The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is betting on a change of course. Paul Atkins, who heads the agency, has presented an ambitious project called Regulation Crypto Assets, which, in his view, should bring back to the U.S. crypto companies that left the country over the past four years. This is not just a tweaking of rules—it is an attempt to rethink the very philosophy of digital asset regulation.
From Coercive Pressure to Clear Rules
Atkins states outright: the industry exodus was triggered not by a lack of rules, but by their overly harsh enforcement. The previous administration, he says, tried to squeeze tokens into securities laws created back in the 1930s. Such an approach, the SEC chair emphasizes, failed to account for the specifics of digital assets and only stifled "honest fundraising" for startups. Instead of clear guidance, projects faced threats of lawsuits.
"In reality, this approach only hurt capital inflows into this asset class—through enforcement-driven regulation and insincere calls to 'come and register,'" Atkins stresses.
The key argument of the new course is pragmatism. In the internet era, capital moves between jurisdictions in just a few clicks. Trying to lock investors inside the country means simply losing them. Atkins insists: the regulator's task is to create conditions under which American investors can put money into crypto projects without leaving the U.S. legal framework.
"We cannot fool ourselves: American investors in the internet age can send money anywhere. We need to create conditions so they can do it in the U.S. under U.S. laws."
A Dual Strategy: Rules and Legislation
Atkins is not limiting himself to agency initiatives. He is actively lobbying for the passage of the CLARITY Act, which would codify at the federal level the division of powers between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In his view, only legislation can create durable rules that will not be overturned with the arrival of a new administration. The SEC chair sees both processes—his own rules and the legislative initiative—as parts of a single movement to bring capital back to the country.
My analysis: this step is an acknowledgment that the policy of "regulation through enforcement" has failed. However, the success of the new strategy will depend not only on the wording, but also on the speed of implementation. The market has already learned to live without the U.S., and simply opening the doors may not be enough—real incentives for return need to be offered.