The SEC holds a meeting to discuss tokenization regulation; traditional finance and the crypto community are at odds again.

2025-12-05 01:20:23

Abstract generation in progress

[Crypto World] The US SEC Investor Advisory Committee held a meeting this week on asset tokenization, bringing together traditional finance heavyweights like Citadel and Galaxy with people from the crypto space to discuss how to approach regulation.

Citadel put forward a hardcore suggestion: the SEC should strictly define and regulate the intermediary roles of decentralized trading protocols—regulate them as needed. This sparked an outcry from some in the crypto community—they argue that traditional rules simply can’t be applied to DeFi architectures, as the technical logic is fundamentally different.

A compliance platform offered a compromise: don’t take a one-size-fits-all approach, but instead examine which rules truly apply and avoid imposing obligations that simply can’t be enforced. SEC Chairman Atkins maintained a relatively open stance, saying the industry should be given a compliant path forward so tokenization innovation can develop normally.

Traditional finance wants to use old frameworks to regulate new things, while tech proponents believe the architectures are fundamentally incompatible—this conflict probably won’t be resolved anytime soon.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NoodlesOrTokens

· 11h ago

These Citadel guys, seriously, still trying to use the old framework for DeFi? What a joke, they don't understand code at all. Traditional finance always wants to kill innovation, not surprising at all, their tricks are ancient. At least Atkins has a decent attitude, actually wants to hear what the tech side has to say, which is way better than Citadel just making decisions unilaterally. Just go for a one-size-fits-all approach, whatever, regulation is going to step in eventually anyway. There's no way DeFi's architecture can be compatible. It's really just old wine in new bottles, let's see how long they can keep this up.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropNinja

· 19h ago

These people at Citadel really want to use rules from 20 years ago to regulate 2025 technology. It's ridiculous. --- Here we go again, the same old stuff from traditional finance. DeFi can't possibly fit into that framework. --- The compromise sounds decent, but will the SEC really listen... Feels like they'll just end up beating the experts with brute force. --- Restrict intermediaries? How would that even work? Are smart contracts intermediaries? The logic itself is flawed. --- Atkins sounds nice, but who knows how much will actually be implemented. Anyway, the traditional crowd will definitely hold things back. --- This meeting is just people arguing back and forth; no one's convincing anyone. For tokenization to become compliant, we'll probably have to wait another couple of years. --- It's typical: one side wants total control, the other wants total freedom. There's really no room for compromise in between. --- The compliant platform proposal is the only one that makes sense to me. The rest is just all talk. --- How can decentralization be completely restricted? That statement is self-contradictory. Citadel really doesn't get DeFi. --- Isn't it a good thing that regulation discussions are happening so frequently? At least they're talking now, which is better than ignoring it like before.

View OriginalReply0

GhostWalletSleuth

· 12-06 21:14

Citadel really just wants to box DeFi into the traditional finance framework, it's hilarious... it's simply impossible. Those traditional finance folks will never understand the logic of permissionless protocols. A compromise sounds nice, but I'll bet five bucks this thing will end up unfinished. The SEC is just holding this meeting for fun, it won't change anything. If centralized exchanges get happy, DeFi will just get targeted again. If Atkins really opened things up, there wouldn't be so much drama... Incompatible architecture means incompatible code—how are you supposed to negotiate that? Just go for a one-size-fits-all approach, the DeFi ecosystem is already prepared to take a hit anyway. Citadel's proposal is purely about maintaining their vested interests. If it can't be resolved in the short term, it won't be resolved in the long term either; it's an eternal contradiction. The solutions proposed by compliant platforms sound smart, but in practice they're full of pitfalls. Same old story, just here for the spectacle. TradFi vs tech—no matter who wins, it's all the SEC's fault.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrybaby

· 12-05 01:49

This is just ridiculous. Are the Citadel guys really treating DeFi like a CEX? The architectures are completely different, and they're force-fitting rules—typical arrogance of traditional finance. TradFi and crypto will never truly communicate; their fundamental logic is in conflict... A compromise sounds like the most realistic solution. But Atkins’ attitude is actually not bad; at least he wants to give innovation some room to grow. It’s another case of talking past each other—regulation really isn’t that simple. In the short term, it’ll definitely be more bickering, and compliance is a long way off.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiHeir

· 12-05 01:47

It should be pointed out that Citadel's approach is entirely trapped in centralized thinking—they fundamentally don't understand the essential difference between protocols and traditional intermediaries. Based on the following argument: the immutability of on-chain governance has, from a technical perspective, fundamentally negated the concept of "intermediary regulation." Laughable—another fiat bigwig trying to use 20th-century regulatory frameworks to constrain 21st-century smart contracts. History will prove who's more ridiculous. Atkins' so-called "open attitude" is just political correctness. When it comes down to real action, they'll still follow Citadel's playbook. Don't be fooled by sugar-coated bullets; look at the on-chain data—every time regulatory expectations drop, the market takes another hit. This is what it means to have fundamentally irreconcilable philosophies: one side wants to build cages, the other wants to break them. They're not even discussing on the same level. DeFi's architectural logic means it is inherently beyond regulation, and yet you insist on imposing rules on it? Isn't that just looking for trouble? A compromise? Uh, that's the same old "let's hear everyone's opinions" Tai Chi routine. In the end, it'll still be eroded piece by piece—I’ve seen this play out too many times.

View OriginalReply0

LightningAllInHero

· 12-05 01:42

Sounds like Citadel just wants to force traditional rigid frameworks onto DeFi—what a pipe dream. What is Citadel thinking? DeFi is all about smart contracts, and they want to control intermediaries? There simply aren’t any! A compromise is the way to go; tailored solutions are much more reliable than a blunt one-size-fits-all approach. It’s the same old triangle theory again: balancing decentralization and regulation. In the short term, agreement is out of reach. Traditional finance still doesn’t get the essence of DeFi—the architecture is fundamentally different. Atkins actually gets it; at least he realizes innovation needs some breathing room. If you don’t agree, just stop talking—these are basically two different worlds trying to have a conversation. Diamond hands are waiting; in the end, the rules will have to bow to technology.

View OriginalReply0

TrustMeBro

· 12-05 01:36

Citadel is stirring things up again, insisting on using their old tricks on us? Hilarious, they really think DeFi is like Coinbase. Seriously, these traditional big shots have no idea what decentralization means, and they still want to box in the protocols? Wake up already. Atkins’ attitude is actually decent, finally someone willing to hear our side. All this blanket regulation back and forth, in the end it’s the whole ecosystem that suffers. So frustrating. A compromise sounds reasonable, but will the SEC actually do it? I have my doubts. When will these two camps finally communicate properly? We can’t wait any longer.

View OriginalReply0

DevChive

· 12-05 01:36

Haha, what's Citadel up to this time? Still dreaming of a one-size-fits-all approach to DeFi? Wake up, guys. --- A compromise sounds good, but implementing it for real... well, it all depends on what the SEC thinks. --- The traditional finance framework can't possibly contain decentralization. The architectures are completely different—why should DeFi have to change? --- Is Atkins really open-minded? I'll believe it when I see follow-up policies. There have been too many cases of all talk, no action. --- It's always those big institutions trying to monopolize the rules of the game. I'm just tired of it. --- Tokenization is bound to happen sooner or later. It's just a matter of who gets to seize the opportunity first. --- This conflict isn't something that can be resolved in the short term—it feels like they'll argue forever. --- There's no way DeFi protocols can go unregulated. The SEC will definitely try to find a way... but how to regulate is the real challenge. --- Those traditional finance folks truly don't get on-chain logic. Trying to force centralized methods onto it just won't work.

View OriginalReply0

RektRecorder

· 12-05 01:26

Citadel is at it again, trying to impose old rules on DeFi? Clearly, they still don’t get that on-chain liquidity and centralized exchanges are two completely different things. Traditional finance methods are already outdated, yet they insist on force-fitting them into decentralization. Isn’t that just missing the point entirely? Atkins’ attitude is decent, but honestly, if we keep making compromises step by step like this, who knows how long it’ll drag on? How can decentralized protocols ever be compatible with intermediary-based management? Their underlying logic is fundamentally in conflict. This meeting was just a show—the real game is far from over. The SEC wants to control the market, while the crypto community wants to maintain its freedom.

View OriginalReply0

SwapWhisperer

· 12-05 01:22

Those Citadel guys really don’t get tech. Trying to force CeFi methods onto DeFi? Hilarious, it just won’t work. --- Here we go again, traditional finance always wants a one-size-fits-all solution, totally missing the point of decentralization. --- A compromise sounds nice, but I bet five bucks Citadel will still oppose it. --- I like Atkins’ attitude—finally someone wants to help the industry out. --- The real problem is, these people aren’t even speaking the same language... --- Wait, why do we have to make DeFi fit their rules? Why can’t it be the other way around? --- It’s true there’s no short-term solution, but what about the long run? Can we really wait? --- I just want to know if this will end up as another half-baked compromise. --- Meetings like this are as good as not happening—arguments will keep going anyway. --- Atkins really nailed the core issue. Offering a path forward is so much better than just forcing things.

View OriginalReply0

Trending TopicsView More
#JoinGrowthPointsDrawToWiniPhone17
287.49K Popularity
#DecemberMarketOutlook
82.43K Popularity
#PostonSquaretoEarn$50
15.21K Popularity
#LINKETFToLaunch
14.39K Popularity
#SharingMy100xToken
16.35K Popularity

Hot Gate FunView More

1
DYORDYOR
MC:$5.27KHolders:6
8.00%
2
HY加油何一
MC:$3.54KHolders:1
0.00%
3
GcashGcash
MC:$3.92KHolders:4
1.87%
4
GHOSTGhost
MC:$3.59KHolders:3
0.49%
5
BONDXBONDX
MC:$3.58KHolders:3
0.00%

Sitemap