SEC Keeps Reg Crypto Comment Channel Open After Deadline
The SEC’s formal comment period for its Regulation Crypto Assets (Reg Crypto) proposal closed on October 20, 2026, but the agency says it will continue accepting feedback. The SEC has not formally extended the deadline. The proposal, filed as S7-2026-27, received about 140 submissions, including comments from the Hyperliquid Policy Center, SIFMA, AIMA and SkyBridge Capital’s Anthony Scaramucci.
Reg Crypto would create two exemptions under the Securities Act: a startup exemption allowing up to $5 million to be raised over four years, and a fundraising exemption permitting up to $75 million in 12 months with ongoing reporting. It also proposes a conditional safe harbor from certain state securities rules, while retaining federal antifraud protections.
Commenters have called for revisions, particularly to the treatment of airdrops and the scope of the safe harbor. The SEC’s continued acceptance of comments does not change the formal deadline, but feedback could still inform the rulemaking. With the CLARITY Act stalled, Reg Crypto could shape the regulatory path for crypto offerings and secondary trading, although a future SEC could revisit rules adopted through agency action.
Neutral
This is primarily a regulatory-process update, not an immediate change in law: the SEC says it will accept comments after the October 20 deadline, but has not formally extended the period. As a result, it is unlikely to create a clear, immediate trading catalyst for major cryptocurrencies. Short-term reactions may be limited to tokens and firms perceived to be more exposed to US securities rules, and even those moves would depend on how traders interpret the proposal and the agency’s eventual response.
The proposal could have longer-term significance. Its potential $5 million startup exemption, $75 million fundraising exemption and conditional safe harbor may provide a clearer path for some crypto offerings and secondary trading. That could support investment and market participation if the final rules are seen as workable. Conversely, uncertainty over airdrops, the safe harbor’s scope and the durability of rules adopted by agency action could keep compliance risks elevated. Similar regulatory announcements often produce uneven reactions: perceived clarity can improve sentiment, while restrictive or ambiguous provisions can weigh on affected projects. With the CLARITY Act stalled and the proposal still subject to review, the overall impact remains uncertain and is best categorized as neutral.