The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) approach to crypto regulation has long turned on a deceptively simple question: when does a crypto‑asset implicate an “investment contract” under federal securities laws? In March 2026, the SEC issued new interpretive guidance that directly addresses this issue, offering the clearest articulation yet of how a crypto‑asset can become tied to — and later detach from — an investment contract.
This guidance marks a significant doctrinal shift away from rigid classifications and toward a transactional, facts‑and‑circumstances analysis. For issuers, platforms, investors, and policymakers, understanding this framework is now essential.
The Legal Foundation: Howey and Crypto Assets
U.S. securities law defines a “security” to include not only stocks and bonds, but also “investment contracts.” Since the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (1946), an investment contract exists when there is:
- An investment of money
- In a common enterprise
- With a reasonable expectation of profit
- Derived from the efforts of others
The SEC and federal courts have consistently applied the Howey Test to crypto‑asset transactions, emphasizing substance over form. Whether a token is labeled a “utility token,” “network token,” or “meme coin” is not dispositive; what matters is how it is offered, marketed, and sold.
Not All Crypto‑Assets Are Securities — and the SEC Is Explicit About That
A critical clarification in the SEC’s March 2026 guidance is that many crypto‑assets are not themselves securities. The SEC now organizes crypto‑assets into five categories:
- Digital commodities (e.g., Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana)
- Digital collectibles (including NFTs and meme coins)
- Digital tools (tokens with functional utility such as access, identity, or ticketing)
- Stablecoins
- Digital securities (tokenized versions of stocks, bonds, or other traditional securities)
With the exception of digital securities, each category can exist outside securities law — unless the asset is offered or sold in a way that satisfies the Howey test.
The Crucial Distinction: The Asset vs. the Investment Contract
The most consequential element of the 2026 guidance is the SEC’s explicit separation between:
- A crypto‑asset itself, and
- The investment contract transaction in which it is sold
Under the guidance, a non‑security crypto‑asset can become “subject to” an investment contract if an issuer sells it while making representations or promises that would lead a reasonable purchaser to expect profits from the issuer’s essential managerial efforts.
In other words, the same token can be:
- Non‑security in nature, yet
- Sold in a securities transaction
During that period, both primary and secondary market transactions involving the token may fall within the scope of the federal securities laws.
What Creates a Reasonable Expectation of Profit?
The SEC’s guidance identifies several factors that influence whether a purchaser’s expectation of profit is “reasonable,” including:
- The source of representations (issuer, affiliates, promoters)
- The timing of those representations (pre‑sale vs. post‑launch)
- The specificity of promised managerial efforts
- The communication channels used (white papers, social media, roadshows)
Importantly, the SEC has deemphasized abstract notions of “decentralization” and instead focused on what the issuer actually promised to do.
Separation: When a Crypto‑Asset Stops Being Subject to Securities Laws
Perhaps the most industry‑impactful innovation in the guidance is the concept of “separation.” A crypto‑asset that was once sold subject to an investment contract does not necessarily remain under securities regulation forever.
According to the SEC, separation occurs when purchasers can no longer reasonably expect the issuer’s managerial efforts to affect the value of the asset. This may happen when:
- The issuer fulfills its core development promises
- The network becomes fully functional without essential issuer involvement
- The issuer publicly disclaims or abandons promised efforts
At that point, the crypto‑asset is no longer subject to securities laws — even if it once was.
Rejecting the “Absolute Separation Theory”
The guidance directly rejects the so‑called absolute separation theory, which holds that secondary‑market transactions in crypto‑assets can never involve investment contracts because downstream purchasers lack privity with the issuer.
Instead, the SEC concludes that ongoing expectations, not contractual formalities, determine whether securities laws apply. Secondary‑market transactions may still be securities transactions if issuer‑driven expectations of profit persist.
Why This Matters Now
The SEC’s new framework arrives as Congress considers sweeping crypto market‑structure legislation that may ultimately codify a different allocation of regulatory authority between the SEC and the CFTC. Until then, the March 2026 guidance represents the most authoritative roadmap for navigating U.S. crypto securities law.
For crypto projects, the message is clear: your token’s regulatory status depends less on what it is, and more on what you say and do.
Author: Trent V. Bolar, Esq. (LinkedIn Profile)
Disclaimer: All content in this article is intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal or financial advice. Consult a qualified attorney for personalized guidance on legal matters. Information in this article may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information. The content in this article is provided “as is,” and no representations are made that the content is error-free. Use of, and access to, this article or any of the links or resources contained within do not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader, user, or browser and the author. All trademarks, logos, and service marks used in this article are the property of their respective owners. The use of such trademarks does not imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this article.
© 2026 Trent V. Bolar, Esq. | All rights reserved.
When Is a Crypto‑Asset an Investment Contract? The SEC’s Evolving Interpretation Explained was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
