美国证券交易委员会加密资产常见问题解答澄清了股票回购、质押凭证和代币营销的处理方式

Core and compliance boundaries of the Securities and Exchange Commission's pledge receipt testing

The core of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff's testing of pledge receipts lies in the assets under custody. Eligible receipts must retain the holder's rights in the asset, and the issuer must not transfer, lend, pledge, re-mortgage or otherwise use the asset. The "Corporate Finance Department's Frequently Asked Questions on Crypto Assets"(hereinafter referred to as the "FAQ") was updated on September 25, 2026. The document points out that for non-securities crypto assets, repurchase announcements usually do not constitute a commitment to "basic management efforts" when the system is operating normally. However, if system functionality is missing and repurchase is marketed as a source of revenue or return for token holders, the analysis conclusions will be different.

Taken together, these positions suggest that the FAQ is a fact-based compliance guide rather than an unconditional safe haven for mature encryption practices.

The distinction between pledge receipts and custody mechanisms

staff begins with the actual function of the so-called "receipt." The true pledge receipt proves the user's ownership of the deposited assets and does not change the rights or benefits attached to those assets. This definition places the legal focus on the holder's continued claim to the underlying asset rather than the increasingly popular "liquidity pledge" label.

Custody is also crucial. The receipt issuer may not transfer, lend, pledge, re-mortgage or otherwise deploy the deposited assets. These restrictions are significant because they distinguish tokens that record depositors 'existing positions from arrangements where intermediaries can access customer assets for their own accounts or through discretionary activities.

The FAQ also deals with an easily overlooked classification distinction: pledge receipts for non-securities digital goods may be regarded as a digital tool. On the other hand, receipts issued by protocol-based liquidity pledge providers may themselves constitute a digital commodity if their value is linked to the programmatic operation of functional encryption systems and supply and demand dynamics.

These two results do not occur automatically simply because the user issues a transferable token after pledging the asset. The analysis criteria will focus on the evaluation of system functions, receipt mechanisms, and the issuer's limits of control over customer property. This is a narrower proposition than generally recognizing liquidity pledges.

Continuity with Early Pledge Guidelines

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission maintains the clearest continuity with its earlier Pledge Guidelines in its treatment of qualified receipt structures. An August 2025 staff statement described pledged receipt tokens as receipts that already cover crypto assets and noted that they typically do not have the characteristics of options, securities futures, or securities derivative swaps. However, this conclusion is not an unconditional safe haven.

The March 2026 explanatory release extends the same legal background to specific transactions involving the generation, issuance, redemption, or trading of pledged receipt tokens for non-securities crypto assets, stating that in the circumstances described, these transactions do not require registration under the Securities Act or seeking exemptions. Therefore, this explanatory release, together with the August 2025 statement, positions the FAQ as a refinement measure rather than a blanket approval.

The key lies in the reality of the structure: whether the underlying encryption system is working properly, and whether the escrow, redemption and token mechanisms retain their nature as receipts. Staff did not regard the economic name of the product as a decisive factor, and the FAQ did not create an unconditional safe harbor.

Kraken Case and Intermediary Boundaries

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's 2023 case against Kraken remains a restrictive precedent: According to a February 2023 announcement, regulators accused Kraken of involving unregistered securities transactions, and Kraken reached a settlement without admitting or denying the allegations.

The FAQ targets very different characteristics-the functionality of the protocol operation, the representativeness of receipts, restrictions on custody and asset use, and promotional claims. Simply calling the tool a "receipt" or its associated tokens transferable is not enough to make centralized pledged products suitable for such processing.

其收据描述要求发行方不具备转移、出借、质押、再抵押或以其他方式使用存入资产的能力。对于基于协议的流动性质押收据，相关价值可能与功能性系统的程序化运营及市场供需挂钩，而非持续的管理努力。《FAQ》仍留给中介方许多界限划分的问题，那些以自由裁量托管、不透明的资产部署或发起人主导的收益叙事为特征的产品，较难与工作人员讨论的结构相提并论。

功能系统中的回购行为

回购行为也受到了类似的有条件对待。对于非证券类加密资产，工作人员表示，当加密系统正常运行时，宣布回购通常不构成对基本管理努力的承诺。在这种环境下，回购计划不会自动转化为投资合同分析中相关的管理回报表述。

这一限定条件之所以重要，是因为同样的商业行为可以有两种不同的框架。如果系统未正常运行，将回购呈现为为持有者创造收益或回报，则会改变分析性质；公司可能会将该行为描述为管理者为持有者的预期收益而管理一个不成熟的项目，或者是涉及功能性系统中资产的活动。

因此，《FAQ》避免将回购视为 inherently benign（固有无害）或 inherently suspect（固有可疑）。问题在于该公告是否构成更广泛承诺的一部分，即购买者将从基本管理努力中受益。在早期阶段系统中营销回购的发行人，利用更具包容性的功能性系统范例的空间较小。

发布后的营销主张

《FAQ》中最具影响力的线索可能是其对发行人沟通的处理方式。工作人员表示，解释性发布中的正式定义用于对加密资产进行分类。然而，发行人关于功能性或去中心化的定义主张，对于判断发行人是否履行了其做出的陈述仍然相关。因此，在代币发布后，宣传语言仍可能具有法律意义。

这并非矛盾。工作人员指出，在功能性加密系统中如果没有中央一方，发行人关于该系统的陈述不太可能创设新的投资合同，因为没有发行人或其他人以影响系统成败的方式控制该系统。但是，声称网络是“功能性”或“去中心化”的，仍然会引发对这些代表条件是否真实的审查。

对于加密发行人而言，实际约束不仅仅是避免以回报为重点的语言。更重要的是确保关于发布状态、去中心化、托管和项目机制的主张与所提供的结构相匹配。《FAQ》中更具包容性的结果取决于这些事实，而非产品的品牌包装。