Building Durable Digital Asset Markets

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery at the 2026 Digital Assets Conference

Good morning. I’m Joe Seidel, SIFMA COO, and on behalf of SIFMA, I’d like to thank you all for joining us today. 

I’d like to start by thanking our sponsors, whose support makes this conference possible. We’re grateful for their continued partnership on issues that matter to the industry. 

I also want to thank our speakers and panelists for lending their time and expertise today, and in particular welcome our keynote speakers, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and Congressman Ritchie Torres. The conversations we will have today are only as good as the people in the room, and we’re fortunate to have some of the sharpest voices in the digital assets space here with us today. 

Before we get started, I want to spend a few minutes on SIFMA’s stance on digital assets, because it frames a lot of what you’ll hear throughout the conference. 

We are engaging with policymakers and regulators to ensure that digital asset markets develop in a safe, transparent, and well-regulated manner, one that promotes efficiency and innovation while maintaining the same trusted safeguards that define U.S. capital markets. 

Our core message has been consistent: as this market matures, the same rules that protect investors in traditional markets need to apply here as well. Digital asset activities shouldn’t get a pass on investor protection, market integrity, or fair competition just because the technology is new. That principle — same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome — has anchored our comment letters and our engagement with policymakers on nearly every digital assets issue we’ve weighed in on. 

You can see that thread running through our recent work. On wallet regulation and the proposed Covered User Interface framework, we’ve pushed for clarity on where existing broker-dealer and custody rules already apply, rather than layering on a parallel, undefined regime for digital asset intermediaries. On market structure, we’ve argued that platforms offering trading, custody, and other services under one roof need to be held to the same conflict-of-interest and segregation standards firms have applied for decades in traditional markets. And on custody and clearing more broadly, our position has been that investor assets deserve the same protections regardless of the ledger they sit on. 

Last week we commented on the release of the SEC’s Innovation Exemption, which we think raises many questions. We have concerns about its impact on investor protection and market integrity and would emphasize the need to avoid unnecessary and potentially costly fragmentation in the listed securities market. While we appreciate that the SEC is soliciting public comment on the exemption, we believe that the Commission as well as the public would benefit by going beyond that and commencing a more formal APA notice and comment process as soon as possible so that this framework can benefit from broad public input and rigorous economic analysis, and so that tokenized securities markets have the certainty they need to develop in a responsible manner. 

We see the potential of new, cost-efficient ways to issue, trade, and settle securities, and streamline market operations and reduce friction. As we explore and leverage this potential, we know that the industry has a responsibility to help shape workable rules, not just react to them after the fact.

None of this happens in a vacuum. Our team is in regular dialogue with the SEC, the CFTC, and other agencies, and with policymakers on Capitol Hill, through comment letters, testimony, and direct engagement. We’ve also worked closely with our member firms to make sure that engagement reflects the practical realities of building compliant digital asset businesses, not just the policy debate in Washington. 

We emphasize several guiding principles for the regulation of digital assets, particularly when applied to tokenized securities: 

• First, ensure that robust investor and market integrity protections apply to these activities;
• Second, use existing, well-understood regulatory principles where possible, with targeted changes only where new technology creates genuine “square peg, round hole” situations; 
• Third, adopt a technology-neutral approach;
• And finally, apply a functional approach to regulation, with a focus on the risks of an underlying activity, regardless of the label or technology that is used.

Our view is simple: we support innovation, but we believe the best way to foster it is through durable rules that protect investors and ensure market quality, thereby building confidence in these new types of products and markets. That’s the lens we’ll bring to today’s discussions, and I hope it’s a useful one for you as well. I’d also note that, in developing and pursuing our principles, we have had regular outreach with many in the broader digital industry and have found out that we have a lot in common with them and are able to agree on many, if not most, things—but you will hear more about views from all sides of the issue today.

With that, let’s get started. It is my pleasure to introduce Peter Ryan, Managing Director, Head of Digital Assets and International Policy at SIFMA. He will run through some programming details and then moderate our first panel. Please welcome Peter to the stage.