Last Friday, the SEC Crypto Task Force Roundtable marked a significant shift from the previous administration’s strict enforcement strategy. However, it barely scratched the surface of the pressing issues that need addressing to mold the crypto regulatory landscape.

The ongoing debates on whether a product is classified as a “security” or a “commodity” trace back to the Supreme Court’s ruling in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., a decision rooted in a bygone era regarding citrus cultivation.

Digital assets simply do not align neatly with the definitions of either securities or commodities. They represent a novel asset class, necessitating distinct regulatory measures by both the SEC and the CFTC. The pivotal question Congress is grappling with revolves around the classifications of these digital assets. The recent roundtable initiated critical dialogues but ultimately failed to lay groundwork for future regulatory frameworks.

Some contributors did voice vital suggestions—most notably, Miles Jennings from a16z, who emphasized the need to prioritize the economic implications of assets. Nevertheless, much of the conversations wandered into long-standing grievances about outdated definitions and ideological perspectives on securities.

While appreciation is due for Commissioner Hester Peirce’s initiative in hosting the event, the absence of engagement from the CFTC under Caroline Pham was a missed opportunity for collaboration. It is crucial for these regulatory bodies to work in tandem moving forward, as the crypto industry continues to evolve.

If Congress proceeds with its efforts to define when digital assets can be categorized as securities, there’s hope for the next roundtable to delve into productive discussions that could provide vital insights for meaningful legislative changes.