合约
合约
Follow Topic
661.25K Views
3.04K Discussions
Topic Background
FinanceRun
FinanceRun
Crypto Newbie
1h ago
Fidelity Sends Letter to SEC: Tokenized Asset Regulation Should Not Be "One Token, One Rule," Differentiated Rules and Regulatory Models Needed On March 22, Fidelity Investments, a US asset management company, sent a letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responding to the SEC's earlier public comment period. In the letter, Fidelity Investments called on the SEC to further refine its regulatory framework, primarily addressing matters related to brokers offering, custodian, and trading crypto assets on alternative trading systems (ATS). The letter emphasized that developing a comprehensive regulatory framework and clear rules for trading tokenized securities is "crucial," including rules governing the trading of tokenized securities issued by third parties. The letter pointed out that tokenized instruments have different issuance structures, legal attributes, and valuation models. For example, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) encompass entirely different asset classes such as stocks, real estate, bonds, or private credit. Fidelity further explains that tokenization models differ significantly in structure and the rights granted to holders. Some models allow indirect access to underlying securities through security interests, while others restrict participation to qualified contract investors based on security swaps. This structural difference means the tokenization market is already "layered," requiring regulatory oversight that avoids a one-size-fits-all approach. Differentiated rules must be developed for different models; otherwise, compliance is impossible. Furthermore, because DeFi financial trading platforms lack a central authority and cannot generate detailed financial reports as required by the SEC, Fidelity urges the SEC to bridge the regulatory gap between CeFi and DeFi trading systems and consider how they should evolve and coexist. In response, Fidelity recommends that the SEC issue guidance allowing brokers to utilize distributed ledger technology for alternative trading systems and other record-keeping, aiming to alleviate unnecessary financial reporting burdens for decentralized systems by modifying reporting requirements. In summary, Fidelity's letter reveals that some RWAs are merely digital shells of traditional securities, while others have become high-barrier contract derivatives, clearly inconsistent with a unified market regulatory logic. Fidelity's demands are straightforward: either break down the rules into smaller, more manageable sections, or stifle innovation in the industry. The SEC's response will determine how fast CeFi can grow and how far the DeFi world can go. #TokenizedSecurities
Fidelity Sends Letter to SEC: Tokenized Asset Regulation Should Not Be "One Token, One Rule," Differentiated Rules and Regulatory Models Needed

On March 22, Fidelity Investments, a US asset management company, sent a letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responding to the SEC's earlier public comment period.

In the letter, Fidelity Investments called on the SEC to further refine its regulatory framework, primarily addressing matters related to brokers offering, custodian, and trading crypto assets on alternative trading systems (ATS).

The letter emphasized that developing a comprehensive regulatory framework and clear rules for trading tokenized securities is "crucial," including rules governing the trading of tokenized securities issued by third parties.

The letter pointed out that tokenized instruments have different issuance structures, legal attributes, and valuation models. For example, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) encompass entirely different asset classes such as stocks, real estate, bonds, or private credit.

Fidelity further explains that tokenization models differ significantly in structure and the rights granted to holders. Some models allow indirect access to underlying securities through security interests, while others restrict participation to qualified contract investors based on security swaps.

This structural difference means the tokenization market is already "layered," requiring regulatory oversight that avoids a one-size-fits-all approach. Differentiated rules must be developed for different models; otherwise, compliance is impossible.

Furthermore, because DeFi financial trading platforms lack a central authority and cannot generate detailed financial reports as required by the SEC, Fidelity urges the SEC to bridge the regulatory gap between CeFi and DeFi trading systems and consider how they should evolve and coexist.

In response, Fidelity recommends that the SEC issue guidance allowing brokers to utilize distributed ledger technology for alternative trading systems and other record-keeping, aiming to alleviate unnecessary financial reporting burdens for decentralized systems by modifying reporting requirements.

In summary, Fidelity's letter reveals that some RWAs are merely digital shells of traditional securities, while others have become high-barrier contract derivatives, clearly inconsistent with a unified market regulatory logic.

Fidelity's demands are straightforward: either break down the rules into smaller, more manageable sections, or stifle innovation in the industry. The SEC's response will determine how fast CeFi can grow and how far the DeFi world can go.

#TokenizedSecuritiesFidelity Sends Letter to SEC: Tokenized Asset Regulation Should Not Be "One Token, One Rule," Differentiated Rules and Regulatory Models Needed

On March 22, Fidelity Investments, a US asset management company, sent a letter to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responding to the SEC's earlier public comment period.

In the letter, Fidelity Investments called on the SEC to further refine its regulatory framework, primarily addressing matters related to brokers offering, custodian, and trading crypto assets on alternative trading systems (ATS).

The letter emphasized that developing a comprehensive regulatory framework and clear rules for trading tokenized securities is "crucial," including rules governing the trading of tokenized securities issued by third parties.

The letter pointed out that tokenized instruments have different issuance structures, legal attributes, and valuation models. For example, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) encompass entirely different asset classes such as stocks, real estate, bonds, or private credit.

Fidelity further explains that tokenization models differ significantly in structure and the rights granted to holders. Some models allow indirect access to underlying securities through security interests, while others restrict participation to qualified contract investors based on security swaps.

This structural difference means the tokenization market is already "layered," requiring regulatory oversight that avoids a one-size-fits-all approach. Differentiated rules must be developed for different models; otherwise, compliance is impossible.

Furthermore, because DeFi financial trading platforms lack a central authority and cannot generate detailed financial reports as required by the SEC, Fidelity urges the SEC to bridge the regulatory gap between CeFi and DeFi trading systems and consider how they should evolve and coexist.

In response, Fidelity recommends that the SEC issue guidance allowing brokers to utilize distributed ledger technology for alternative trading systems and other record-keeping, aiming to alleviate unnecessary financial reporting burdens for decentralized systems by modifying reporting requirements.

In summary, Fidelity's letter reveals that some RWAs are merely digital shells of traditional securities, while others have become high-barrier contract derivatives, clearly inconsistent with a unified market regulatory logic.

Fidelity's demands are straightforward: either break down the rules into smaller, more manageable sections, or stifle innovation in the industry. The SEC's response will determine how fast CeFi can grow and how far the DeFi world can go.

#TokenizedSecurities
Stephen | DeFi Dojo
Stephen | DeFi Dojo
Crypto Newbie
3h ago
Last night's Resolv vulnerability incident was a very unique experience for me because I was in an informal meeting with @mezzanine_fi's core team, so we were monitoring the situation in real-time from the minutes it occurred (being notified via @HypernativeLabs). First, thanks to @SaulCapital and @yieldsandmore, who were among the first teams to discover the vulnerability and notify the community. As a result, within minutes, Discord and Telegram groups began working to mitigate the risk. Impressively, @infiniFi was able to quickly analyze and eliminate all exposure with zero loss. They also mentioned that @pagerduty played a crucial role in waking up/notifying all relevant team members and taking action almost immediately. @SteakhouseFi also quickly mitigated all exposure, and to my knowledge, they were the first curators to announce the risk reduction progress. @reservoir_xyz also quickly analyzed their exposure at Steakhouse and updated everyone on the progress. In YAM and DeFi Dojo, various arbitrage opportunities were analyzed in real time. I'm proud and encouraged that no one on Dojo promoted malicious lending strategies on Fluid. Instead, they focused on more ethically pegged arbitrage strategies on DOLA and GHO, actively analyzing all second-order risks so the community could act quickly. Services like Hypernative and PagerDuty are clearly crucial for real-time detection of de-pegged and questionable minting, and I strongly recommend all protocols and risk analysis enthusiasts include tools like Hypernative in their core toolkits. It's heartbreaking to see @0xfluid affected; it's a protocol I really like, and I love my team, even though they occasionally make some strong statements on Twitter. Even so, they seem to have found a way forward, and I'll certainly be there to support them. I also hope @ResolvLabs can find a solution, because technically, the underlying assets of Resolv are not affected. The most affected are primarily liquidity providers (LPs) and the lending market. Key takeaways: - Lending markets no longer hardcode stablecoins as 1. - Minting and redemption (of all sizes) requiring only KYC verification can generally mitigate minting vulnerabilities. - Governance needs to be 24/7, therefore infrastructure must be built to allow liquidity withdrawals/risk mitigation when necessary. - Monitoring services should be available to everyone. - Liquidity providers remain the most vulnerable targets in minting vulnerability attacks. - Operational security (OpSec) is not a secondary issue; it needs to be given equal importance to smart contract risks (note).