A leading Wall Street advocacy institution, SIFMA, has been holding closed-door discussions with prominent figures in the digital asset industry to review a key market structure proposal now before U.S. lawmakers. The quiet engagement underscores how customary financial institutions and crypto firms are directly interacting with policymakers as Washington debates how trading and oversight of digital assets should be organized.
By bringing established securities players and crypto executives into the same room, the talks highlight the growing overlap between legacy markets and the digital asset sector. The conversations around the bill reflect mounting pressure on regulators and legislators to clarify the rules governing cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, and investor protections in a rapidly maturing market.
SIFMA steps into the crypto arena Private talks with digital asset executives reshape policy roadmap
The involvement of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) in digital assets marks a notable shift in how traditional finance is approaching crypto policy. By holding private discussions with executives from digital asset firms, the influential trade group appears to be gathering intelligence on how existing market structures, investor protections and regulatory frameworks intersect with emerging crypto business models.Such closed-door meetings are a common feature of financial policy formation: they allow industry participants to outline operational realities, compliance challenges and market risks in detail, while giving policymakers and lobby groups a clearer view of how proposed rules might play out in practise.
For the crypto sector, SIFMA’s outreach signals that digital assets are being increasingly treated as part of the broader capital markets conversation, rather than as a separate or fringe segment. At the same time, private consultations can raise questions about transparency and whose interests are most strongly represented in any eventual policy roadmap. While these talks may help align regulatory approaches with established financial market norms, they do not guarantee outcomes favorable to digital asset firms, nor do they resolve ongoing debates around issues such as custody, market integrity and appropriate oversight. Instead, they underscore that the next phase of crypto regulation is likely to be shaped through incremental negotiation between traditional finance stakeholders, regulators and the growing cohort of companies operating in the digital asset space.
Inside the market structure bill Key provisions on trading, custody and investor safeguards
The bill’s market structure framework sets out clearer lines for how crypto trading platforms, custody providers and other intermediaries must operate, with a particular emphasis on separating key functions that can create conflicts of interest. Lawmakers focus on bringing trading venues for digital assets closer to standards seen in traditional markets, including more robust disclosure practices and defined responsibilities for handling client orders. Custody – the safeguarding of customers’ digital assets – is treated as a distinct function, with additional attention to how assets are held, recorded and segregated from a firm’s own holdings, reflecting long-standing concerns about commingling and counterparty risk in the crypto sector.
On investor safeguards, the bill aims to align protections for digital asset users with those available in conventional financial markets, while recognizing that crypto infrastructure operates differently from traditional brokerage and banking systems. The provisions highlight areas such as transparency around trading rules, clearer data on how assets are stored, and mechanisms to address operational failures or misconduct. Simultaneously occurring, the framework acknowledges that many implementation details will depend on how regulators interpret and enforce these requirements over time, leaving questions about how quickly and uniformly new standards will be applied across different types of market participants.
Regulators on the sidelines How quiet negotiations could redefine SEC and CFTC oversight
while markets focus on price action, policy discussions are unfolding largely out of view, with U.S. regulators signaling that any shift in oversight of Bitcoin and other digital assets is more likely to come through measured dialog than headline-grabbing enforcement. behind the scenes, staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have been engaging with lawmakers, industry participants, and other stakeholders to clarify how existing securities and commodities frameworks apply to cryptocurrencies. These conversations matter as they help determine whether particular products fall under securities law, commodities regulation, or a shared jurisdictional space, a question that directly affects how exchanges operate, how new products are launched, and what disclosures investors can expect.
This quieter approach does not mean regulatory uncertainty has been resolved, but it suggests that both agencies are weighing the implications of more formal rulemaking or legislative changes before moving decisively. Any eventual realignment of responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC would influence everything from how Bitcoin-linked instruments are approved to how market surveillance and consumer protections are implemented. Simultaneously occurring, the lack of public, definitive guidance leaves issuers, trading platforms, and investors operating within a patchwork of interpretations, highlighting both the potential impact and the current limits of these ongoing negotiations. For now, the balance between innovation and oversight is being tested incrementally, as regulators explore how to extend familiar regulatory tools to a rapidly evolving asset class without clear statutory updates.
What Wall Street wants from crypto Clear rules on liquidity, compliance and institutional access
Traditional financial institutions are signaling that, before they can commit more fully to digital assets, they need clearer guardrails around how crypto markets function.That includes clear standards on liquidity-how easily large trades can be executed without moving prices significantly-and also consistent rules on compliance with existing anti-money laundering and investor protection frameworks.For Wall Street firms that operate under strict regulatory oversight, uncertainty over how crypto trading venues, custodians, and issuers are supervised remains a central barrier. They are looking for regulatory clarity that aligns crypto market infrastructure with the expectations already applied to equities, bonds, and other mainstream asset classes, without necessarily replicating those systems outright.
At the same time,there is growing focus on building institutional access channels that match the operational needs of large asset managers,banks,and corporate treasuries. This typically means secure and audited custody solutions, standardized reporting, and robust risk controls that can integrate with existing back-office and compliance systems.Even as new products and platforms emerge to meet this demand, questions remain over how quickly regulations will adapt and how consistently they will be applied across jurisdictions.The result is a cautious stance: Wall Street is exploring ways to engage with crypto markets, but is doing so within a framework that prioritizes regulatory certainty, operational resilience, and the ability to demonstrate that client assets are being handled to the same standard as in traditional finance.
As policymakers weigh the bill’s fate, the quiet outreach between Wall Street’s most influential lobby and the crypto industry underscores how high the stakes have become for both traditional finance and digital asset markets. Whether the talks result in consensus language or deepen existing divides, SIFMA’s behind-the-scenes engagement signals that crypto’s market structure is no longer a niche concern, but a core question for U.S. capital markets.
For now, both sides are testing the contours of what regulation could look like-and who will shape it.The coming months in Washington will reveal whether this round of private negotiations produces a framework that brings digital assets further into the regulatory mainstream, or sets the stage for an even more contentious fight over the future of crypto in the United States.
