HBAR has carried the SEC's "digital commodity" label since March 17. In October, @hedera was one of six networks that asked the SEC to write that same label into the rule itself. Per reports, the joint comment letter landed around the Oct 20 deadline on Regulation Crypto Assets.
Why ask for something you already have? Because of where it lives. Today the definition sits in the proposal's preamble and in a March interpretation. That's commentary, not rule text. WilmerHale's reading is that a future Commission could rescind the interpretation without a new rulemaking, while a definition inside a final rule would need full notice-and-comment to change.
So HBAR, LINK, ADA, XLM, AVAX and APT are all on the list, and all six chose to ask for more. I found that more telling than the list itself.
The label also has a limit: it describes the token, not every way the token is sold. A non-security asset can still be sold under an investment contract, and that sale remains a securities transaction.
The SEC hasn't said whether it will move the definition into the rule text. Until it does, "named" describes a position, not a protection.
$HBAR #HBARUSDT
Why ask for something you already have? Because of where it lives. Today the definition sits in the proposal's preamble and in a March interpretation. That's commentary, not rule text. WilmerHale's reading is that a future Commission could rescind the interpretation without a new rulemaking, while a definition inside a final rule would need full notice-and-comment to change.
So HBAR, LINK, ADA, XLM, AVAX and APT are all on the list, and all six chose to ask for more. I found that more telling than the list itself.
The label also has a limit: it describes the token, not every way the token is sold. A non-security asset can still be sold under an investment contract, and that sale remains a securities transaction.
The SEC hasn't said whether it will move the definition into the rule text. Until it does, "named" describes a position, not a protection.
$HBAR #HBARUSDT
