NextFin News - The US securities regulator's review of "novel" exchange-traded funds has drawn a unified pushback from the industry it aims to govern: keep the 2019 rulebook, assess products one by one, and do not sweep crypto and other non-securities into a new blanket regime. Three of the most prominent voices in digital assets - venture firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), crypto asset manager Grayscale, and the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) - filed comment letters dated August 31, 2026, urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to preserve the existing framework that has underpinned the sector's growth from $4 trillion to more than $12 trillion in assets.
The letters landed as the SEC's 60-day comment window closed on its Request for Comment on Novel ETFs, a review the agency opened on June 30, 2026. The request is not a proposed rule, but it is the clearest signal yet that the regulator is reconsidering how it oversees the fastest-growing corner of the $23 trillion ETF industry - and the industry's answer is that the current rules work just fine.
The SEC's Opening: 27 Questions About a Market That Outgrew Its Rulebook
The commission's request, Release No. 33-11426, poses 27 questions across three broad areas: whether novel products should be treated as investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940; whether Rule 6c-11, the 2019 regulation that standardized how ETFs operate, should be amended; and whether the registration process itself needs tightening. The review follows a May 20, 2026 statement by SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins, who wrote that "novel products raise novel questions" and directed staff to gather public input on how to respond to "recent market changes."
The facts behind the review are striking. Since Rule 6c-11 took effect at the end of 2019, assets in US-listed ETFs have tripled from just over $4 trillion to more than $12 trillion by the end of 2025, and the number of funds has climbed from almost 1,900 to more than 4,600. Globally, ETF assets reached a record $23.11 trillion at the end of July 2026, with year-to-date net inflows of $1.71 trillion - the highest on record - according to ETFGI. The rule that was designed to make ordinary index funds cheaper to launch has become the launchpad for products its drafters never imagined: single-stock ETFs, funds offering four and five times daily leverage, options-based income strategies, tokenized funds, crypto-linked products, and ETFs whose returns are tied to event contracts traded on prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
At the heart of the framework is Rule 6c-11, which exempts qualifying ETFs from having to seek individual exemptive orders. The rule's conditions are built around one mechanism: the creation-and-redemption arbitrage that keeps an ETF's market price glued to its net asset value. Authorized participants create or redeem large blocks of shares directly with the fund, and if the ETF's price drifts from the value of its holdings, arbitrageurs step in to close the gap. That mechanism works cleanly when the underlying holdings are liquid, priced securities. The SEC's request asks, pointedly, whether it still works when the holdings are private assets, commodities held through offshore subsidiaries, or payouts contingent on real-world events.
"Innovation in exchange-traded funds depends on a consistent, transparent, and efficient regulatory framework," Atkins said when the request was published. "The Commission's request for comment seeks input from the public on how the U.S. ETF market can continue to grow and innovate while serving investors effectively, and I look forward to reviewing feedback from market participants as we evaluate how to best respond to recent market changes."
The commission's own numbers frame the stakes. "Exchange-traded funds are a tremendous success story, growing from $4 trillion in 2019 to over $12 trillion at the end of 2025," said Brian Daly, director of the SEC's Division of Investment Management. "As ETFs continue to grow and novel strategies emerge, public engagement is essential to answering key questions to make the next years of development a success."
That framing - facilitation first, restriction second - is exactly the opening the industry is trying to hold. The comment period closed August 31, 2026, sixty days after the request appeared in the Federal Register, and the letters filed on that final day make clear that market participants intend to test how far the regulator's openness extends.
What the Industry Is Asking For: Same Rules, Case-by-Case Review
The three crypto-aligned commenters agree on the core ask: do not create a new categorical box for novel ETFs, and do not automatically pull products holding non-securities into the Investment Company Act. But their letters diverge on a question that sounds semantic and is anything but - what the word "ETF" should mean.
a16z argues that the ETF label should be reserved for funds governed by the Investment Company Act of 1940, the statute that imposes the disclosure, governance, and custody rules investors associate with mutual funds. In the firm's view, crypto-based exchange-traded products now operate with developed market infrastructure, including exchange-approved listing standards and established disclosure requirements, and should be evaluated on those merits rather than lumped together with funds holding private assets or pursuing untested strategies. The firm also asked the SEC to coordinate fund-registration reviews with exchange-listing reviews and to commit to more predictable timelines.
Grayscale takes the opposite position on terminology. The digital asset manager argues the ETF label should describe a product's economic function - daily pricing, exchange trading, creation and redemption - regardless of the legal wrapper it sits in. On substance, though, Grayscale's argument runs parallel to a16z's: digital asset products with established compliance and disclosure records should not face new portfolio conditions or disclosure regimes merely because they are characterized as novel.
The Crypto Council for Innovation, an advocacy group representing several major sector participants, stakes out a middle position. CCI called for comparable regulatory efficiencies across ETFs and non-ETF exchange-traded products while preserving existing investor protections, and urged the commission to require clearer registration-status disclosures rather than radically changing the approval framework. All three organizations supported an optional confidential pre-filing process, which would let sponsors consult the SEC before making a public application - a change that could reduce the winner-take-all race to file first that the commission itself flagged in its request.
Why the Current Rulebook Is the Battleground
The industry's defense of Rule 6c-11 is not nostalgia. The rule is the reason the ETF boom happened at all. Before 2019, every new ETF structure required its own exemptive order from the commission - a slow, costly, and uncertain process that favored large sponsors with deep legal benches. Rule 6c-11 replaced that case-by-case gate with a standardized set of conditions. Any sponsor whose fund met the conditions could list under generic exchange rules without a product-specific filing, cutting launch time from many months to weeks.
That efficiency is what the commenters are fighting to keep. The risk they see in the SEC's request is that even a modest amendment - a minimum securities-holding requirement, a new diversification floor, or an exclusion of certain asset classes from reliance on the rule - would re-create the old gatekeeping dynamic by another name. A fund holding a concentrated single-stock portfolio, or an ETF whose returns derive from event contracts rather than securities prices, could fall outside the rule and be forced back into the exemptive-order queue. The practical effect would be slower launches, higher compliance costs, and a competitive advantage for incumbents large enough to absorb them.
There is also a second-order consequence the letters do not emphasize but the market should watch: the interaction between Rule 6c-11 and the exchanges' generic listing standards. Because funds that satisfy the rule qualify for listing without a product-specific rule filing, any amendment to the rule would likely require corresponding changes to exchange rules - a slower, more public process that could give the commission more leverage over which products reach market, even without a formal new regulation.
The Counter-Thesis: The Rulebook Was Written for a Market That No Longer Exists
The strongest argument against the industry's position is the one embedded in the SEC's own request. Rule 6c-11 was calibrated for funds holding liquid, priced securities. Its investor-protection logic rests on the arbitrage mechanism, on daily portfolio transparency, and on the assumption that a fund's net asset value can be computed from observable market prices. None of those assumptions holds cleanly for the products now seeking the ETF label.
An ETF tied to event contracts pays out based on real-world outcomes, not on a portfolio of traded securities - so there is no arbitrageur who can reliably close a price-to-NAV gap. A fund holding private assets cannot publish a daily NAV that reflects true market value. A single-stock ETF with concentrated exposure can gap far from its indicative value in stressed trading. If the commission leaves the rule untouched, it risks certifying products as "ETFs" that behave nothing like the funds investors bought the rule to protect.
That is the tension the industry's letters do not resolve. They argue for case-by-case review, but the commission's concern is precisely that case-by-case review under the current framework may be too slow and too narrow to catch structural risks before products reach millions of retail investors. The commenters' preferred solution - evaluate each product on its own risk parameters - is the same process the exemptive-order regime already provided, and the one the industry lobbied for years to escape.
Cyclical Pushback Meets a Structural Shift
The right way to read this fight is to separate two forces that are operating on different clocks. The regulatory pushback is cyclical: it is a reaction to the speed of the 2025-2026 product explosion, and it will ease once the commission has processed the comment record and convinced itself that the highest-risk categories are contained. History supports that read. The SEC has opened broad reviews of exchange-traded products before - most notably in 2015, when it sought comment on the entire ETP landscape - and those reviews have typically produced targeted guidance rather than wholesale restructuring.
The product shift, though, is structural. ETFs are no longer just wrappers for liquid securities. They are becoming vehicles for private assets, event-driven payouts, tokenized holdings, and concentrated single-name risk - asset types whose prices are not set by a continuous market and whose NAVs cannot be arbitraged back to truth. That change does not mean-revert. A rule built on the assumption that every holding has a price will keep producing friction as more holdings stop having one.
The implication is uncomfortable for both sides. The industry is right that rewriting Rule 6c-11 would slow innovation and concentrate power with incumbents. The commission is right that a framework calibrated for index funds cannot govern funds built on prediction markets without new guardrails. The most likely outcome is not victory for either side but a split: the existing rule survives for funds holding liquid securities, while the truly novel categories - event contracts, private assets, and possibly highly leveraged single-stock strategies - get carved out into a slower, more review-intensive path.
What Comes Next: Signals to Watch
The SEC is not obligated to act on the comments, and no timeline has been given for what follows. The most likely path is a period of staff review followed by targeted guidance or a narrow rulemaking focused on the products that prompted the review - event-contract funds, highly leveraged single-stock strategies, and crypto-linked structures top that list. The commission has also floated procedural changes, including confidential treatment for novel filings and a pre-filing consultation process, both of which drew industry support and could arrive sooner than substantive rule changes.
For sponsors, the watch items are specific and falsifiable. The industry's bet - that the existing rulebook survives largely intact - would be proven wrong if the commission proposes a minimum securities-holding requirement under Rule 6c-11, excludes an asset class such as crypto or event contracts from reliance on the rule, or narrows Rule 485(a), which currently allows new ETFs to become effective automatically within roughly 75 days. Any one of those moves, if proposed within the next six to twelve months, would signal that the review is heading toward restriction rather than facilitation.
The forward picture splits by horizon. In the short term, expect procedural relief - confidential pre-filing and consultation channels - because both sides want that. Over the medium term, the battleground is Rule 6c-11's portfolio conditions and the generic listing standards that ride on top of them. Over the long term, the question is whether the ETF label survives as a single regulatory category or fractures into a securities-based ETF lane and a separate lane for products that merely look and trade like ETFs.
Three scenarios frame the range. In the base case, the SEC adopts modest disclosure and registration-process changes while leaving Rule 6c-11's core intact for traditional holdings - a win for the industry's process arguments, a partial win for the commission's oversight concerns. In the upside case for sponsors, the commission embraces confidential pre-filing and predictable timelines without touching portfolio conditions, clearing the way for another wave of product launches. In the downside case, the commission excludes whole asset classes from Rule 6c-11 reliance and tightens Rule 485(a), forcing novel products back toward the exemptive-order queue and handing incumbents a durable advantage.
The outcome will decide not just which products reach market, but what the word ETF means in American finance - and whether the rule that unlocked the industry's growth becomes the rule that slows it down.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
