The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have announced they are relaunching the Project Crypto initiative as a joint policy effort to prepare US markets for the digital era.
SEC-CFTC Joint Efforts For Project Crypto
On Thursday, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig revealed that the regulatory agency is partnering with the SEC on its Project Crypto initiative to bring “coordination, coherence, and a unified approach to the federal oversight of crypto asset markets.”
At a joint event on regulatory harmonization, Selig and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins outlined their plan to advance a clear crypto asset taxonomy, clarify jurisdictional lines, remove duplicative compliance requirements, and reduce regulatory fragmentation through their partnership.
The SEC-CFTC harmonization agenda will focus on the fundamentals, as the chairmen detailed, including aligned definitions, coordinated oversight, and seamless, secure data sharing between agencies. “Harmonization strengthens standards through coherence, predictability, and economic rationality.”
The agencies aim to ensure that “innovation takes root on American soil, under American law, and in service of American investors, customers, and businesses,” Selig affirmed during his opening remarks.
He added that he had directed the CFTC staff to work with the SEC to study “joint codification” of the common-sense crypto asset taxonomy recently laid by Atkins, “as an interim measure while Congress finalizes legislation.”
In a joint statement shared by the CFTC, the pro-industry chairmen explained that Project Crypto was designed to ensure that the US is ready to reinforce its global financial leadership when Congress acts:
At its core, Project Crypto and our broader harmonization efforts reflect a shared philosophy: financial regulation must be precise, not punitive. Rules must be narrowly tailored to address material risks, nimble enough to adapt to technological change and remain anchored in our agencies’ statutory authorities.
Innovation Exemption Timeline Pushed Back
During the panel, Chair Atkins discussed the timeline for the Commission’s long-awaited innovation exemption for the crypto industry, which was initially expected to come before the end of January.
As reported by Bitcoinist, the SEC chair said in December that the regulatory agency could issue innovation exemption rules for crypto firms in early 2026. Notably, the Commission has been studying a rule exemption since July 2025.
The measure would allow crypto firms to quickly launch products by complying with “certain principles-based conditions designed to achieve the core policy aims of the federal securities laws” instead of “burdensome prescriptive regulatory requirements that hinder productive economic activity.”
Atkins affirmed that the agency is still working on the innovation exemption, arguing that they “need to measure twice and cut once.” As he outlined, the agency wants to deliver a rule change that is “fit for purpose that will allow enough people to be able to develop their products, you know, within a predictable ambit of maneuver and then with an end date, an off-ramp, that sort of thing.”
In addition, he noted that last year’s government shutdown delayed progress on crypto regulation, adding that the potential new shutdown could further delay the highly anticipated measure.
Atkins denied that the SEC is waiting on the market structure bill to put out the innovation exemption, arguing that it is within the agency’s authority. However, he emphasized that they are taking the upcoming regulation into account because “there are a lot of moving parts to the situation.”
“I just want to make sure that we keep the train going forward at full speed and for all parties’ sake,” he asserted, but did not offer a new potential timeline for the innovation exemption rollout.
Meanwhile, Chair Selig also shared his plan to explore “ways in which the agency can encourage innovation in software development and support builders as they work toward product market fit.” This includes assessing whether an innovation exemption “may be appropriate in certain circumstances.”
