Skip to content
Blockchain Posts

regulation

SEC opens 60-day comment on novel ETF rules, targeting crypto and event-contract funds

SEC Release 33-11426, published to the Federal Register on July 2, poses 27 questions on crypto and event-contract ETFs. Comments on File S7-2026-24 due 60 days after publication.

by 5 min read
regulationetfsectokenizationunited-states

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a request for comment on novel exchange-traded funds on June 30, 2026 (Release Nos. 33-11426, Investment Company Act and Exchange Act companion numbers under the same review), and the notice was published to the Federal Register on July 2, 2026 as document 2026-13423. The paper poses 27 questions aimed at three brittle points in the current framework: whether funds holding non-securities crypto assets are still investment companies under the 1940 Act, whether Rule 6c-11 (the 2019 generic-ETF rule) still fits crypto and prediction-market products, and whether the automatic 60–75 day effectiveness window under Rule 485 gives staff enough runway for first-of-their-kind filings. Primary source: SEC press release 2026-60. Comments on File No. S7-2026-24 are due 60 days after Federal Register publication — the calendar deadline lands around September 1, 2026.

What's under review

The request is diagnostic, not a proposed rule. It carves the 27 questions into three sections.

  1. Investment Company Act status. For funds whose holdings are mostly non-securities — spot crypto assets that the March 2026 SEC–CFTC joint interpretation classified as digital commodities (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP among 16) — the Commission asks whether the 1940 Act's definition of an "investment company" still fits, and if it does, which conditions attach.
  2. Rule 6c-11 (2019 generic ETF rule). The rule that removed the exemptive-order requirement for most equity and bond ETFs assumes an arbitrage mechanism with real-time creation/redemption against a basket of listed securities. The SEC is asking whether the rule's disclosure conditions — daily portfolio transparency, published NAV, iNAV — hold for crypto ETFs where the underlying trades 24/7 and for event-contract ETFs where the underlying is a discrete pay-off (yes/no on a defined event).
  3. Rule 485 registration timeline. Rule 485 lets a routine ETF registration update take effect automatically in 60 to 75 days. The Commission wants to know whether that runway leaves review staff enough time for novel structures, or whether sponsors should file on a separate track.

The paper does not propose text. It asks whether text is needed and, if so, on which axis.

Numbers

- Release Nos.:               33-11426 and companion release numbers under
                              Securities Exchange Act and Investment Company Act
- Adopted / issued:           2026-06-30
- Federal Register:           2026-13423, published 2026-07-02
- File No. for comments:      S7-2026-24
- Comment window:             60 days after Federal Register publication
                              (comments due ~2026-09-01)
- Questions posed:            27, grouped into three sections
- Scope of "novel ETF":       (1) funds holding non-securities crypto assets,
                              (2) event-contract / prediction-market ETFs,
                              (3) first-of-their-kind investment strategies
- ETF filings received:       ~200 per month at SEC Division of Investment
                              Management (per Brian Daly, director, on Bloomberg
                              Trillions podcast, early July 2026)
- Rule under review:          Rule 6c-11 (2019 generic ETF rule);
                              Rule 485 (registration effectiveness);
                              Investment Company Act §3(a) definitions
- Related joint interpretation: SEC-CFTC, March 17, 2026 — 16 tokens classified
                              as digital commodities (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP...)
- Total US ETF market:        > $12 trillion at YE2025 (from $4T in 2019),
                              per Daly on Trillions
- Comment submission:         rule-comments@sec.gov, subject line
                              "File No. S7-2026-24"

The confidential-filing side story

A day after publication, Brian Daly, director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management, said on the Bloomberg Trillions podcast hosted by Eric Balchunas that the Commission is also weighing whether to let some ETF sponsors file confidentially before an application becomes public. The stated rationale is protection of novel structures against fast-follow copycats and reduction of the review-desk queue. Daly framed the confidential-filing option as one of several levers the Commission is exploring, and put it in the wider context: the SEC's Division of Investment Management now receives around 200 ETF filings per month, up from a stream dominated by conventional funds when Rule 6c-11 was written.

Daly's remarks are not a rulemaking. They signal the direction the request-for-comment is likely to travel: fewer duplicative filings from copycat issuers, an explicit lane for novel structures, more Commission discretion over which timeline applies.

What to watch

  1. First comments from major issuers. BlackRock, Fidelity, VanEck, Grayscale and 21Shares all sit on the busy end of the novel-ETF filing queue. Their comment letters will reveal whether the industry lines up behind confidential filings, a separate registration lane, or a defense of Rule 6c-11 as written.
  2. The event-contract carveout. The SEC's questions on prediction-market ETFs land while the CFTC's June 10, 2026 proposed rule on prediction markets is still in its own 45-day comment window. Interagency alignment on which agency clears Polymarket- or Kalshi-referenced ETFs is the fork that decides whether the product ships as a 33 Act ETF or a CFTC-supervised event contract with fund packaging around it.
  3. 1940 Act §3(a) definition. If the Commission concludes that funds holding predominantly non-securities crypto assets are not investment companies within the 1940 Act meaning, it opens the alternative path already in production: commodity-based trusts under the 33 Act. That would push spot crypto ETPs — the shape used by existing Bitcoin ETPs since January 2024 — closer to becoming the default template for future single-asset filings.
  4. Confidential filing formalization. A follow-up staff notice or a Rule 6c-11 amendment converting Daly's remarks into a filed track. No timeline was given.

Context — third leg of the 2026 SEC-CFTC crypto handshake

The request completes a triangle the SEC and CFTC opened in March 2026. First was the joint interpretive release reclassifying 16 tokens including Bitcoin, Ether, Solana and XRP as digital commodities. Second was the SEC's draft strategic plan put out for public comment on May 29, 2026 — see our May 30 write-up. Today's request is the operational third: after "which tokens are commodities" and "how the Commission means to organize itself", the question is "how does the ETF rulebook accommodate the products that flow from those first two answers."

The comment window closes just as the CLARITY Act — advanced by the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 and placed on the Senate legislative calendar on June 1 as Calendar No. 423 — is expected on the Senate floor after the July 13 return, which will complicate the SEC's own interpretive room by fixing SEC/CFTC jurisdictional lines by statute. The order of operations matters: an SEC that has locked in a 6c-11 posture before CLARITY passes has more optionality; an SEC that publishes final views after CLARITY has less.

Sources:

Related stories