Who is Certifying the Crypto Industry Amid the Regulatory 'Vacuum' in the U.S.?

As legislation and regulatory engines come to a halt, the crypto industry is no longer waiting for regulatory endorsement but is turning to two paths of "self-legalization" through accounting authority and existing financial licenses.

Written by: EX.IO Research Institute

"Regulatory halt + accounting endorsement"? The market's "legalization engine" has the opportunity to operate as usual.

On August 13, 2026, U.S. crypto regulation sent two opposing signals in one day: the SEC canceled the long-prepared Reg Crypto proposal meeting and again postponed the "innovation exemption" for tokenization; on the same day, the world's largest stablecoin issuer, Tether, announced the completion of its long-promised first "Big Four" unqualified audit.

This contrast of "regulatory halt + accounting endorsement" points to a deeper trend: when legislation and regulatory engines come to a halt, the crypto industry is no longer waiting for regulatory endorsement but is turning to two paths of "self-legalization" through accounting authority and existing financial licenses. What truly determines whether tokenization can go on-chain is no longer whether the SEC gives the green light, but possibly the opposition from the Wall Street trade group SIFMA to the Reg NMS market structure rules (procedural claims)------that is the deepest moat of traditional clearing and netting systems.

On the same day: Three signals of halt + one counter-evidence

Around August 13, four events concerning U.S. tokenization and stablecoin regulation almost simultaneously occurred:

1. SEC canceled the Reg Crypto proposal meeting. The public meeting originally scheduled for this Friday to discuss "Reg Crypto" (rules for token financing) was canceled without a new date provided.
2. Tokenization "innovation exemption" postponed again. According to three insiders, the SEC originally planned to partially release this exemption as early as this Friday, but it was shelved due to dual concerns from the White House and Wall Street.
3. Tether submitted its first KPMG Big Four unqualified audit. Covering the fiscal year 2025, reserves exceeded liabilities by $6.814 billion, and the auditors even physically counted its gold reserves.
4. Counter-evidence------bank-grade tokenization is advancing outside of the exemption. The SEC allowed Franklin Templeton's on-chain money market fund, and Japan's MUFG tested on-chain settlement of Japanese government bonds (JGB) on the Canton network.

The first three items spell out that the regulatory "rules engine" is coming to a halt; the fourth is a counter-evidence------the market's "legalization engine" continues to operate, but may no longer fully rely on traditional regulatory licensing.

Reg Crypto and the CLARITY Act: Not Worlds Apart, but Still Quite Different

Before diving in, it is essential to clarify two concepts that are often confused but differ in hierarchy and scope:

• Reg Crypto (SEC Administrative Rules): Rules formulated by the SEC within its jurisdiction to establish a customized issuance system for "specific investment contracts involving crypto assets"------the core is registration exemption + safe harbor, governing the matter of "how to issue tokens for financing." The SEC has expressed support for congressional legislation but will advance within its jurisdiction before the law is passed.
• CLARITY Act (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, Congressional Legislation): A market structure bill at the congressional level that aims to establish a "master law"------defining which digital assets count as securities and which as commodities, thereby delineating the jurisdiction of the SEC and CFTC. It requires passage by both houses of Congress + presidential signature; it could not be advanced before the Senate recess in August 2026, and the legislative window is narrowing.

In summary: The CLARITY Act is a "master law" (defining asset classification and delineating regulatory authority), while Reg Crypto is the SEC's "administrative rule" (financing exemption). In hierarchy, CLARITY is above, and Reg Crypto is below; in scope, CLARITY governs the overall market structure, while Reg Crypto only governs the financing aspect.

The two are not parallel but represent a relationship of "master law and preemption": precisely because the master law is not established, the SEC seeks to push forward the rules (Reg Crypto / innovation exemption) within its jurisdiction, while the White House fears that this "administrative preemption" could disrupt the congressional negotiations on the CLARITY Act, thus stepping in to press the pause button------this is the complete causal chain behind the postponement of the innovation exemption.

Reasons for the Halt: Where is the Key Issue?

It is worth emphasizing that, according to previous public statements, the current SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has consistently supported tokenization, framing it as a means of "modernizing financial markets." The issue does not lie in direction but in the resistance structure. According to industry sources cited by CoinDesk, the delay of the innovation exemption is driven by three forces:

• White House concerns: Fears that the exemption could "kick a hornet's nest," disrupting the ongoing negotiations on the CLARITY Act in Congress.
• SEC's own legal authority: SEC staff are increasingly concerned about whether they have sufficient statutory authority and adequate economic analysis to issue such a broad exemption; some industry insiders have been informed that "this effort may have to wait for the outcome of the CLARITY Act."
• Opposition from the Wall Street trade group SIFMA (procedural claims): This is the most substantive layer and the key point this article aims to draw readers' attention to.

The Real Bottleneck May Be More Structural and Lasting

SIFMA is the industry organization for large broker-dealers and investment banks in the U.S. It is believed to be one of the main forces obstructing the SEC's exemption plan. Its argument is not against tokenization but rather that "structural changes must go through formal rulemaking and cannot quietly land through exemptions or no-action letters."

This statement sounds like procedural justice, but when it comes to specific rules, it touches the lifeblood of the traditional securities market:

• The Order Protection Rule (Rule 611) of Reg NMS: It connects quotes from various exchanges into a "best protected quote" network, requiring brokers to execute trades at the best available quotes. Once tokenized securities are traded through decentralized venues or AMMs, the pricing and execution costs differ from traditional exchanges, and the "best execution" obligation becomes ambiguous.
• SIFMA explicitly stated in its public letter on June 30: Such significant structural changes should go through an "open and transparent" process, allowing public notification, comments, and industry participation.

In other words, the objective effect of SIFMA is to safeguard the market structure on which traditional exchanges, clearinghouses, and market makers rely. Notably, in June of this year, the SEC formally proposed to abolish Rule 611 (Order Protection Rule), which is widely seen as a significant step toward removing the biggest obstacle to tokenized securities trading; SIFMA's counteraction is aimed at preserving this wall.

Thus, the real bottleneck for tokenization has shifted from "whether the SEC will approve" to "who will rewrite the market structure rules." This is more lasting and structural than mere regulatory delays.

Are the Two Paths of 'Self-Legalization' Feasible During the Vacuum Period?

After the rules engine comes to a halt, the industry has not stopped but has turned to two alternative paths:

Path One: Accounting Authority Fills the Regulatory Gap (Tether Route)

Tether's KPMG unqualified audit essentially fills the regulatory endorsement gap with third-party accounting authority. In recent years, Tether has only used quarterly "attestation" (proof of the amount and composition of reserves on a certain date), but this time it is a real financial audit------according to Tether's disclosure, KPMG tested transactions, systems, valuations, counterparties, and ownership records, and the audit scope also covered the counting and verification of gold reserves. The auditors issued an unqualified opinion, which is equivalent to providing a "credibility endorsement" for a stablecoin with a scale of $180 billion using a general accounting framework.

Its significance is no less than regulation: in a vacuum where regulators have yet to grant formal licenses to stablecoins, a Big Four audit may have a better chance of playing a substitute role as "trust infrastructure."

Path Two: Running Within Existing Licenses (Franklin + MUFG Route)

Franklin Templeton's on-chain money market fund received SEC approval, and MUFG is testing on-chain settlement of JGB on the Canton network, taking another route------not touching the sensitive area of securities tokenization but rather putting relatively clear boundary assets like money market funds and government bond settlements on-chain first. They are using existing asset management and banking licenses, which do not require "exemptions" but only need regulatory non-interference.

The commonality of these two paths: neither waits for rules but uses existing sources of market legitimacy (accounting, licenses) to get the infrastructure running first.

The vacuum period is a window, and what is scarce is "compliance endorsement"

In the eyes of the EX.IO Research Institute, the signals from this day can lead to three analytical judgments:

1. The "window" for U.S. tokenization rules will continue. The congressional struggle over the CLARITY Act, SIFMA's procedural claims, and the SEC's self-doubt about exemption authority, when combined, mean that there will be no clear tokenized securities rules in the short term. The market will enter a gray area of "exemption failure, legislation undecided."
2. "Self-legalization" is becoming a standard action in the industry. From Tether's Big Four audit to Franklin and MUFG's pilot projects within licenses, the market is no longer asking "when will the regulators approve" but rather "can I use accounting and licenses to endorse myself?" This will accelerate a result: compliance infrastructure (audits, custody, licenses, market structure status) will become the most scarce asset.
3. It is worth monitoring three lines of observation rather than a single statement from the U.S. SEC:
4. The struggle between SIFMA and the SEC over Reg NMS Rule 611------this determines whether tokenized securities can bypass the traditional best execution framework;
5. The progress of the CLARITY Act in Congress------it is the key to whether exemptions can be restarted;
6. The chain reaction of "accounting legalization"------after Tether obtains the Big Four audit, whether other large stablecoins and crypto platforms will be forced to follow suit with similar disclosures, thereby raising the compliance floor for the entire industry.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Q: What is the difference between Reg Crypto and the CLARITY Act?

A: Reg Crypto is an administrative rule within the SEC's jurisdiction, providing registration exemptions and safe harbors for "crypto asset investment contracts" and governing "how to issue tokens for financing"; the CLARITY Act is a market structure legislation from Congress that defines the classification of digital assets as securities/commodities and delineates the jurisdiction of the SEC and CFTC, serving as a higher-level "master law."

Q: Why has tokenization been stuck at the SEC?

A: The direction is not the problem (the SEC Chairman supports tokenization); the bottleneck lies in the resistance structure: the White House fears disrupting CLARITY negotiations, the SEC has doubts about its statutory authority for exemptions, and SIFMA uses procedural opposition based on Reg NMS market structure rules.

Q: What does Tether's KPMG audit mean?

A: This is Tether's first "Big Four" unqualified audit, filling the regulatory endorsement gap with third-party accounting authority, covering reserves and gold verification. However, the audit conclusion does not constitute regulatory endorsement and does not guarantee the safety of investments in stablecoins.