UpGate

Tag: Regulation & Policy

  • Hester Peirce Departs SEC, Leaving Crypto Regulatory Path to Institutional Test

    Hester Peirce Departs SEC, Leaving Crypto Regulatory Path to Institutional Test

    SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, widely known as ‘Crypto Mom’, will depart the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 2nd. Her exit marks the end of a tenure focused on establishing clearer regulatory paths for digital assets, as the SEC recently released updated crypto asset FAQs and an ‘innovation exemption’ framework for tokenized securities. This transition prompts an evaluation of the continuity and future direction of these policies.

    Peirce has been a prominent advocate for clear regulatory frameworks covering crypto assets, including mining, staking, and meme coins. She played a key role in developing a system for classifying crypto assets and clarifying jurisdictional boundaries. A significant initiative during her time was the SEC’s ‘innovation exemption’ for tokenized securities, a five-year limited trial framework designed to gather data for future permanent rules. This initiative is considered by some as a notable achievement, aiming to foster innovation while collecting essential information for rule-making.

    Coinciding with Peirce’s resignation announcement, the SEC issued updated crypto asset FAQs. These address technical details such as the definition of ‘essential managerial efforts’ and ‘staking receipt tokens,’ offering further guidance on existing regulatory interpretations.

    Peirce’s departure is interpreted by some not as a signal of a regulatory shift, but as evidence that the existing regulatory-friendly route has become ‘institutionalized.’ This perspective suggests that the pathways for innovation exemption, crypto asset classification, and tokenized securities are now embedded in SEC policy documents, reducing dependence on a single individual.

    However, uncertainties persist regarding the future of crypto regulation at the SEC. Following Peirce’s departure, the commission will comprise only two members: Chair Gary Gensler and Commissioner Mark Uyeda. It remains unclear whether this smaller commission will possess sufficient internal drive to advance existing policies into formal rules. Key areas of uncertainty include the legislative progress of ‘Regulation Crypto Assets’ and the smooth transition of the five-year innovation exemption before its expiration.

    Further uncertainty arises from potential political influences. If the current administration does not fill vacant Democratic seats on the SEC and CFTC, the commission’s ideological composition could impact the market’s perception of rule-making credibility.

    Peirce is set to become an associate professor at Regent University Law School. Her departure leaves behind established systems and frameworks, but the crypto industry will need to observe how these continue to evolve and are applied in her absence. The effectiveness of these institutionalized processes in navigating future cases and ensuring regulatory clarity will be a key focus for market participants.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, known as ‘Crypto Mom’, announced her resignation, effective October 2nd. Whether the SEC, with only two commissioners, will have sufficient internal drive to advance existing policies into formal rules.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: SEC委員 Hester Peirce 正式宣布 10 月 2 日離任，結束她擔任「加密老媽」的監管生涯。.

  • US Prosecutors Seek $84.2 Million from Tether-Linked Bank

    US Prosecutors Seek $84.2 Million from Tether-Linked Bank

    DOJ Seeks to Seize $84 Million Linked to Tether Payments

    The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to seize $84.2 million that allegedly flowed through accounts used for processing payments for Tether, the cryptocurrency issuer.

    Unlicensed Money Transmitter Targeted

    The funds are tied to Capstone Ltd., a Montana-based payments firm that operated as an unlicensed money transmitter in at least six states, according to a civil forfeiture complaint filed on July 15 in the Eastern District of California. The complaint, before Judge Dale A. Drozd, alleges that Capstone misrepresented itself to banks as an ordinary IT services company.

    Owners Named, Company Denies Wrongdoing

    Capstone’s owners, identified as Kotaro Shimogori and Mary Jeanne Thompson, are named in the complaint. The FBI executed a search warrant at a Sacramento residence in connection with the case. Their attorney told the Financial Times that the company “denies any wrongdoing” and hopes to “resolve this matter quickly.”

    Breakdown of Seized Funds

    Of the $84.2 million targeted for forfeiture, $79.11 million originated from a Wells Fargo Securities account in Capstone’s name on September 14. Civil forfeiture allows the government to seize assets linked to alleged criminal activity without requiring a criminal conviction of the owner.

    Additional funds include $2.06 million held at JPMorgan Chase, $1.86 million in a separate Wells Fargo account, and just over $1.1 million split between two wallets holding USDT, Tether’s stablecoin designed to maintain a one-dollar peg.

    Digital Bank Faces Liquidation Risk

    Behind Capstone is EQIBank, a digital bank licensed in Dominica. Prosecutors claim EQIBank directed how Capstone moved the money. EQIBank has previously warned that the loss of these funds, representing approximately 80% of its total holdings, could lead to its liquidation.

    Tether’s Limited Exposure

    Tether confirmed that EQIBank handled its USDT purchase and redemption transfers. However, in a statement to Reuters, Tether insisted it had “no knowledge of the conduct by Capstone alleged by the Department of Justice.” A spokesperson stated that the total exposure was less than 0.034% of group assets, a minimal share compared to Tether’s reported $187.75 billion in assets at the close of the second quarter.

    Past Scrutiny for Tether and Bitfinex

    This is not the first instance of Tether and its sister company, Bitfinex, facing scrutiny from prosecutors regarding their financial operations. In 2021, both companies reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General after admitting that USDT was not always backed dollar-for-dollar as advertised. They paid an $18.5 million fine and agreed to cease trading in New York.

    Innocent Owner Defense Filed

    Capstone and EQIBank have filed an innocent owner defense regarding the seized funds. Under Supplemental Rule G, which governs forfeiture cases, claimants have 21 days to respond to the government’s complaint after a formal claim is filed with the court.

  • SEC Staff Guidance Offers Nuance on Crypto Activities Under Securities Laws, Stresses Non-Binding Nature

    SEC Staff Guidance Offers Nuance on Crypto Activities Under Securities Laws, Stresses Non-Binding Nature

    SEC staff on Thursday issued guidance offering clarifications on how certain cryptocurrency activities, including token buybacks, staking receipt tokens, and ongoing blockchain development, may be treated under federal securities laws. Published by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, the guidance builds upon the Commission’s March interpretation but importantly, does not carry the force of law and has not been approved or disapproved by the Commission.

    Guidance on Token Buybacks and Network Functionality

    SEC staff indicated that the analysis for token buybacks can differ based on whether a crypto network is functional. Staff said that when a crypto network is already functional, announcing a buyback of a non-security crypto asset would not by itself amount to a promise to perform essential managerial efforts under the Howey test. However, when a network is not yet functional, a buyback could contribute to an investment contract if it is presented as generating yield or returns for token holders.

    Staking Receipt Tokens: Digital Tools or Commodities

    The guidance also addresses staking receipt tokens. Staff indicated that a staking receipt token representing a digital commodity that is not subject to an investment contract can be treated as a ‘digital tool’ because it serves as a receipt for the underlying asset. In some cases, a staking receipt token issued by a protocol-based liquid staking provider may instead be classified as a digital commodity when its value is tied to the operation of a functional crypto system and market supply and demand.

    Developer and Market Operator Activities

    Furthermore, SEC staff clarified that promoting a network’s current utility or capabilities would generally not, on its own, amount to a promise of essential managerial efforts. Aspirational statements about future features may also fall outside this analysis when they do not promote potential profits. Developers can continue maintaining, securing, and improving a functional network without those activities necessarily constituting essential managerial efforts under the Howey test. Similarly, operating a secondary market for a crypto asset does not automatically make a trading platform a promoter, though a trading platform would still have to meet the definition of a promoter under Securities Act Rule 405.

    Limitations and Context

    This guidance provides a degree of clarity for market participants navigating the complexities of federal securities laws in the context of evolving crypto activities. However, it is crucial to note that the interpretations offered are from SEC staff and are not binding legal rules. The analysis of specific crypto activities will continue to depend on their unique facts and circumstances.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: SEC staff provided clarification through FAQs on how certain crypto activities, including token buybacks and staking receipt tokens, are viewed under federal securities laws, particularly in relation to the Howey test. The analysis for buybacks can differ when a network is not yet functional.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: The FAQs, published by the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, build on the Commission’s March interpretation.

  • US Prosecutors Seek $84.2M Seizure from Capstone Ltd. Amid Allegations of Facilitating Transfers for Tether and Bitfinex

    US Prosecutors Seek $84.2M Seizure from Capstone Ltd. Amid Allegations of Facilitating Transfers for Tether and Bitfinex

    US federal prosecutors have initiated a civil forfeiture action seeking to seize approximately $84.2 million in assets from Capstone Ltd. The complaint, filed on July 15, alleges that Capstone acted as an intermediary facilitating alleged illegal banking transfers for cryptocurrency entities Tether and Bitfinex, utilizing EQIBank as a conduit to access US banking systems.

    According to the complaint, Capstone Ltd. allegedly served as a conduit for these transfers. Prosecutors claim that EQIBank, described as a Caribbean institution, directed Capstone to move hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of Tether and Bitfinex, enabling them to access US banking rails. A California federal district judge has reportedly denied EQIBank’s motion to return seized property.

    Seized Funds and EQIBank’s Position

    The seized funds targeted in the forfeiture complaint include accounts held at Wells Fargo and JPMorgan. Approximately $79.11 million of the seized funds is reportedly held in a Wells Fargo Securities account. EQIBank claims that the frozen assets represent approximately 80% of its total monetary holdings, which amounts to roughly $89 million of its entire portfolio.

    Tether and Bitfinex: Historical Context and Current Exposure

    Tether has stated that its exposure to EQIBank is minimal, amounting to less than 0.034% of its total assets. The company indicated that its peg to the dollar has weathered more significant crises than this $84.2 million forfeiture case, which it asserts barely touches its balance sheet.

    This action occurs in the context of past regulatory scrutiny for Tether and Bitfinex. In 2021, the New York Attorney General’s office settled with both companies over claims that Bitfinex had covered up an $850 million loss using Tether’s reserves. This settlement involved an $18.5 million fine and a ban on serving New York customers for Tether and Bitfinex, though neither company admitted wrongdoing at the time.

    Broader Implications for Crypto Financial Infrastructure

    The potential implications of this enforcement action extend to the broader crypto financial ecosystem. If an institution that served as a banking partner for major crypto companies faces action due to US enforcement, other smaller banks and payment processors in the space may take notice. However, the exact nature and extent of EQIBank’s alleged orchestration, whether Capstone Ltd. knowingly participated in illegal transfers, and the full impact of EQIBank’s potential liquidation remain uncertain.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: The New York Attorney General’s office settled with both companies in 2021 over claims that Bitfinex had covered up an $850 million loss using Tether’s reserves.

  • Hive Digital Technologies Swedish Subsidiaries in VAT Dispute Escalated to European Commission

    Hive Digital Technologies Swedish Subsidiaries in VAT Dispute Escalated to European Commission

    Hive Digital Technologies’ Swedish subsidiaries, Bikupa Datacenter AB and Bikupa Datacenter 2 AB, are involved in a legal dispute with the Swedish Tax Agency regarding the VAT classification of their bitcoin mining operations. This dispute has been escalated to the European Commission.

    The core of the disagreement centers on how the Swedish Tax Agency classifies these mining activities for VAT purposes. According to the source, the resolution of this legal battle could potentially influence the classification of similar mining operations and the application of VAT across the European Union.

    The escalation of this case to the European Commission suggests potential for broader regulatory implications within the EU. However, the precise outcome of the legal dispute remains uncertain, as does the specific classification of mining operations and the definitive application of VAT across the bloc, according to the source.

    This situation highlights a developing area of regulatory uncertainty for the cryptocurrency mining industry. The involvement of the European Commission indicates that the dispute may lead to further guidance or clarification on VAT regulations for digital asset mining within the EU. The article states that the legal battle might affect the classification of mining operations in the EU and how VAT applies to these activities.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: Hive Digital Technologies’ Swedish subsidiaries are in a legal dispute with the Swedish Tax Agency over the classification of their bitcoin mining operations and the application of VAT. The exact outcome of the legal dispute.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: The Swedish Tax Agency, Bikupa Datacenter AB, and Bikupa Datacenter 2 AB, Swedish subsidiaries of bitcoin mining firm Hive Digital Technologies, are engaged in a legal battle that might affect the classification of mining operations in the EU and how VAT applies to these activities.

  • CFTC Updates Crypto Guidance, Recognizing Tokenized Assets and Blockchain Record-Keeping

    CFTC Updates Crypto Guidance, Recognizing Tokenized Assets and Blockchain Record-Keeping

    The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has updated its guidance on crypto assets, a move that explicitly permits registered crypto firms to invest customer funds in tokenized assets and acknowledges the use of blockchain technology for record-keeping. This update, reported on September 24, aims to provide greater regulatory clarity to the digital asset industry.

    Under the revised guidance, crypto firms can invest customer funds in tokenized assets, provided these assets offer the same or functionally equivalent legal and economic rights as their traditional counterparts. This clarification is expected to reduce operational friction for businesses by allowing them to manage customer funds more directly with tokenized assets, potentially saving on exchange rate spreads and time costs.

    Furthermore, the CFTC stated it would not object to the use of blockchain technology for record-keeping, acknowledging its equivalence to traditional accounting systems. This could save exchanges and custodians the costs associated with maintaining parallel ledgers for regulatory compliance.

    The timing of the CFTC’s guidance update follows closely behind the U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act on September 23. This legislative setback, coupled with the CFTC’s proactive guidance, suggests a potential shift in the U.S. regulatory approach to cryptocurrencies, moving from legislative action towards agency-driven initiatives.

    SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has also indicated the agency’s readiness to propose crypto rules without direct Congressional action, further signaling a more active role for regulatory bodies in shaping the crypto market structure. The degree of coordination between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will be a key factor in determining the overall clarity of the regulatory landscape for digital assets.

    However, uncertainties remain regarding whether the CFTC’s guidance will extend to stablecoins and tokenized deposits, and the extent to which the SEC will align its own rules. The specific details of a crypto market regulatory plan submitted by the CFTC to the White House for review also remain undisclosed.

    These developments occur against a backdrop of broader market trends, including a Visa survey indicating increased consumer willingness to use stablecoins with bank-grade protection, while reports from entities like NYDIG suggest a shrinking cryptocurrency investment landscape where Bitcoin is absorbing funds and altcoin narratives are fading.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: The CFTC updated its crypto asset guidance to explicitly permit registered crypto firms to invest customer funds in tokenized assets, provided the tokenized asset grants the same or functionally equivalent legal and economic rights as the traditional asset. Whether the CFTC’s guidance will be further expanded to stablecoins and tokenized deposits.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: CLARITY Act failed to pass the Senate.

  • Fed Finalizes Stablecoin Rules on Reserves, Capital

    Fed Finalizes Stablecoin Rules on Reserves, Capital

    Fed Proposes Rules for Stablecoin Issuers, Emphasizing Full Backing and Capital Requirements

    The Federal Reserve is moving to establish foundational regulations for the stablecoin issuers it will oversee, proposing Thursday that these entities fully back their tokens with safe, liquid assets and maintain capital reserves to mitigate operational risks.

    The central bank has opened two proposals for public comment as it develops the regulatory framework mandated by the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin legislation signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025.

    The first proposal would require payment stablecoin issuers supervised by the Board to hold reserves exclusively in permissible assets, such as short-term Treasury bills and other high-quality, liquid holdings. It would also introduce standardized capital requirements to address credit and operational risks, establish risk-management standards, and outline rules for firms responsible for safekeeping the assets that back the tokens.

    The second proposal would establish a tailored application process for banks supervised by the Board that wish to issue payment stablecoins. This process would necessitate the submission of a business plan and financial information, and would define procedures for appeals, hearings, and final decisions.

    The public comment period for these proposals will conclude 60 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

    Stablecoins are blockchain-based tokens designed to maintain a stable value by being pegged to a reference asset, most commonly the U.S. dollar. Issuers back these tokens with reserves, ensuring that each token can be redeemed at its face value. They have become an integral component of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, facilitating the movement of funds between exchanges, trade settlements, cross-border payments, and the parking of assets without the need to convert back to traditional currency.

    This initiative represents the Federal Reserve’s contribution to a broader, multi-agency implementation of the GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for dollar-pegged tokens. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has been working to finalize its own stablecoin rules by November, ahead of a statutory deadline in January. Concurrently, the Treasury Department has proposed separate rules that would prohibit platforms from selling noncompliant stablecoins to U.S. customers.

    The development of these regulations comes as stablecoins are increasingly integrated into the mainstream financial system. The Trump administration has been actively promoting dollar-pegged tokens as a means to reinforce the dollar’s global dominance.

    The emphasis on full-reserve backing and bank-grade oversight is central to this strategy, aiming to ensure that stablecoins maintain their peg and are consistently redeemable at face value.

  • CFTC Refines Tokenized Asset, Blockchain Guidance Post-Vote

    CFTC Refines Tokenized Asset, Blockchain Guidance Post-Vote

    CFTC Offers Regulatory Clarity for Crypto Firms with Updated Guidance

    The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has updated its guidance concerning tokenized assets and the use of blockchain technology for recordkeeping, aiming to provide greater regulatory clarity for the cryptocurrency industry.

    In a notice issued Thursday, the CFTC announced revisions to its frequently asked questions for registered crypto-related entities. The updated guidance, originally released in March, now specifies that authorized companies may invest customer funds in tokenized assets. This is permissible as long as “the tokenized form of the asset grants the holder legal and economic rights that are the same or functionally equivalent to the rights received by holders of the asset in its traditional form.” The regulator also stated it “would not object” to companies employing blockchain-based recordkeeping under these new rules.

    CFTC Chair Michael Selig emphasized that these changes are part of ongoing efforts “to provide regulatory clarity for the crypto industry.”

    This development follows closely on the heels of the U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. The proposed legislation was intended to delineate the oversight responsibilities of the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding digital assets.

    The unsuccessful cloture vote has led many to anticipate that Congress may not enact comprehensive crypto market structure legislation before 2027. Consequently, regulators are expected to proceed with establishing their own policies through rulemaking. The CFTC has already submitted a plan for crypto market regulation to the White House for review.

    Echoing the sentiment of the commodities regulator, SEC Chair Paul Atkins had previously stated, prior to the CLARITY Act vote, that the agency was “ready, willing, and able” to propose rules for crypto in the absence of congressional action. The SEC had proposed rules concerning “certain investment contracts involving crypto assets” in August.

  • CFTC Issues Non-Binding Guidance on Crypto Asset Capital Charges

    CFTC Issues Non-Binding Guidance on Crypto Asset Capital Charges

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has released updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) providing non-binding guidance on how regulated financial intermediaries should handle crypto assets. The guidance, detailed in Release No. 9200-26 on March 20, 2026, clarifies capital charges and the treatment of digital assets like stablecoins, Bitcoin, and Ether for entities including futures commission merchants (FCMs), derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), and swap dealers.

    This guidance from CFTC staff represents their current interpretation of existing rules, rather than introducing new regulations. It builds upon the CFTC’s digital assets pilot program launched in December 2025 and integrates findings from prior staff letters, including CFTC Staff Letter 25-39 on tokenized collateral and Staff Letter 26-05 concerning digital assets as margin collateral. It is important to note that this guidance is non-binding and could be revised or superseded without a formal rulemaking process, introducing an element of uncertainty.

    Capital Charges and Stablecoin Treatment
    A significant aspect of the guidance clarifies capital charges. Proprietary payment stablecoins can be deposited as residual interest in customer accounts with a 2% capital charge. For Bitcoin and Ether, the FAQ specifies a minimum capital charge of 20%. This 20% capital charge for Bitcoin aligns with existing Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) standards, potentially easing regulatory friction for firms operating in both securities and commodities markets.

    Margin Rules and Restrictions
    The guidance also outlines margin requirements. Crypto assets are ineligible as initial or variation margin for uncleared swaps, indicating a continued cautious stance on their use within the bilateral derivatives market’s collateral pool. However, DCOs may accept qualifying crypto assets as initial margin if they meet specific risk standards under Regulation 39.13(g)(10).

    Furthermore, FCMs are permitted to use the post-haircut values of non-security crypto assets to manage debit and deficit balances in customer accounts.

    Market Structure Implications
    The CFTC’s clarification on stablecoins, allowing them as residual interest at a 2% capital charge, could impact market structure by providing a form of regulatory acknowledgment for their use within the derivatives clearing ecosystem. Conversely, the exclusion of crypto assets from uncleared swap margins underscores regulators’ current view of them as unsuitable for that specific collateral pool.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: The CFTC published a FAQ document (Release No. The guidance could be revised or superseded without a formal rulemaking process.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: The FAQs target three types of regulated entities: futures commission merchants (FCMs), derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), and swap dealers. These are the plumbing of the derivatives market, the firms that clear trades, hold customer funds, and manage counterparty risk.

    Contextualizing the Guidance

    The FAQs target three types of regulated entities: futures commission merchants (FCMs), derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), and swap dealers. These are the plumbing of the derivatives market, the firms that clear trades, hold customer funds, and manage counterparty risk. The guidance represents the CFTC staff’s current interpretation of existing rules, not new regulation with the force of law. Firms that follow it can expect favorable treatment from examiners, but technically, the guidance could be revised or superseded without a formal rulemaking process.

  • EBA Recommends Expanding MiCA to Include Crypto Lending

    EBA Recommends Expanding MiCA to Include Crypto Lending

    The European Banking Authority (EBA) has recommended that the European Commission consider incorporating crypto lending into the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation as part of the ongoing review of the EU’s digital asset framework. The recommendations, open for consultation until September 30, aim to address evolving risks and clarify regulatory boundaries.

    According to the EBA, the crypto lending sector, including services that connect users to decentralized lending protocols, can pose risks to consumers not fully addressed under the existing framework. The authority has urged the European Commission to review and potentially expand MiCA’s scope to encompass these activities.

    Beyond crypto lending, the EBA called for stronger rules concerning third-country stablecoin arrangements. While the EBA considers existing requirements for asset referenced tokens and electronic money tokens broadly appropriate, it noted that these structures can create significant risks and may necessitate changes to MiCA. The regulator also suggested a review of reserve requirements for stablecoin issuers, particularly concerning the minimum share of reserves held as bank deposits and effective risk management.

    Challenges in crypto asset classification were also highlighted by the EBA. The authority stated that unclear boundaries between MiCA and other EU financial rules can lead to unnecessary costs and delays for companies launching new products. To mitigate this, the EBA recommended clearer definitions and scope for crypto asset classification.

    Furthermore, the EBA seeks improvements to the reporting framework for token issuers and crypto service providers to enhance supervision and risk monitoring. These recommendations come as the European Commission conducts a broader review of MiCA to ensure its continued suitability as the crypto market develops.

    MiCA entered into full application in December 2024, with its stablecoin provisions taking effect in June 2024. As of September 1, 39 electronic money tokens had been issued under the framework, while no asset referenced tokens had been authorized, according to the EBA.

    The European Commission’s targeted consultation on the MiCA review remains open through September 30, and the outcomes could lead to legislative changes impacting the crypto industry within the European Union.

    Why This Matters

    The materials describe a narrow update: The EBA has urged the European Commission to review and potentially expand the scope of the MiCA regulation to encompass crypto lending, including services that connect users to decentralized lending protocols. Whether the European Commission will adopt the EBA’s recommendation to include crypto lending under MiCA.

    Broader Context

    Source materials place the factual news in this context: The European Banking Authority has urged the European Commission to consider bringing crypto lending under MiCA as part of its review of the European Union’s digital asset regulatory framework.