Meet SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, the newly named head of the regulator’s crypto task force. She’s known as a longtime supporter of the crypto industry and a prominent Republican voice overseeing federal securities regulation. Recently, she sat down with CoinDesk in late February to discuss her approach.

You’re reading State of Crypto, a CoinDesk newsletter looking at the intersection of cryptocurrency and government. Click here to sign up for future editions.

The Narrative

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce spoke with CoinDesk on Feb. 28, 2025, just hours before U.S. President Donald Trump announced his White House crypto summit.

Why It Matters

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is a key regulator for the crypto sector in the U.S., and often a source of frustration within the industry. Commissioner Peirce, who’s been serving since 2018, is now aiming to reshape the regulator’s approach to crypto as a whole. A key part of this is an upcoming SEC event on crypto policy, hosting an event on March 21.

Breaking It Down

Let’s jump right in. It’s been a busy five weeks since President Trump resumed office. For the crypto world, the big news is the new crypto task force you’re leading. Can you start by telling us what you’ve seen, done, and heard so far, and where you see this going?

Yes, absolutely. First, my usual disclaimer: these are my personal views as a commissioner, not necessarily the SEC’s or my fellow commissioners’. But yes, it’s been an exciting five weeks, and it’s fantastic that Chairman Uyeda launched this task force, giving us space to look at these issues broadly. That’s exactly what we’re aiming for.

I’m pleased with how much we’ve accomplished already. We have a terrific team, full of dedicated and bright people working hard. Our main goal is to identify areas we can clearly define as outside our jurisdiction – essentially saying, “this isn’t SEC territory. If Congress wants it to be, that’s their call, but as it stands, it’s not.”

Then, for what *is* within our jurisdiction, we’re focusing on short-term solutions to offer clarity and direction. We want to ease the feeling of paralysis that comes from regulatory uncertainty. Let’s create clear pathways forward.

These could be temporary fixes, bridging the gap until legislation or more permanent regulations are in place. We’re also tackling longer-term, complex issues like security tokenization and the regulatory framework for platforms handling both securities and non-securities. These will take time. Crucially, we want public input. We’re encouraging people to engage, share their ideas on the best way forward, and help us shape the most effective solutions.

And what kind of feedback are you getting? What are you hearing so far?

We’ve been reaching out, and people are starting to respond. I haven’t had time to go through all the responses yet, but it seems like people are seriously engaging with our request – we did put out a pretty comprehensive list of about 50 questions. We’ve told people to focus on what they can answer; they don’t need to tackle everything. I expect we’ll get some very thoughtful and focused responses.

Unsurprisingly, many have already been considering solutions. We’ve already received some detailed proposals for moving forward generally. Some of these have even been made public already, not specifically for us, but we’re reviewing those as well. We’re really focused on identifying the best, most practical ideas and moving ahead with them.

Are there specific areas where you think Congressional action is essential? Beyond say, memecoins – is there anything that the SEC, even with the CFTC, can’t address through rules or guidance alone?

Stablecoin legislation is definitely an area where Congress has a crucial role – Congress *always* has a role to play, really. But I think market structure bills, those aiming to clarify jurisdictional boundaries between us and the CFTC, could be really useful. Decentralization is a core appeal of this technology, and understandably, it draws many people in. However, we often see a natural pull towards centralization, and that’s something we need to watch closely because centralization brings back the very risks decentralization was meant to solve.

Think about the risks with centralized entities: loss of funds, misconduct, unfair treatment of customers. If trading platforms or other centralized players are dealing with non-securities, there may not be a suitable regulatory framework currently. If that’s the case, Congress might decide to step in and create one – and it seems they are, judging by the bills being proposed. I anticipate a lot more activity from Congress on this front this year.

Former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad recently testified before Congress, saying he doesn’t believe Congress should get involved in market structure specifically. Do you agree with his view?

I haven’t actually seen Chairman Massad’s comments yet – I haven’t had a chance to watch his testimony. But again, I think it’s valuable to have a discussion about where legislation is needed versus where we can work within our existing rules. Being a former CFTC Chairman, he’ll definitely have a strong understanding of their current authority.

Do you have a rough timeline for when the SEC, through this task force, might start issuing more concrete guidance? We saw the staff statement yesterday, but is anything more formal on the horizon?

Well, my goal is to move quickly. But as I mentioned in my initial statement, we need to balance speed with thoroughness. We want to get this *right*. So, we’ll likely release guidance in stages as it becomes ready. That’s why you saw the recent statement on memecoins. And while the task force itself is full of talented people, it’s important to remember we’re collaborating across the entire SEC. You’ll see input coming from different SEC divisions. For instance, the Division of Corporation Finance just released that statement about memecoins.

Let’s shift gears slightly. Yesterday, we saw the SEC and Coinbase jointly request to withdraw their ongoing case, specifically regarding a registration violation, I believe. While I know you can’t discuss specifics of that case, could you speak more broadly about the Division of Enforcement, and what we might expect from them, especially after the events of last week?

What you can expect – and yesterday’s action really highlights this – is that we don’t want to use our Enforcement Division to create regulatory policy. We’re trying to refocus the Enforcement Division on its core purpose: enforcing established rules. The regulatory divisions should be doing the heavy lifting of crafting rules, providing guidance, and offering interpretations. Enforcement’s role comes *after* that, to uphold those existing rules. We’ve gotten a bit backwards in this area recently, and we’re working to correct course.

Following the same thread, the SEC also moved to pause some cases against companies you’ve been litigating against, some involving fraud allegations. Do you expect these pauses to focus solely on the registration/securities aspects, with potential resumption later, or do you have broader thoughts?

We’ll evaluate each case individually, based on its specific facts and circumstances, to decide how to proceed. Our overarching principle is that policy shouldn’t be driven by enforcement actions; enforcement should follow established policy. Enforcement certainly has a role, including in the crypto space – the key question is always, is there a securities violation?

However, if anyone thinks this means a free pass to commit fraud, they’re mistaken. If we uncover fraud, even if it’s outside our direct jurisdiction, we’ll look to see if another agency has the appropriate authority and refer it to them. This is about using our resources effectively, focusing our enforcement efforts where there’s clear misconduct within our jurisdiction.

Let me phrase this carefully then, understanding you can’t discuss specific cases. But this week’s case against the Tron Foundation, for example, includes significant fraud and market manipulation allegations. Is that the kind of situation where you might see the DOJ or another body having greater or more relevant authority?

I can’t comment on specific cases, and it really does come down to evaluating each case on its own facts and circumstances. We have many cases to review, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Let’s switch topics again. Paul Atkins has been nominated as the new chair. Have you had a chance to speak with him about recent developments?

Chairman Atkins is primarily focused on his Senate hearing and confirmation right now. He’ll have plenty of time to engage with us – the task force, myself, on these issues and others later. I’m giving him space to get through this stage of the process. Having been through it myself, I know the preparation involved and the demands on his time are significant.

Directionally speaking, do you have any expectations for how he might approach crypto and these other issues you’re now leading on?

Yes, I have some insight. I worked for Commissioner Atkins for four years, so I know how he thinks. He strongly believes in clear laws followed by consistent enforcement. His priority is establishing legal clarity *first*, then enforcing those clear rules.

I suspect our current approach will align with his thinking. He’s also deeply committed to due process, to notice and comment rulemaking where appropriate, and to gathering input from those affected by regulations. I believe he’ll appreciate our emphasis on external input and procedural fairness. We’ll then need to discuss specifics – what a good disclosure regime looks like in crypto, whether a safe harbor framework is appropriate. These are key topics we’ll address with him when he comes on board.

Let’s circle back to safe harbors in a moment. Just one more on Chairman Atkins. Back in February 2023, before his nomination, he suggested in an interview that the Ripple case would be a good candidate for the Supreme Court, to provide further clarification on the Howey Test. Does that idea make sense to you? Is that something you’d welcome?

Again, I can’t comment on specific cases. The Howey Test is a long-standing Supreme Court precedent, designed to interpret ‘investment contracts,’ which is part of defining a security. It’s been applied across many diverse and interesting situations – by its nature, it’s very broad. Originally about orange groves, as everyone knows, it’s now heavily used in crypto.

I think Howey may have been interpreted too broadly in some instances, and there are definitely areas of ambiguity the Supreme Court could clarify. But that’s really above my pay grade! If the Supreme Court considers a case related to Howey, regardless of the parties involved, I will certainly be watching closely if they decide to re-examine the Howey Test.

Regarding safe harbors, it’s been a while since you first introduced that concept for the industry, correct?

A long time ago, yes.

What’s your perspective on that now?

I still believe in a safe harbor approach. It would have been beneficial to have it in place sooner. The way we’ve approached things has, unfortunately, discouraged disclosures – it’s created a disincentive. I want to shift to a system where we actively encourage and reward good disclosure. I think a safe harbor regime could achieve that. I’m not rigidly attached to my specific proposal; if there are better ideas out there, I’m all ears. My goal is to create an environment where people *want* to disclose information, not fear that disclosure will make them an enforcement target. Of course, intentional misrepresentations in disclosures are a different matter – those *should* be subject to enforcement.

Do you have plans to formally reintroduce a safe harbor proposal, or are you focused on just rebuilding momentum for the idea generally?

Yes, as you saw in our questions, it’s definitely on our minds, and we’re seeking feedback. When I first proposed it, many people thought a safe harbor would be helpful, though not everyone agreed on every detail. Some even offered iterations on the concept. The specifics are still open for discussion, but we definitely want people to share their thoughts on it.

I want to get your reaction to something that surfaced online recently. Cameron Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, posted a letter apparently from the SEC indicating the investigation into their platform was being closed. In the same post, he demanded reimbursement for Gemini’s legal fees and called for the investigators involved to be, well, I’m not sure if it was fired outright or just publicly called out and shamed. What’s your reaction to a public call like that?

Well, first, I definitely understand the frustration. I’ve been very vocal about my own frustrations with the SEC’s crypto approach over the past few years. It has real-world consequences, and I get that. It’s frustrating for me, even from my position. I can only imagine how much more frustrating it is for those directly bearing the costs. I’ve spoken with some of these individuals, and it’s clearly very difficult.

It’s crucial to understand that decisions about how we proceed – whether to use enforcement tools or rulemaking – are made at the Commission level. The responsibility rests with us, the Commissioners. When policies are flawed, the accountability is ours, not the staff who are implementing those directives. Staff report to the Chairman and are expected to follow the policy direction set by the Commission and execute it as effectively as possible.

We have a hard-working, dedicated, and highly capable staff at the SEC. They strive to carry out the directives they receive. It’s important to recognize that when decisions are poor, or policy direction is wrong, the responsibility lies with the Commission. Unfortunately, I believe our approach over the past several years has not served the American public well. It hasn’t helped the crypto industry develop to its full potential to serve the public, and frankly, it hasn’t served our own staff well either.

We’ve asked enforcement lawyers to play a role in policy making, and at the same time, we’ve essentially told our policy experts – rule writers, guidance providers – that their function is diminished because enforcement will take the lead. This has had many negative consequences, and I’m hoping we can correct this course.

To wrap up in these last few minutes, is there anything else, any key takeaways you’d like to leave with people in the crypto industry, or the general public interested in crypto, to keep in mind over the coming weeks and months?

I really encourage everyone to visit our crypto page on the SEC website – you’ll easily find a link there. Please send us your thoughts, request a meeting. We genuinely want to hear from you, and we’re here to listen. So, stay tuned!

Awesome. Commissioner Peirce, thank you so much for your time. Always a pleasure.

Thank you for having me.

Tuesday

Thursday

• (Reuters) A U.S. green card holder was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, apparently without a warrant or charges. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student of Palestinian origin, was arrested on Saturday and faces deportation. Reuters reported that he was a negotiator between Columbia administrators and student protestors at Columbia last year, and though he reportedly attended some protests he did not occupy any academic buildings or participate in any encampments. The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. President Donald Trump both acknowledged Khalil’s detention, and a White House spokesperson told The Free Press that Khalil is not accused of breaking any laws. Presumably this case will be of interest to the free speech and civil liberty proponents within the crypto industry.
• (The Wall Street Journal) People representing U.S. President Donald Trump’s family have been in talks to acquire a stake in Binance.US, and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao — CZ, who owns a majority share in Binance’s global platform — has separately been looking for a presidential pardon, the Journal reported. CZ said he had not made a deal for a pardon and has not discussed a Binance.US deal, though his statement does not appear to deny the Journal’s actual reporting. Unchained reported that CZ is trying to sell part of his stake in Binance.US, and Bloomberg reported that the talks “have included the possibility” of a World Liberty-linked stablecoin.
• (The Wall Street Journal) Michelle Bowman is the frontrunner to become the new Fed Vice Chair for Supervision, the Journal reported.
• (Wired) X, formerly known as Twitter, was down for a bit earlier this week, apparently due to a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack.
• (Senator Cynthia Lummis) Sen. Cynthia Lummis reintroduced a bill that would direct the U.S. government to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve built up by using surplus remittance fees to purchase BTC.
• (ProPublica) Ernst and Young (EY) is in talks with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to trial using crypto to pay federal grants.
• (Cato Institute) The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network lowered the currency transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for transactions in 30 zip codes in California and Texas.
• (The Verge) Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, wrote an oped defending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects companies from being treated as the publisher or speaker of content posted to their platforms.

If you’ve got thoughts or questions on what I should discuss next week or any other feedback you’d like to share, feel free to email me at nik@coindesk.com or find me on Bluesky @nikhileshde.bsky.social.

You can also join the group conversation on Telegram.

See ya’ll next week!