Solana's policy advocacy team is pushing the SEC to draw a clear line between centralized exchanges and decentralized protocols. The core argument? One-size-fits-all rules don't make sense when you're dealing with fundamentally different architectures. It's a legitimate point—CEXs have custodial risks and operational control that DEXs simply don't have. Whether regulators actually listen remains another story, but this kind of differentiated approach could reshape how digital assets get regulated going forward.
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
HappyToBeDumped
· 13h ago
Solana's lobbying this time really hit the mark. CEX and DEX architectures are completely different, yet they still insist on using the same set of rules... It's best if regulators can listen, but it's not surprising if they don't.
View OriginalReply0
PessimisticLayer
· 14h ago
Solana's recent move is okay, but whether the SEC will approve it or not is another matter. Anyway, I have no hope.
View OriginalReply0
LonelyAnchorman
· 14h ago
Sounds quite idealistic, but will the SEC really buy it... doubtful
Solana's policy advocacy team is pushing the SEC to draw a clear line between centralized exchanges and decentralized protocols. The core argument? One-size-fits-all rules don't make sense when you're dealing with fundamentally different architectures. It's a legitimate point—CEXs have custodial risks and operational control that DEXs simply don't have. Whether regulators actually listen remains another story, but this kind of differentiated approach could reshape how digital assets get regulated going forward.