market shares who do not wish to be excluded from the U.S. financial system, this sense of having “a way to go” is far more practical than any verbal encouragement.

However, this demarcation line is by no means definitive. The guidance itself only provides preliminary markers, and many details are deliberately left blank: should a token that has both functional internet usability and is widely speculated be considered a digital commodity or be recognized as tokenized securities? Can a token initially used for financing later shift towards internet utility across its lifecycle? The guidance does not provide mechanical answers to these questions, leaving sufficient room for subsequent regulatory rules and regulatory negotiations.

For the SEC and CFTC, this ambiguity is not a mistake but more like a strategically “elastic blank”: first, use broad categories to encompass the market, then gradually thicken and solidify the lines in future specifics, interpretations, and case enforcement. For the industry, the token classification guidance is just the first act of the play; the ultimate fate will be determined by how these three regulatory tracks are specifically rolled out in the coming years and who will be the first large project to test the waters on this “commodities and securities demarcation.”

Bringing Trading Back to the U.S.: The Bait and Shackles of Onshoring

Under the spotlight of the Bitcoin 2026 Conference, token classification guidance is only half the story; the other half is geography—Paul Atkins and Mike Selig repeatedly emphasized with almost the same force from the stage the need to conduct digital asset and tokenized business “in the U.S. or onshore.” This is not just a superficial remark; it is a main line aimed at bringing trading, projects, and funds back into the U.S. financial landscape.

Why is the regulatory body so persistent about “onshoring”? On the surface, it appears to be about unifying compliance standards, but behind it are three realistic matters: capital regulation, taxation, and financial stability.

● Regarding capital regulation, in recent years, many teams and businesses with American backgrounds have chosen to establish themselves in overseas jurisdictions to evade ambiguous regulatory lines in the U.S. The result is that the assets are still in American hands while risks and returns drift outside the purview of U.S. regulation. As the global digital asset market has expanded to a trillion-dollar scale, if systemic fluctuations occur, the U.S. can only watch from afar, which is nearly unacceptable for regulators.

● Concerning tax and finance, onshoring means reintegrating trading and custodianship back into the U.S. tax system. Where projects are registered and where funds flow in and out will directly determine which profits are accounted for in U.S. corporate reports and which earnings need to be declared and taxed in the U.S. “Bringing business back onshore” essentially refers to returning the tax base to the U.S.

● For financial stability, onshoring is about bringing the shadow systems back within controllable bounds. Regulators have explicitly stated that they hope to incorporate more crypto and tokenized businesses into the domestic financial system and regulatory framework through onshore pathways; the underlying logic is that only within one’s own jurisdiction can traditional tools like auditing, freezing, and information disclosure be activated in times of crisis, rather than relying on the “goodwill” and cooperation of foreign regulators.

For the industry, onshoring is a remedy mixed with both “bait” and “shackles.”

For exchanges and custodial institutions, the bait is primarily in the form of licenses and labels: with the SEC and CFTC jointly releasing token classification guidance and attempting to bridge past jurisdictional gaps, there is a clearer regulatory attribution expected for onshore operations. Once future supporting rules are finalized, gaining a U.S. license and being labeled “compliant” will make trading infrastructures more easily adopted by American institutional investors and enter the whitelist of traditional finance—whether banks, brokerages, or funds of trusted investors will prefer platforms with clear regulatory endorsement.

However, the same licensing system also serves as a shackle. Exchanges and custodians must anticipate that onshoring means stronger regulatory coverage: higher capital requirements, more frequent reporting obligations, more detailed customer disclosures, and specific regulations for risk control and asset segregation. For early-stage or small- to medium-sized platforms, this compliance cost is both a threshold and an exclusion mechanism—some choose to go onshore while others are left stranded offshore.

For token issuers, especially projects taking a tokenization path, the story is even more complicated. The SEC and CFTC's token classification guidance distinguishes between digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities; onshore issuance means you must first find your “box” within this guidance and then accept the corresponding regulatory track. On the upside, clear classification lowers the likelihood of “stepping on mines,” allowing project teams to more definitively plan structures in legal opinions and registration documents; on the downside, once categorized into a certain class, your methods of financing, secondary trading venues, and even the token economic design will be locked into that category’s rules.

Project teams and capital are caught in a tug-of-war between “staying in the U.S. to enjoy clear rules” and “going overseas to pursue greater freedom.”

For project teams, staying in the U.S. and operating onshore means being able to approach U.S. investors, connect with U.S. institutions, and have a defensive line of “compliance paths” in potential future enforcement impacts: I followed the rules you provided. But the cost is that iterational speeds and product forms must be reconstructed around regulatory boundaries—certain designs that are high in leverage, anonymity, and complexity hardly have space in the onshore environment.

Going overseas, on the other hand, is a gamble. Many teams move their entities, servers, and key operational links to overseas jurisdictions in hopes of obtaining greater product flexibility and regulatory buffer space. But under the backdrop of the SEC and CFTC releasing an “onshoring direction,” this strategy may not be truly secure: on one hand, adjustments in U.S. regulatory direction will still affect global capital flows and project locations; on the other hand, as long as they touch U.S. users or funds, project teams inevitably have to consider the risks of future “long-arm jurisdiction.”

Capital parties are equally tied to this rope. For institutions bound by strict compliance constraints, being onshore, licensed, and auditable is the minimum threshold that investment committees can approve; for funds in pursuit of high returns, the most imaginative opportunities often lie on the fringes or even outside the boundaries of regulations. Thus, a new negotiation emerges between capital and projects: whether to undertake a “slower yet more stable” project under the U.S. licensing framework or to find a gray area between regulation and freedom with an onshore/offshore dual structure that divides risks and returns.

Atkins’ so-called “new phase” places the choice in front of all participants: either go onshore and accept heavier regulation and clearer order, or continue to float offshore, exchanging for laxer space while enduring unpredictable political and regulatory weather. For a trillion-dollar market, this is no longer just a compliance issue but a question of how the mapping of capital and projects will be redrawn in the coming years.

Redrawing the Global Crypto Landscape: The Return of the U.S. to the Race

When Atkins threw the words “new phase” into the Bitcoin 2026 venue, those sitting in the audience were not only U.S. entrepreneurs and lawyers. Europe, Asia, and various offshore jurisdictions, which had painstakingly built regulatory narratives in this field over the years, were also forced to take notice.

In recent years, regions like the European Union have taken the lead in providing a regulatory framework covering crypto and tokenized activities, breaking down issuance, trading, custodianship, and tokenized assets into modules for regulation, regarded by the industry as “the most complete piece of land in terms of rules.” In contrast, the U.S. has continued to bear the label of “vague rules, fierce enforcement”—the jurisdictional disputes between the SEC and CFTC remain unresolved, forcing project teams and trading platforms to test the boundaries in gray areas. Some Asian jurisdictions are described by the market as “closer to sandboxes,” using more flexible approaches to trade off innovation friendliness and risk prevention.

This globally misaligned regulatory map is directly inscribed in project registration locations and capital paths: code may be written in Silicon Valley, teams hired in New York, legal entities set up on some offshore islands, yet targeting global users. Who can provide clearer and more predictable rules will take a larger slice of the pie—this is the simple decision-making logic of participants in a trillion-dollar market.

After Bitcoin 2026, the method of slicing that pie must be recalculated. The SEC and CFTC jointly released token classification guidance at the conference, explicitly listing the major categories of digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities, and publicly emphasized their hope to have relevant businesses “as much as possible conducted in the U.S. or onshore.” The information read by the market is direct: the U.S. is no longer satisfied with merely being a referee correcting deviations through enforcement but aims to systematically incorporate this entire class of assets into its national financial system, pulling back businesses that had spilled over to offshore jurisdictions into its regulatory vision.

Once the U.S. provides a relatively clear onshore pathway, the first to be shaken are the domestic projects and funds that have been forced to “go offshore” in recent years. Those structures that were migrated overseas due to high enforcement pressure now stand at a crossroads—should they continue maintaining offshore shell companies to enjoy a relatively lax but unpredictable environment, or should they dismantle their structures and categorize themselves in the U.S. according to “digital commodities” or “tokenized securities” for a more solid long-term position? For institutions holding pools of billions or even hundreds of billions in funds, this is no longer an ideological matter, but a parameter adjustment of asset allocation and risk control models.

Cross-border trading platforms are similarly redrawing their maps. In the past, they would land licenses in small jurisdictions with friendly regulatory attitudes, isolating U.S. users outside complex compliance walls; today, if the U.S. onshore pathways gradually unfold, and if the SEC and CFTC’s collaborative framework proves to be predictable in practice, some trading and custodial businesses may very well re-converge on the U.S. Some platforms might choose a “dual-track strategy”: establishing compliant entities in the U.S. fully aligned with token classification guidance to service regulated funds while retaining more flexible entities in other jurisdictions to accommodate higher risk preferences.

This redrawing of the landscape will not only occur on the U.S. side. For other regulators, the signals released by Atkins and Selig at Bitcoin 2026 imply that they must quickly answer one question: will they follow, resist, or coordinate?

For Europe, which has already introduced foundational regulations, the U.S. token classification guidance is not just competition but also a potential reference benchmark. It clearly attributes the three major forms of “digital commodities,” “digital collectibles,” and “tokenized securities,” giving cross-border businesses a mappable language. If European regulators choose to conceptually align with parts of the U.S. in future specifics, cross-border projects could navigate between the two with a lower compliance cost; conversely, if the two systems deliberately widen the distance in classification logic, cross-border structures will be forced to become more complex, and regulatory arbitrage opportunities will subsequently increase.

Some Asian and offshore jurisdictions face another choice. In the past, they attracted projects by adopting a “vague but friendly” stance; once the U.S. shifts to “coordinated regulation + onshoring encouragement” and provides clearer classifications and pathways, these regions' comparative advantages will be weakened. They can either continue to play the role of a “high freedom” testing ground, trading lower entry barriers for innovation, or they can begin to align themselves with the U.S. and Europe to avoid the label of a “regulatory swamp,” subjecting themselves to cross-border capital and joint scrutiny from other regulators. Whichever choice they make signifies they must redesign mechanisms for information sharing, enforcement collaboration, and even mutual recognition of licenses with the U.S.

More subtly, this global response will not be a simple “you catch up with me.” Regulatory competition and cooperation are entangled in this wave of onshoring. Some countries will deliberately package themselves as “safe havens outside the U.S. territory,” emphasizing their support for innovation in public discourse to attract projects scared away by U.S. regulations; meanwhile, the regulatory bodies of these countries will have to discuss cross-border risks and frameworks for preventing their domestic financial systems from becoming “regulatory swamps” in closed-door meetings with U.S. regulators. For them, finding a new balance between retaining capital and projects while avoiding being viewed as loopholes by the U.S. and Europe has become a key challenge.

For industry participants, a clearer U.S. onshore pathway does not automatically equate to “all roads lead back to the U.S.” In the foreseeable future, projects and funding are more likely to build a dynamic, multi-centered arrangement between the U.S., Europe, and several Asian jurisdictions: core assets and businesses open to institutional investors will gravitate towards the more stable rules of the U.S. and Europe; high innovation and high uncertainty experiments will continue to be tested in other jurisdictions. The SEC and CFTC’s joint statements and the token classification guidance may at best only add a new focal point to this global allocation game.

Ultimately, what will determine the final shape of the landscape is how the U.S. implements this “new phase” into details and practice—how enforcement scales adjust and whether the political environment remains stable—along with how willing other regulators are to align or hedge against this signal of onshoring. In this regard, Bitcoin 2026 only marks the moment the shot has been fired; the redrawing of the global crypto landscape will be a lengthy process of capital, projects, and regulatory power migrating across different jurisdictions in the years to come. The U.S. choice to return to the track indicates that the race has restarted, but who will be smiling at the finish line remains to be seen.

Opportunities and Pitfalls in the New Regulatory Era

Descending from the stage of Bitcoin 2026, the joint statement by the SEC and CFTC, along with the simultaneous release of the token classification guidance, has already inscribed the main storyline for the upcoming years on the table. For the first time, these two institutions, which have long argued over “who governs what,” have provided a shared core document around crypto assets, breaking down categories such as digital commodities, digital collectibles, and tokenized securities, in conjunction with the clear intent of “conducting business onshore.” This represents a combination move transitioning from “enforcement first” to “coordinated framework.” The discourse's focus shifts from “what is prohibited” to “what is allowed and how to do it,” which itself marks the beginning of opportunities.

The most direct opportunity is that the pathway for compliant issuance is being renamed. The primary confusion that projects and institutions faced in the past was that the same type of token might sway in identity under different regulatory standards; now, through the classification guidance, assigning different types of tokens back to relatively clear regulatory attributions indicates a template for discussions on who can publicly raise capital in the U.S., how to design rights structures, and how to report to regulators. Meanwhile, the statement expressing the hope that “crypto and tokenized businesses are integrated into the U.S. financial system” has opened institutional space for asset tokenization—from traditional financial assets to new types of rights certificates; as long as they can find corresponding categories within the guidance framework, there is an opportunity to connect with the existing financial infrastructure via tokenization. For institutional capital, a trillion-dollar global market could never remain overlooked indefinitely; as anticipatory clarity increases and compliant pathways are drawn, the legitimacy and operability of allocating crypto assets and tokenized products shift from gray areas to “having rules to follow.”

However, this narrative is still linked to several uncertain checkpoints before truly materializing. Firstly, the token classification guidance currently serves only as a top-level framework; specific supporting details have yet to be revealed, including what actions count as public issuance, how disclosure will operate in secondary markets, and how offshore businesses will be recognized as onshore, all of which will define the practical boundaries of future regulation. Secondly, even if the regulatory rhetoric shifts from “high-pressure enforcement” to “cooperative regulation,” whether enforcement departments will genuinely adopt a more “cooperative-oriented” attitude in specific case enforcement remains to be seen in subsequent case samples that will test real precedents. Thirdly, U.S. regulatory attitudes have always been influenced by political cycles and market events; the window currently dubbed as the “new phase” does not guarantee that future situations will not sway, as any round of severe price fluctuations or significant events could trigger regulatory tightening again.

In this tension, industry participants need to recalibrate their accounts: on one side are rising compliance costs—higher attorney fees, reporting obligations, and review processes; on the other side is institutional dividend—greater anticipatory predictability and the potential for systematic inclusion of institutional capital. Choosing “onshoring” means accepting the long cycle of regulatory negotiations and the gray risks stemming from incomplete rules and fluctuating rhetoric; however, declining onshoring means facing the long-term opportunity cost as the largest financial market gradually shuts its doors.

In the medium to long term, onshoring and tokenization will likely become the two irreversible main lines of the U.S. crypto market: one involves pulling back businesses, capital, and projects into the purview of local regulation, while the other gradually moves existing and new asset forms onto the blockchain. However, this is not a smooth, straight line but rather a protracted negotiation that spans years—regulatory bodies grinding down their power boundaries, political and market sentiments pulling back and forth, and the industry probing for, stepping on, and retreating from the rules’ seams. For participants, the new regulatory era is neither an unconditionally safe haven nor merely a high-pressure cage, but rather a middle ground that needs to be sensitively navigated over time and with strategy: those who can grasp the structural opportunities presented by the narratives of onshoring and tokenization without crossing red lines may very well survive to the end of this re-launched race.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits 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。