Grayscale: Regulators Can Set Crypto Rules Without CLARITY

Grayscale, a digital-asset manager, told regulators in a public statement that U.S. rulemaking on crypto can proceed without passage of the CLARITY Act. The firm argued agencies already have statutory tools to set standards for markets, custody and investor protection.

The company urged federal agencies to use existing authority to clarify how securities laws apply to digital tokens and to create rules that define custody obligations, trading and listing standards for investment products.

Grayscale identified three immediate areas for agency action: defining which tokens qualify as securities; setting custody and safeguarding requirements for digital-asset custodians; and establishing transparent listing and trading standards for crypto investment products. It said clearer agency guidance would reduce uncertainty for exchanges, asset managers and institutional investors.

The statement was issued amid debate in Washington over whether Congress should pass comprehensive crypto legislation or whether agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should move ahead with rulemaking. The SEC has emphasized authority over offerings it treats as securities; the CFTC has asserted jurisdiction over certain tokens and derivatives as commodities.

Grayscale cited prior judicial and administrative decisions that changed market practice and created paths for new products. The firm’s legal challenge to the SEC after a denied spot bitcoin exchange-traded fund was followed by approvals of spot bitcoin ETFs.

Regulators could address custody standards for client assets, disclosure requirements for token issuers, and rules governing listing and marketing of crypto investment products, the company said. Grayscale added it will continue to participate in rulemaking processes and offer technical and legal input.

The proposed CLARITY Act would set statutory definitions and allocate regulatory responsibilities between agencies. Supporters say it would provide legal certainty; opponents argue legislation can take years and may lag technological change.