The crypto industry submits two divergent ETF rule proposals to the SEC

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission received multi-party industry proposals for new ETF rules-setting

In response to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)'s new ETF rules-setting file numbered S7-2026-24, at least four cryptocurrency industry groups submitted their own different rule proposals before the August 31, 2026 comment deadline. These proposals are not a unified position, but come from the Crypto Innovation Council, the Anderson Horowitz Fund, Gray Investment, and a joint group composed of Jito, Multicoin Capital and the Solana Policy Institute. They each put forward procedural demands and are not industry consensus.

This comment request window originated from a request for comments issued by the SEC on June 30, 2026. According to the agency's announcement, the request period will last for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The same announcement pointed out that as of the end of 2025, the total assets of ETFs exceeded US$12 trillion, highlighting the importance of this rule formulation.

Industry feedback received by the SEC

The content of feedback submitted is inconsistent: According to the case file, the SEC's Comments Received page lists independent letters from the Cryptographic Innovation Committee, a16z, Gray, and the Jito Leading Alliance, confirming multiple differentiated responses rather than a single consensus document. The SEC has become the core regulator because it controls both fund registrations and the 19b-4 exchange listing path that any new ETF must pass through.

ETF rule design is critical to crypto companies because the review structure determines when a product is to market, and the existing framework already manages more than 4600 ETFs-a number cited by the Crypto Innovation Council in advocating equal treatment. These competing proposals reflect a divisive trend in previous product disputes, including the specific demands of issuers that affected the timetable in the XRP ETF approval path.

New ETF File

August 31, 2026: Deadline for submission of public comments on the SEC's new ETF.

Proposal divergences on ETF regulation

The Crypto Innovation Committee has requested the SEC to extend the efficiency advantages of ETFs to non-ETF ETP products, retain the current investment company definition, and ensure that any confidential submission options do not interrupt automatic effectiveness or review periods. The proposal is listed under the same file number S7-2026-24 published in the Federal Register on July 6, 2026. Its core proposition is regulatory reciprocity between different product types.

"The committee should consider providing similar efficiencies for non-ETF ETPs to promote regulatory parity, encourage innovation and expand investor choice."-- The Crypto Innovation Committee

a16z made four recommendations in its opinion letter, including retaining the definition of a statutory investment company, coordinating fund registration with the 19b-4 rule review, and refusing to set a one-size-fits-all classification for new ETFs. This product-by-product stance is the most obvious difference on unified treatment.

"The committee should avoid classifying all new ETFs into a single category because these products involve different market structures, valuations, liquidity and investor protection considerations."-- In its filing, Anderson Horowitz Fund (a16z)

Gray objected to adding portfolio or asset class restrictions under the 6c-11 rule for digital asset products with established compliance records, and requested the establishment of an optional confidential pre-submission consultation mechanism that requires staff to respond within 45 days. The focus is on standardization of information disclosure and clear procedural time limits to distinguish inferences from confirmed claims.

According to relevant reports, the differences in the case file are not limited to the handling of cryptocurrencies, but also involve incident contracts, confidential submissions, pledges, and retail investor protection. Running through it are competing regulatory priorities rather than a coordinated lobbying script.

Impact on the market of proposed competitive ETF rules

Differentiated feedback may delay consensus formation, but it also accurately maps where the industry needs flexibility-from the length of the review cycle to the threshold of custody records-which directly affects the structure of future crypto ETF applications. Issuers seeking altcoin products, an area related to broader altcoin reserves and the expansion of digital assets, will be the most sensitive to the rules ultimately enacted by the SEC.

Differentiated procedural demands, such as the 45-day deadline required by gray scale and the uninterrupted effective period required by the Cryptography Innovation Committee, may push rule-making in an incompatible direction and extend drafting time. The tensions echo pledges and fee disputes that have arisen in other contexts, including the Solana verifier financial issues that any ETF linked to Solana will inherit.

Bitcoin's latest trading price is approximately US$77,118, with a 24-hour rate of change of 0.07%, which is flat against the backdrop of market structure stories rather than price catalysts. The fear and greed index is 63, which is in the "greed" range.

Bitcoin spot price: US$77,118 (as a reference background for the secondary market only; this article focuses on SEC rulemaking and differentiated industry proposals).

With the deadline for comments on August 31, 2026, the next catalyst will be for SEC staff to consolidate these conflicting demands into proposed rules, when differences between reciprocity and product specificity will be resolved, providing direction for future applicants.