Cryptocurrency firm urges SEC to speed up ETF review and allow confidential applications

Alliance of Crypto Asset Managers is pressing the SEC to shorten review cycles for new ETFs and allow confidential drafts

A coalition of crypto asset managers and issuers is urging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to shorten its review timeline for new exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and allow confidential draft registration prospectuses. The move turned a previously initiated consultation by the agency into a debate about how quickly and publicly future crypto exchange products should pass censorship.

The root cause of this controversy lies in the "Request for Comments on New ETFs" issued by the SEC on June 30, 2026. The document asks in question 15 whether the committee should allow advance consultation or confidential draft registration specifications before public submission. The same request asked in question 18: In order to reduce imitation filings, whether filings in Category 485(a)(2) should remain private during part of the review window.

According to SEC public records, comment letters submitted by Grayscale, 21Shares, Anderson Horowitz Fund (a16z), Jane Street, Charles Schwab, the Innovative Cryptocurrency Council, and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) were filed in the case file between August 31 and September 3, 2026. The current debate is not about whether crypto ETFs will be approved, but about the mechanism of the approval process itself.

Why crypto companies want the SEC to speed up ETF review

For issuers,"faster review" is not an abstract concept. Rule 485 filing for some new ETFs can automatically take effect within 60 or 75 days at the earliest. This time context forms the basis for the industry's push to establish clear and predictable timetables rather than endless employee reviews.

The SEC's request for comment stated that some Rule 485 new ETF filings may automatically take effect after 75 or 60 days. This mechanism provides a framework for the industry's demands.

In terms of process, the idea of gray is the most radical. It requires the SEC to establish an optional confidential advance consultation channel with a 45-day commitment for employees to respond and incentives to speed up their effectiveness. This translates what was otherwise discretionary review into a service-level agreement (SLA) that allows sponsors to plan specific timetables for seed capital and market makers to on-board.

a16z believes that review cycles should be shortened and that "faster does not mean lighter." The company wrote in the letter: "Faster review will not lead to a reduction in review standards," and urged the SEC's two departments to parallel the review of registration documents and Rule 19b-4, if possible, to turn sequential bottlenecks into parallel tracks.

"Faster review will not lead to a reduction in review standards." -- Andreessen Horowitz Comment Letter

The companies raised the above point at this time because the June request for the first time clearly opened up space for discussion on timing, confidentiality and product structure rules. The key is that shortening the clock only changes the speed of review, not the outcome: automatic effectiveness under Rule 485 is a timing mechanism rather than a guarantee of substantive approval.

Confidential draft filing How to change the ETF application process

Under the confidential draft model companies want to adopt, sponsors will submit registration specifications to employees for review without having to include them in public files until later in the process. This mechanism is similar to the confidential S-1 process already used by equity IPO issuers.

21Shares supports confidential early participation mechanisms, including confidential draft registration specifications. They believe that public first drafts will attract copying and filing from competitors, and once new structures appear, opponents will immediately clone them. Its strategic value lies in providing sponsors with preparation flexibility and reducing public signal exposure before final submission.

Gray scale illustrates the same point from a competitive perspective. The company's comment letter stated: "The confidential filing period will also reduce the motivation of competitive sponsors to submit imitation or duplicate registration specifications," directly linking confidentiality to the initial protection of novel product designs.

However, this has not yet become an established policy. Questions 15 and 18 remain pending issues raised by the SEC rather than adopted rules. Differences in the commentary record suggest the agency has not disclosed its tilt.

What does this push mean for future crypto ETF applicants

The clearest objection comes from Charles Schwab. It opposes a completely confidential filing process and recommends that any confidential review of innovative ETF filing should have a disclosure period of at least 75 days before it takes effect. Schwab's concern is the readiness of intermediaries: distributors, custodians and platforms need to have sufficient public visibility to prepare systems and disclose information before products go online.

This creates the most acute policy disagreement in the case file: the opposition between Gray's 45-day employee response commitment and Schwab's requirement of at least 75 days before taking effect. The former optimizes the speed of issuers, while the latter focuses on the preparation of downstream market structures.

For future applicants, the benefits of choosing faster, more secure channels are cumulative. Reducing the risk of plagiarism protects novel structures, clear employee schedules reduce capital planning risks, and cross-department parallel reviews shorten the path from filing to listing. The debate, similar to previous battles over proposed SEC ETF rules, also divided the crypto industry along the dividing line of "issuer vs. intermediary."

Market observers pay close attention to these process changes because they determine the throughput of the entire crypto ETF pipeline, which is independent of a single product. Stakes became particularly critical as the price of Bitcoin fluctuated to about $79,226 (down about 1.9% on the day) and the Cryptographic Fear and Greed Index read 74 (or "Greed").

The broader regulatory background remains fluid, and these companies are also lobbying for legislation such as the Crypto Clarity Act, which SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has urged the Senate to pass. How the SEC resolves timing and confidentiality issues will determine whether the next batch of new ETF sponsors will file on a predictable timetable or continue to grope in an uncertain environment.