Six blockchain organizations, including the Cardano Foundation, have asked the US Securities and Exchange Commission to make its “digital commodity” definition official. They want it written into the binding text of a proposed rule, not left in guidance that can change.
The joint comment letter landed on October 20, 2026, the last day of the public comment period.
Who signed and what they want
The co-signers are Aptos Labs, Ava Labs, Cardano Foundation, Chainlink Labs, Hedera, and Stellar Development Foundation. Together they represent the teams behind APT, AVAX, ADA, LINK, HBAR, and XLM.
Their target is the SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets rule. The letter urges the agency to firmly codify the digital commodity definition within the rule’s operative text.
That detail matters more than it sounds. The operative text is the part of a regulation that actually binds. Preambles, footnotes, and staff guidance can explain or interpret a rule, but they carry less weight.
The groups argue that putting the definition in the rule itself would give developers and other participants long-term regulatory certainty. A token’s status would not hinge on how the next set of officials reads informal guidance.
Taylor Barr, head of policy at Chainlink, framed the push around durability. He emphasized that building lasting regulatory foundations into US law would help keep the country an attractive place for digital asset innovation.
The March footnote that set the stage
The six tokens tied to the letter already share some regulatory history. ADA, XLM, HBAR, APT, AVAX, and LINK were referenced in a footnote of the SEC’s March 17, 2026 guidance.
That footnote connected the tokens to futures regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC oversees commodity derivatives, while the SEC oversees securities. Which side of that line a token falls on shapes how it can be listed, traded, and marketed in the US.
Being named in a footnote is a signal. It is not a guarantee. Footnotes in guidance documents do not have the legal staying power of rule text, which helps explain why the issuers behind these tokens want something sturdier.
The comment period formally closed on October 20, 2026. The SEC may still continue accepting feedback after that date, so the October filing may not be the final word from the industry.
Ripple files its own letter
The six-party coalition was not the only voice that day. Ripple submitted a separate comment letter on October 20 that supported the same general effort.
Ripple’s letter focused on refining existing classifications rather than challenging the broader rulemaking.
Why this fight keeps coming back
The proposed regulation is meant to address ongoing confusion in the crypto sector about how tokens are treated under US law. That confusion has been sharpened by enforcement actions against major players such as Binance and Coinbase.
The digital commodity label is attractive to token issuers for a straightforward reason. A commodity classification would place a token outside the securities framework that drives much of the SEC’s enforcement activity.
The coalition’s argument is that a definition living in guidance is vulnerable. Guidance can be revised, reinterpreted, or withdrawn with far less process than amending a formal rule.
What this means for the market and builders
There are real limits. Comment letters are requests, not outcomes. The SEC is under no obligation to adopt the coalition’s language, and the final rule could look different from the proposal.
The final shape of Regulation Crypto Assets is the key variable. Watch whether the adopted text includes a binding digital commodity definition, and whether it references specific criteria that tokens like ADA would need to meet.
For ADA holders specifically, the letter does not change the token’s legal status today. It puts the Cardano Foundation on record asking the SEC to give the commodity framework, and the tokens tied to it, a firmer legal footing than a footnote can provide.
Disclosure: This article was edited by John Chen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.