Crypto Firms Push SEC to Fast-Track ETF Reviews and Shield Filings from Copycats
Grayscale, a16z, and others want faster approvals and private pre-filing consultations. Market maker Jane Street and brokerage Charles Schwab say that speed comes with real risks for investors.
Major crypto firms submitted comment letters during a public comment window that closed September 2, urging the US Securities and Exchange Commission to shorten ETF review timelines and allow companies to file registration documents confidentially before going public. The window was opened by the SEC on June 30 as part of a formal request for public input on how to handle what it calls "novel exchange-traded funds." The request posed 27 specific questions covering Investment Company Act status, Rule 6c-11 applicability, registration mechanics, and confidential pre-filing procedures.
The push comes as the SEC processes roughly 200 ETF applications per month and holds more than 126 crypto ETF filings in its pipeline. Bitwise has projected that over 100 new crypto ETFs could launch in the US in 2026 alone, covering tokens from Bitcoin and Ethereum to Solana, XRP, and Dogecoin.
Who Wants What
Grayscale Investments asked the SEC to allow confidential draft registration submissions, paired with pre-filing consultations with agency staff. The rationale is partly competitive: the firm argues that once an application is public, AI-assisted analysis lets rivals file nearly identical products within days, eroding any first-mover advantage and flooding regulators with near-duplicate paperwork. Grayscale also asked the SEC to respond to filings within 45 days, a significant compression from the current 75-day baseline, which was itself shortened from roughly 240 days following new generic listing standards adopted in September 2025.
Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) took a different angle, arguing the SEC should assess each novel ETF based on the specific characteristics of its underlying asset rather than applying a single blanket framework to all crypto products. The firm also called for coordinated, standardized timelines covering both fund registration and exchange listing reviews.
The Crypto Council for Innovation asked the SEC to extend the efficiency benefits of two existing rules, Rule 6c-11 and Rule 485, to non-ETF exchange-traded products. Rule 6c-11 allows qualifying ETFs to operate without individual exemptions from the SEC; Rule 485 allows sponsors to register new share classes through streamlined amendments with automatic effectiveness timelines. The council noted that some non-ETF exchange-traded products currently face less favorable tax treatment, "creating an uneven playing field," and said similar efficiencies "could benefit non-ETF ETPs without sacrificing investor protections." Importantly, the council's support for confidential pre-filing consultations is contingent on maintaining existing Rule 485 effectiveness timelines, a condition that distinguishes its position from the more sweeping confidentiality proposals put forward by Grayscale and others. Several other firms, including Franklin Templeton and the Solana Policy Institute, also filed letters broadly supporting streamlined review, reflecting wide institutional backing for reform.
The Case for Caution
Not everyone among the submissions supported faster approvals.
Jane Street, a market maker active in ETF markets, warned that rapid launches risk producing "low-quality, low-liquidity products" that harm retail investors through wider bid-ask spreads. The firm's concern is structural: a poorly liquid ETF trades at a larger gap between its buy and sell prices, meaning investors pay more to enter and receive less when exiting.
Charles Schwab opposed a fully confidential filing process, arguing that public applications allow the firm to prepare for new products in advance. If the SEC does adopt any form of confidentiality, Schwab recommended requiring a minimum 75-day public review window before any ETF takes effect.
SEC Acknowledges Past Failures
The SEC's own framing of this initiative is notable. Brian Daly, director of the SEC's Investment Management Division and the official leading the novel ETF review, has publicly stated that the agency "did a bad job with crypto" in prior years. He has framed the current process as an effort to rebuild trust through what he called an "orderly process" for novel products. Daly has also pointed to the global ETF market's expansion from $4 trillion in 2019 to over $12 trillion by the end of 2025 as context for why formalizing the review process carries real stakes. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has described the broader ETF innovation agenda as requiring a "consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory framework," a stance considerably more open to industry input than the agency took under former Chair Gary Gensler.
What This Means Outside the US
For investors in Africa and South Asia, the practical impact of a faster US approval regime depends heavily on local regulatory walls. Indian investors can access US-listed Bitcoin ETFs only through the Reserve Bank of India's Liberalised Remittance Scheme, which caps outflows at USD 250,000 per year, a threshold most retail participants cannot reach. India's markets regulator, SEBI, does not permit domestic funds to invest in crypto ETFs, and no domestic product is expected in the near term.
In neighboring Pakistan, the situation is acutely time-sensitive. The country's Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (PVARA) set a September 5, 2026 deadline for existing virtual asset service providers to file for no-objection certificates under the Virtual Assets Act 2026, placing South Asian crypto businesses at a pivotal compliance moment just as the US debate over ETF review standards reaches its own inflection point.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, where on-chain transaction volume exceeded $205 billion in the year ending June 2025 (a 52 percent year-on-year increase), grassroots crypto activity is dominated by stablecoins used for remittances and payments, not ETF investment. Still, African regulators including South Africa's FSCA (which approved roughly 300 crypto licenses by December 2025) and Nigeria's Securities and Exchange Commission actively monitor SEC decisions as a reference point when building their own frameworks. Nigeria's landmark Investments and Securities Act 2025 formally recognised crypto as securities, marking a significant legislative milestone for the region. A more permissive US posture on novel products could accelerate similar calls from African industry groups. The transparency concerns raised by Jane Street and Charles Schwab in their SEC submissions also echo priorities that Nigerian and Kenyan regulators have made central to their own frameworks, where disclosure requirements are treated as a cornerstone of consumer protection.
Jane Street's liquidity warning carries specific weight for cross-border users. A proliferation of thinly traded altcoin ETFs would produce wider spreads and greater price slippage, costs that fall harder on smaller investors executing cross-border trades in emerging markets.
What Comes Next
The SEC has yet to publicly indicate a timeline for acting on the comments it received.
With more than 126 crypto ETF filings in the agency's pipeline and the spot Bitcoin ETF market holding roughly $79.5 billion in net assets as of August 2026, the pressure on the agency to formalize its review process is unlikely to ease.
The confidential filing question is shaping up as perhaps the most contested point in the SEC's review. The outcome will shape not only how quickly new crypto funds reach US markets, but also how much advance visibility the public and competing firms get before those products arrive.