A draft US crypto market-structure framework known as CLARITY would change how a token moves out of securities treatment. Instead of waiting for the Securities and Exchange Commission to decide a token’s status through guidance or enforcement, the proposal would allow a project to certify that its blockchain has become “mature,” triggering a presumption the SEC would have 60 days to challenge.
If that challenge does not come, or fails, the token would leave SEC oversight and originator disclosure obligations and fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a digital commodity. The proposal is still a draft, and several of its most important operational details would be left to later rulemaking.
How the certification would work
Under the framework described in the draft, the filing could be made by an issuer, an affiliate, or a decentralized governance system such as a DAO. That last point is notable because it would allow networks whose founding teams no longer exist or no longer control the project to seek maturity status through on-chain governance rather than a conventional corporate sponsor.
Once filed, the certification would create a rebuttable presumption that the network is mature. The SEC would then have a fixed 60-day window, in the current version of the architecture, to object. If the agency contests the filing, the burden would be on the SEC to show that the network does not meet the test. Disputes would be appealable in federal court, giving judges the final word on contested maturity claims.
The proposal therefore reverses the current default described in the source article: projects would move first, while the regulator would need to intervene on a clock.
What “maturity” means in the draft
The bill’s working standard has two main elements: functionality and decentralization. A network would need to be operational, process transactions, and serve its stated purpose. That requirement is meant to prevent projects from claiming commodity-like treatment for networks that exist only on paper.
The decentralization side of the test uses a bright-line threshold. According to the draft, no person or group under common control could hold 20% or more of the tokens or voting power. That figure would turn token allocations, governance design, treasury structure, validator concentration, and founder holdings into direct legal variables rather than softer indicators of decentralization.
The source article argues that this 20% line is both the most administrable part of the test and one of its biggest vulnerabilities. It may make review easier for agencies and courts, but it also creates obvious incentives to structure ownership and governance around the threshold.
A model borrowed from derivatives markets
Self-certification is not a new idea in US financial regulation. The source article traces the model to derivatives law, where CFTC-registered exchanges have been able to self-certify new futures and options products since the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. In that system, exchanges certify that a product complies with the Commodity Exchange Act, and trading can begin unless the commission objects within a short window.
That process has been used for thousands of contracts, with objections reportedly rare. It also covered the first Bitcoin futures launched by CME and CBOE in December 2017. Supporters of the CLARITY design cite that history as evidence that self-certification can work in large markets. Skeptics point to the same record as proof that agencies may use their objection powers sparingly, allowing questionable products through.
Key open questions
The draft leaves major issues unresolved. Among them are the evidentiary standard for a certification, what happens to a token’s status during an SEC challenge, how often a rejected filing could be resubmitted, and what penalties would apply if a certification later proved false. Those details would shape whether the regime becomes a practical route to commodity status or a new legal battleground.
The source article describes the certification process as the likely next major front in the long-running dispute over when crypto assets stop looking like securities and start looking like commodities. It also notes a comparison with Europe’s MiCA system, which relies on prior authorization rather than market participants moving first. In that sense, the CLARITY draft represents a different regulatory preference: shifting the initial move from the state to the project, while preserving an agency challenge window and judicial review.
Source: crypto.news