Written by Helena Markou
A coalition led by the DeFi Education Fund is pressing the SEC to turn its recent interface relief into formal rulemaking, arguing that a fragile staff position is not enough for builders, investors, and infrastructure providers trying to make long-term decisions around self-custody and decentralized trading.
After years in which the SEC was seen by much of crypto as a machine for regulation by enforcement, the agency has unexpectedly opened a narrow lane for decentralized interface providers. But the most important development this week is not simply that the lane exists. It is that the industry now wants the Commission to pave it.
The immediate news peg is the April 24 push reported by Crowdfund Insider: the DeFi Education Fund and a broader coalition of digital-asset groups have sent a letter urging the SEC to begin notice-and-comment rulemaking on DeFi-related brokerage questions. Their argument is straightforward. Recent staff relief on certain crypto interfaces is welcome, but it is not durable enough to support serious investment, product development, or institutional confidence.
That concern is well founded. As Paul Hastings explains, the SEC staff statement laid out specific conditions under which operators of certain self-custody-facing crypto interfaces can function without registering as broker-dealers. The details are meaningful. To fit inside the relief, the provider must remain outside custody, avoid soliciting specific trades, limit compensation to fixed user fees, disclose conflicts and limitations, provide objective routing choices, and avoid payment-for-order-flow style economics. This is not deregulation in the libertarian sense. It is a carefully bounded compliance lane.
That boundedness is precisely why the coalition’s new request matters. The DeFi side of the market is effectively telling the SEC: thank you for drawing a workable line, but now make the line predictable enough to build against. Crowdfund Insider quotes the coalition as urging a principles-based framework with clear, objective criteria for when activity falls within the definition of “broker.” That may sound technical, but in practice it reaches far beyond wallet front ends. It affects validators, API and RPC providers, data services, oracles, middleware, interface aggregators, and every firm trying to decide whether software behavior could suddenly be reinterpreted as regulated intermediation.
The policy logic is strong. Staff statements can guide behavior, but they do not settle the market. They can be narrowed, re-read, or replaced by a later Commission with a different political philosophy. Paul Hastings is explicit on this point: because the recent position is an immediately effective interpretation rather than a binding rule, it could in principle be unwound just as quickly as it arrived. That fragility imposes a tax on innovation. Even when legal risk appears to ease, investors and boards will discount the value of that relief if they think it may disappear after the next election, leadership change, or enforcement swing.
This is where the current SEC moment becomes more interesting than the usual crypto culture war. The issue is no longer whether every DeFi touchpoint should be treated as a broker by default. The agency has already signaled that some software interfaces can sit outside that definition if they behave as neutral infrastructure rather than discretionary intermediaries. The real question now is institutional: will the SEC convert that practical distinction into durable administrative law?
If it does, the consequences could be large. Formal rulemaking would give developers a clearer design target. It would also encourage a different business model discipline inside DeFi. The recent guidance, as summarized by Paul Hastings, strongly disfavors features that make a provider look like a human intermediary hiding behind software language. In other words, the SEC is not blessing “decentralization” as a slogan; it is rewarding operational neutrality, objective routing, fixed fees, transparency, and clear separation from custody and advice. That kind of framework could actually strengthen the sector by forcing projects to distinguish real infrastructure from broker-like behavior dressed up in protocol aesthetics.
There are, however, reasons the SEC may hesitate. Formal rulemaking is slower, more political, and more exposed to litigation than interpretive relief. It also requires the Commission to define categories that technology is constantly trying to blur. Once the agency writes criteria into a rule, every ambitious project will optimize around those criteria, testing how much control, monetization, and interface curation it can preserve without crossing the line. The Commission may prefer ambiguity because ambiguity preserves discretion.
But discretion is exactly what the industry is trying to escape. The DeFi coalition’s letter is effectively a wager that the current SEC is friendlier to market experimentation than its predecessor and that this is therefore the right time to push for codification rather than gratitude. It is a sensible wager. If the sector waits too long, it may discover that provisional relief created comfort without creating permanence.
The broader implication is that crypto policy in Washington is becoming less binary. The debate is no longer only “pro-crypto” versus “anti-crypto.” It is increasingly about what kinds of intermediaries regulators believe should exist, what kinds of software can remain outside classic securities architecture, and how much of the DeFi stack can be treated as neutral infrastructure rather than regulated conduct. That is a more mature argument, and a more important one.
For now, the SEC has offered a truce. The coalition’s message is that truce is useful, but not investable. Until it is written into a durable framework, DeFi’s most important legal opening of the year will remain an opportunity shadowed by expiration risk.
Offer Your Reading of What Comes Next. Submit your KOL post today
