The U.S. SEC has sent a “revised version” of its crypto custody rules to the White House for review. Don’t underestimate this step—in the U.S. regulatory process, once something reaches White House review, it usually means it’s much closer to final implementation.
The proposed new rule covers investment advisers and investment companies. At its core, it’s one thing: clearly defining the boundaries of custody for digital assets—what counts as compliant custody, how assets must be segregated, and under what standards audits should be conducted. It sounds like it’s setting guidelines for institutions, but in practice it’s opening the door for money: in the U.S. market, if the custody link doesn’t meet the requirements, not a cent of pension funds, endowment funds, or registered investment advisers’ managed money can go into crypto assets.
Even more noteworthy is that this version wasn’t drafted from scratch—it’s a “rewrite.” In 2023, the SEC proposed a custody framework, then withdrew it. This time, it returns with more explicit provisions for digital assets, which effectively amounts to official acknowledgment: the previous approach didn’t work; the custody question can’t be sidestepped, and it must be answered directly.
If you zoom out on the timeline—from spot ETF approvals to rewriting the custody rules—regulators have been filling in the same puzzle: ensuring there are compliance hooks at every step that lets institutional money enter the market. ETFs address the question of “can we buy it?” while custody answers “where does it go, and who is watching it?” Once both pieces are in place, the big money in the OTC market can finally move for real.
Of course, White House review doesn’t mean the final word is set—clauses may still be adjusted. After the rules are truly finalized, which type of funds do you think will move first? Let’s discuss in the comments.
📢 进群聊ETF动态
The proposed new rule covers investment advisers and investment companies. At its core, it’s one thing: clearly defining the boundaries of custody for digital assets—what counts as compliant custody, how assets must be segregated, and under what standards audits should be conducted. It sounds like it’s setting guidelines for institutions, but in practice it’s opening the door for money: in the U.S. market, if the custody link doesn’t meet the requirements, not a cent of pension funds, endowment funds, or registered investment advisers’ managed money can go into crypto assets.
Even more noteworthy is that this version wasn’t drafted from scratch—it’s a “rewrite.” In 2023, the SEC proposed a custody framework, then withdrew it. This time, it returns with more explicit provisions for digital assets, which effectively amounts to official acknowledgment: the previous approach didn’t work; the custody question can’t be sidestepped, and it must be answered directly.
If you zoom out on the timeline—from spot ETF approvals to rewriting the custody rules—regulators have been filling in the same puzzle: ensuring there are compliance hooks at every step that lets institutional money enter the market. ETFs address the question of “can we buy it?” while custody answers “where does it go, and who is watching it?” Once both pieces are in place, the big money in the OTC market can finally move for real.
Of course, White House review doesn’t mean the final word is set—clauses may still be adjusted. After the rules are truly finalized, which type of funds do you think will move first? Let’s discuss in the comments.
📢 进群聊ETF动态
