Former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt said he expects a “fair amount” of new cryptocurrency regulation to emerge under incoming SEC Chair Gary Gensler, signaling that the U.S. digital asset market may be moving toward a more defined compliance framework.
Pitt made the remarks in a Bloomberg interview as markets were digesting Coinbase’s direct listing on Nasdaq, an event that drew broader attention to how U.S. regulators may handle cryptocurrency exchanges, token offerings, and the classification of digital assets. His comments reflect a view increasingly shared across the market: that regulatory uncertainty remains one of the biggest unresolved issues in crypto, and that Gensler’s arrival could accelerate efforts to bring more structure to the sector.
Unclear Rules Still Define the Market
According to Pitt, one of the central problems facing the crypto industry is that existing rules remain insufficiently clear. In particular, he pointed to the continuing uncertainty around whether certain digital asset offerings should be treated as securities. That question has been at the core of many legal and policy debates in the United States, and it has shaped how projects launch tokens, how exchanges list assets, and how investors evaluate regulatory risk.
Pitt said he expects the SEC to move forward in this area, suggesting that the commission is likely to provide a greater degree of oversight as the agency’s new leadership settles in. Rather than describing a sudden crackdown, his comments implied a broader transition toward clearer standards and more formalized expectations.
That distinction matters. For many market participants, the core issue is not simply whether regulation increases, but whether it becomes more predictable. Clearer definitions around what constitutes a security, what obligations apply to trading platforms, and how digital asset businesses should operate could reduce uncertainty even if compliance requirements become more demanding.
Why Gary Gensler Matters
Pitt highlighted Gary Gensler’s background as one reason to expect meaningful developments. Gensler, who was confirmed as SEC chairman and sworn in as a member of the commission, has long been viewed as one of the more knowledgeable senior U.S. policymakers on digital assets. He has taught about cryptocurrencies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is widely recognized for his familiarity with both financial markets and blockchain-related policy questions.
Pitt described Gensler as both a crypto expert and a market expert, adding that he expects clearer “rules of the road” to evolve under Gensler’s leadership. That phrasing is especially notable because it suggests a regulatory agenda centered not only on enforcement, but also on clarification.
For the industry, Gensler’s expertise cuts both ways. On one hand, market participants may expect a more sophisticated and informed approach to regulation. On the other, that same expertise may make it harder for companies to rely on ambiguity or regulatory delay as a shield. A regulator who understands the mechanics of the sector may be more capable of designing targeted oversight and defending it publicly.
SEC or CFTC? The Jurisdiction Debate Remains Open
Pitt also addressed one of the most important structural questions in U.S. crypto regulation: which agency should have primary authority over digital assets. He noted that there is a genuine issue regarding where jurisdiction lies and suggested that clarifying legislation may ultimately be necessary.
This point reflects a longstanding challenge in the U.S. approach to crypto oversight. Different digital assets can raise different legal questions, and multiple agencies have asserted authority in adjacent areas. The SEC has focused on securities law issues, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has also played a major role in supervising derivatives and aspects of commodity-related activity. Because many digital assets do not fit neatly into traditional categories, the boundary between agencies remains a source of uncertainty.
Pitt noted that the SEC had already taken the position that bitcoin and ether are not securities. As a result, in his view, those assets themselves do not fall under direct SEC regulatory involvement in the same way a security token or securities offering would. That does not end the matter, however, because many businesses operating around those assets may still fall within the SEC’s reach.
Indirect SEC Influence Through Exchanges and Public Companies
One of Pitt’s more practical observations concerned firms like Coinbase. He explained that companies engaged in making markets in cryptocurrencies are subject to SEC regulation, which means the commission can still exert significant influence over how digital assets are marketed and how related businesses operate.
This is a critical distinction for investors and industry operators. Even if a specific cryptocurrency is not classified as a security, the platforms, intermediaries, disclosures, and corporate structures surrounding its trading may still trigger SEC oversight. Publicly listed companies tied to crypto activity, trading venues, and firms involved in broader capital market functions can all become channels for regulatory influence.
In other words, the SEC’s impact on the crypto sector is not limited to declaring whether a token is a security. It can also shape market behavior through the regulation of listed companies, disclosure standards, exchange-related practices, and investor protection requirements. That indirect route may prove just as consequential as direct asset classification.
A More Defined Framework May Be Emerging
Pitt’s view is broadly consistent with comments from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who has also said she is optimistic that the commission can build a good regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies under leadership with deeper knowledge of the market. While different commissioners may emphasize different priorities, the underlying message is similar: the SEC appears increasingly likely to move toward a more deliberate and comprehensive posture on crypto.
For the market, that does not necessarily mean regulation will become uniformly hostile. It may instead mean that the era of operating within gray zones becomes harder to sustain. Exchanges, issuers, and institutional participants may need to prepare for a system in which the rules are more explicit, more enforceable, and more difficult to ignore.
The broader implication of Pitt’s comments is that regulatory clarity could become one of the defining themes of the next phase of U.S. crypto market development. If that happens, the industry may face greater compliance obligations, but it may also gain a more stable operating environment. For a sector that has often been shaped by uncertainty, a clearer framework may prove to be one of the most important developments yet.