SEC staff outlines that governance tokens may not be securities if they are genuinely decentralized, easing compliance.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has resolved a major question for governance tokens such as Uniswap's UNI: can granting voting rights to numerous holders turn a token into a security?
The SEC staff now states that in general it does not, as long as the network is genuinely decentralized. This clarification may remove a significant regulatory hurdle for decentralized finance projects and their investors.
In its November 2 update, the SEC staff explained the fit of governance tokens within the agency's March crypto framework.
Governance tokens enable holders to vote on the operation of a crypto project. For instance, UNI holders can vote on modifications to Uniswap, including how the protocol uses its funds.
Before this update, there was confusion about whether thousands of people voting collectively could be considered a single controlling group.
This matters because a cryptocurrency that operates without a central controller could be treated as a digital commodity rather than a security, subject to different regulations.
The SEC staff determined that independent holders casting votes in a decentralized framework typically do not form a controlling group.
However, projects need to demonstrate that voting power is spread broadly. If a company or small group can unilaterally change network rules, limit access, or reverse decisions, that might still mean central control.
For investors, the explanation lowers one source of uncertainty around governance tokens.
This could, over time, make exchanges and institutional investors more relaxed about handling qualifying tokens. It does not, however, automatically classify UNI or any governance token as a commodity.
Uniswap is especially notable because its community voted on adopting a Wyoming DUNA, a legal framework for decentralized organizations.
The SEC just released a helpful new FAQ to clarify its token taxonomy further.
Q 1.4 – Establishes that systems can maintain decentralized governance and make use of legal entities like DUNAs.
Q 1.5 – Distinguishes between permissioned and permissionless systems.
Q 1.6…— miles jennings (@milesjennings) November 2, 2026
A key caveat exists: this SEC staff guidance is not legally binding. It is not a new law, and later regulators might see things differently.
The CLARITY Act could have offered firmer legal certainty, but it stalled in September. Tuesday's midterm elections will shape the next Congress that will take up the issue.
Share to
Disclaimer: this article comes from third-party media and is provided for reference only. It does not constitute investment advice. Crypto and other financial products carry significant price volatility risk, so please make your own decisions carefully.
CERT-In warns of AI group CRAFTY FALCON stealing wallet keys from crypto exchanges and causing unauthorized transfers via fintech payment systems.
Chinese regulators have told SoftBank its $5.4 billion purchase of ABB's robotics unit is blocked, the FT reports, hitting Son's AI push.
House Democrats are crafting a crypto bill that would boost SEC oversight and target Trump's crypto earnings, but Republican opposition looms.
A federal judge denied a bid to halt stock perpetual futures, finding the CFTC likely lacked authority but the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm.