top of page
4Artboard 3_2x_edited_edited.png

The UK’s home for tokenised equity. Independent news, insight and resources for founders raising capital, investors deploying it, and the firms supporting both — as the regulation, infrastructure and opportunity converge.

SEC Crypto Rulemaking and Tokenised Securities Exemption Delayed as CLARITY Act Stalls

  • Writer: Shawn Jhanji
    Shawn Jhanji
  • Aug 18
  • 3 min read
The US Securities and Exchange Commission cancelled its 14 August open meeting, where it had been expected to propose Regulation Crypto Assets, its first formal crypto specific rulemaking, and to unveil a long anticipated innovation exemption for tokenised securities. The regulator cited an unforeseen scheduling issue and gave no new date. For UK founders and platforms watching where the rules of tokenised capital will actually settle, the more useful story is why the meeting slipped, not that it did. The delay was not a technical hitch. White House officials were reportedly concerned that a broad SEC exemption would complicate Senate negotiations over the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, the bill meant to draw a durable line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction over digital assets. SEC staff were separately examining whether the agency had the legal authority, economic analysis and procedural grounding to grant relief covering such a fundamental change to how securities trade. The Senate has now filed a cloture motion on CLARITY for 15 September, a procedural vote on whether to even begin debate, not a final vote on the bill itself. Tokenisation focused stocks slid on the news. This matters well beyond Washington. A US innovation exemption would have let issuers move tokenised equity and debt onto blockchain rails without a bespoke rulemaking for every product, the kind of permissive shortcut that has made US platforms the loudest voice in global tokenisation headlines. Its absence, twice delayed now, leaves those platforms operating in the same patchwork of existing securities law that has governed the sector for years. The contrast with the UK is instructive. Britain has not tried to write a single sweeping exemption. Instead the FCA and Bank of England built the Digital Securities Sandbox and the PISCES regime as live, bounded environments in which firms test issuance, trading and settlement of tokenised and private securities under existing rules, with a defined review point rather than an open ended promise. Sixteen firms are already working through the DSS toward going live, and PISCES operators including the London Stock Exchange, JP Jenkins and Asset Match have run real trading events for real companies this year. None of that required Congress or a contested exemption to get moving. None of this means UK regulation has won. The DSS and PISCES sandboxes are still time limited experiments, due for a decision on permanent status only as they approach their 2030 deadline, and plenty of UK founders and lawyers still describe the custody and nominee questions around tokenised shares as genuinely unresolved. But the SEC's second delay this year is a useful data point in a broader argument this publication keeps returning to: founders and platforms building tokenised capital structures need regulatory clarity more than they need regulatory permissiveness. A smaller regulator moving deliberately through a bounded sandbox has, so far, delivered more usable certainty than a larger one waiting on a single sweeping rule that keeps slipping.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission cancelled its 14 August open meeting, where it had been expected to propose Regulation Crypto Assets, its first formal crypto specific rulemaking, and to unveil a long anticipated innovation exemption for tokenised securities. The regulator cited an unforeseen scheduling issue and gave no new date. For UK founders and platforms watching where the rules of tokenised capital will actually settle, the more useful story is why the meeting slipped, not that it did.


The delay was not a technical hitch. White House officials were reportedly concerned that a broad SEC exemption would complicate Senate negotiations over the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, the bill meant to draw a durable line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction over digital assets. SEC staff were separately examining whether the agency had the legal authority, economic analysis and procedural grounding to grant relief covering such a fundamental change to how securities trade. The Senate has now filed a cloture motion on CLARITY for 15 September, a procedural vote on whether to even begin debate, not a final vote on the bill itself. Tokenisation focused stocks slid on the news.


This is a critical matter. A US innovation exemption would have let issuers move tokenised equity and debt onto blockchain rails without a bespoke rulemaking for every product, the kind of permissive shortcut that has made US platforms the loudest voice in global tokenisation headlines. Its absence, twice delayed now, leaves those platforms operating in the same patchwork of existing securities law that has governed the sector for years.


The contrast with the UK is instructive. Britain has not tried to write a single sweeping exemption. Instead the FCA and Bank of England built the Digital Securities Sandbox and the PISCES regime as live, bounded environments in which firms test issuance, trading and settlement of tokenised and private securities under existing rules, with a defined review point rather than an open ended promise. Sixteen firms are already working through the DSS toward going live, and PISCES operators including the London Stock Exchange, JP Jenkins and Asset Match have run real trading events for real companies this year. None of that required Congress or a contested exemption to get moving.


None of this means UK regulation has won. The DSS and PISCES sandboxes are still time limited experiments, due for a decision on permanent status only as they approach their 2030 deadline, and plenty of UK founders and lawyers still describe the custody and nominee questions around tokenised shares as genuinely unresolved. But the SEC's second delay this year is a useful data point in a broader argument this publication keeps returning to: founders and platforms building tokenised capital structures need regulatory clarity more than they need regulatory permissiveness. A smaller regulator moving deliberately through a bounded sandbox has, so far, delivered more usable certainty than a larger one waiting on a single sweeping rule that keeps slipping.


For UK platforms with US ambitions, the practical read is patience. The exemption that would have made cross listing tokenised UK equity into US venues simpler is not coming this month, and the CLARITY Act's own path through the Senate remains contested on ethics and enforcement provisions that have nothing to do with tokenisation itself. Founders building on UK rails do not need to wait on either.


Key Takeaways


  • The SEC cancelled its 14 August meeting and again delayed its innovation exemption for tokenised securities, citing White House concern that it could complicate CLARITY Act negotiations and internal doubts about its own legal authority to grant such broad relief.

  • The Senate's CLARITY Act cloture vote, a procedural step only, is now set for 15 September, with final passage still contested on ethics and enforcement terms.

  • The UK's Digital Securities Sandbox and PISCES regime, built around bounded live testing rather than a single sweeping exemption, have continued producing real tokenised trading activity without waiting on primary legislation.

  • For UK platforms and founders, the practical implication is that cross border tokenised issuance into the US remains constrained for now, while UK rails continue to offer a working, if still time limited, path.


Sources


Comments

bottom of page