The SEC's crypto broker-dealer rule has no public text

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has transmitted a proposed rule on broker-dealer capital, customer protection and recordkeeping for crypto assets, regulatory identification number 3235-AN48, for Executive Order 12866 review, but it has not published the rule text, so registered broker-dealers remain under the existing Exchange Act rules and under staff views that the Division of Trading and Markets says have no legal force.

Reginfo.gov shows the action, titled “Amendments to Broker-Dealer Financial Responsibility and Recordkeeping and Reporting Rules Regarding Crypto Assets,” was received on November 3, 2026, at the proposed-rule stage, marked economically significant, with no legal deadline. The Unified Agenda abstract says the Division is considering recommending amendments to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3, other broker-dealer financial responsibility rules, and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4, under sections 15(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The account stays inside that record: what those rules already require, what staff will not object to, and how the European Union and Hong Kong already publish capital figures this file does not.

Key facts

• Received for Executive Order 12866 review on November 3, 2026. Stage: Proposed Rule. Economically significant: Yes. Legal deadline: none (review record).
• Agenda Publication ID 2026 cites Exchange Act sections 15(c) and 17(a), has no CFR citation, and shows a July 2026 date with no Federal Register cite (agenda page).
• No public proposing release as of November 12, 2026. This article does not draft one.
• Staff non-objection: 20% commodity haircut on proprietary bitcoin or ether (May 15, 2025); 2% on a proprietary payment stablecoin (February 19, 2026) (staff FAQs).
• December 17, 2025 possession statement under Rule 15c3-3(b)(1) says it has no legal force (custody statement).
• JP Morgan Securities LLC: US$125 million, Release No. 93807 (December 17, 2021), Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-4(j) (press release 2021-262).
• Different file, RIN 3235-AN46, is public: Releases IA-7023 and IC-36353, comments due December 7, 2026 (adviser proposal).

Methodology and sources

The file for 3235-AN48 is the Executive Order 12866 card received on November 3, 2026 and the Unified Agenda entry, Publication ID 2026. The agenda contact is Raymond Lombardo, Division of Trading and Markets, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, telephone 202 551-5755. Around it, the account uses the staff FAQs, the December 17, 2025 custody statement, Commissioner Hester M. Peirce’s statements, the December 20, 2024 reserve adoption, and Release No. 34-96034 (RIN 3235-AM76). Comparison uses Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) guidelines effective June 1, 2023, plus the July 2025 handbook. Enforcement is Release No 93807, the window closes November 12, 2026, and silence in the abstract stays silence, with the primary documents linked below.

Related:Industry chairs the European Tokenisation Standards Group

What the existing rules require, and what 3235-AN48 does not say

RIN 3235-AN48 is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed-rule entry titled “Amendments to Broker-Dealer Financial Responsibility and Recordkeeping and Reporting Rules Regarding Crypto Assets.” The Executive Order 12866 review record shows receipt on November 3, 2026, marks the stage as Proposed Rule, marks the action economically significant, and lists no legal deadline. The Unified Agenda abstract says the Division of Trading and Markets is considering recommending amendments to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3, other broker-dealer financial responsibility rules, and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4, under sections 15(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to address crypto assets. The agenda lists the Code of Federal Regulations citation as not yet determined and shows no Federal Register citation beside the July 2026 timetable entry. As of November 12, 2026, the Commission had yet to publish a proposing release for this RIN, so the review record remains a docket card rather than rule text, and nothing below reconstructs language the Commission has yet to release.

Section 15(c) authorises the financial responsibility rules: Rule 15c3-1 on net capital, and Rule 15c3-3 on possession or control of fully paid and excess margin securities and on the customer reserve. Section 17(a) authorises Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 on making and preserving records. The abstract names them and stops, leaving the haircut unset and leaving open whether a non-security crypto asset would enter Rule 15c3-3.

On December 20, 2024 the Commission required a daily customer and PAB reserve computation for firms with average total credits of at least US$500 million, starting by December 31, 2025 for the July 31, 2024 to June 30, 2025 FOCUS window, and cut the debit charge from 3% to 2% (press release 2024-211, Release No. 34-102022). Release No. 34-96034 (RIN 3235-AM76), effective January 3, 2023, added an audit-trail alternative to write-once storage. Neither of those two releases mentions crypto assets at all.

Staff have filled the gap and labelled it as staff work. The May 15, 2025 FAQs confine Rule 15c3-3(b) to securities and treat Release No 90788 (December 23, 2020) as optional guidance rather than a mandate. They will not object to a 20% Appendix B haircut on proprietary bitcoin or ether, or, from February 19, 2026, to a 2% haircut on a proprietary payment stablecoin. The FAQ ties that term to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation in U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (GENIUS Act), effective the earlier of January 18, 2027 or 120 days after banking regulators issue implementing rules.

The December 17, 2025 statement covers only possession under Rule 15c3-3(b)(1): ability to transfer, a ledger assessment, private-key controls, and plans for forks, attacks and a wind-down. Footnote 1 says the text “has no legal force or effect.” The Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 is unchanged. Staff say a non-security crypto asset is not protected, and they describe SIPC cover for securities and cash as up to US$500,000, including US$250,000 in cash.

How the United States, the European Union and Hong Kong compare

A US broker-dealer’s crypto-asset capital figure is still a staff position under Rule 15c3-1, not a crypto-specific statute. On May 15, 2025, staff said they would not object if proprietary bitcoin or ether were treated as readily marketable for the 20% commodity haircut in Appendix B. On February 19, 2026, they said they would not object to a 2% haircut on the greater of the long or short proprietary position in a payment stablecoin. Those lines leave the Code of Federal Regulations unchanged. Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 already requires prudential safeguards equal to the higher of the Annex IV minimum — €50,000, €125,000 or €150,000 by service — or one quarter of the preceding year’s fixed overheads. Hong Kong requires paid-up share capital of at least HK$5 million and liquid capital of at least the higher of HK$3 million and the basic amount. The record for 3235-AN48 states no equivalent figure, because it contains no rule text.

Sources: reginfo.gov entries for 3235-AN48; SEC press releases 2024-211 and 2021-262; Release No. 93807; Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, Articles 67 and 111 and Annex IV; SFC G.N. 3121 and the July 2025 handbook. Compiled November 12, 2026 from the documents named in this caption.

The three regimes license different activities. MiCA’s figure has applied since December 30, 2024, and Hong Kong’s expense buffer cannot be virtual assets. A 2% haircut is not an own-funds minimum. The card answers “International Impacts: No.” RIN 3235-AN46, a different statute, is covered in the adviser custody piece. The broader crypto agenda covers a separate set of items.

“In my view, a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins (generally, U.S. dollars, short-term U.S. Treasury securities and other similar instruments).”

— Commissioner Hester Peirce, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission (“Cutting by Two Would Do,” February 19, 2026)

A books-and-records penalty still sits on a rule the agenda names

The case matching Section 17(a) is not a crypto case. Release No. 93807 (December 17, 2021), File No. 3-20681, found that J.P. Morgan Securities LLC willfully violated Section 17(a) and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-4(j). From January 2018 through November 2020, employees, including managing directors, used text, WhatsApp and personal email for securities business, and the firm failed to keep those records, and the penalty was US$125 million. The Form 8-K adds a US$75 million Commodity Futures Trading Commission penalty for affiliates. See the order, the press release, and Industry Spread’s note on the combined resolution.

The order addresses vanished communications rather than a token-ledger standard, and it shows that Rule 17a-4 is already enforceable when those communications disappear. The abstract says only that amendments are under consideration “to address the application of these rules to crypto assets.” FAQ question 9, a staff view that a firm could keep similar records for a non-security crypto business, is not that amendment.

“Since the 1930s, recordkeeping and books-and-records obligations have been an essential part of market integrity and a foundational component of the SEC’s ability to be an effective cop on the beat.”

— Gary Gensler, then Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC press release 2021-262, December 17, 2021)

What this means for brokers, venues, fund managers and compliance teams

A carrying broker-dealer still follows the codified rules. Proprietary bitcoin or ether may use the staff’s Appendix B haircut. A payment stablecoin may use the 2% figure only while it meets the FAQ, which changes on the GENIUS Act date. Customer crypto asset securities raise Rule 15c3-3(b)(1). The December 17, 2025 statement leaves the reserve formula as adopted, and non-security crypto assets stay outside it and outside SIPC. None of that is text of 3235-AN48.

The examining authority is a separate gate. The custody statement cites Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 1017 and says nothing in the statement alters that duty. A staff note is not an application for a change in business. One firm’s completed FINRA membership is a registration fact, not evidence of what this amendment will say. Who must register as a broker at all is a prior question, covered in the licence test the Commission left standing.

For an alternative trading system, the December 17, 2025 FAQs allow pairs trading of a security against a non-security crypto asset only if existing duties, including a Regulation ATS notice, are met. The operator still faces net capital and customer protection. RIN 3235-AN48 is not, on the public card, a rewrite of Regulation ATS. A separate, public transfer-agent proposal deals with ledger records under another statute. For an adviser, the open text remains RIN 3235-AN46.

Compliance teams can file Release Nos. 34-102022, 34-96034 and 93807. They can attach the December 17, 2025 statement only as footnote 1 describes it, and the reginfo.gov card only as proof a proposal was pending. They cannot attach the card as a haircut matrix. The Division phone line on the custody statement is a contact number, separate from a Commission release.

What happens after a review that has no legal deadline

On November 12, 2026 the review had been pending for nine days. The card gives no conclusion date. The card lists the legal deadline as none. The July 2026 agenda slot, entered as 07/00/2026, passed with no Federal Register citation. A missed month is not a reading of the draft. Executive Order 12866 review does not open comments. Notice under the Administrative Procedure Act starts when a proposal is published.

The Executive Order 14192 designation is “Other,” and “Major” is undetermined. The card leaves the Dodd-Frank flag blank and sits outside the Regulatory Plan. Commissioner Peirce asked for Commission-level work on Rules 15c3-3 and 15c3-1, and the filing names both rules, which falls short of proof that the unpublished draft does what she asked. The line between a crypto asset security and one that is not, which staff currently use for Rule 15c3-3(b) and for SIPA, is a line the abstract leaves undrawn, and only a published release would draw it.

Two other dates are easy to misread as dates for this file. Adviser-custody comments run to December 7, 2026. The stablecoin FAQ changes on the GENIUS Act date, the earlier of January 18, 2027 or 120 days after implementing rules. Neither is an effective date for 3235-AN48.

TL;DR

RIN 3235-AN48 has been in Executive Order 12866 review since November 3, 2026. It is a proposed rule, economically significant, with no legal deadline and no public text. The agenda names Rules 15c3-1, 15c3-3, 17a-3 and 17a-4 under Exchange Act sections 15(c) and 17(a), and states no haircut, possession test or retention period. Staff will not object to a 20% commodity haircut on proprietary bitcoin or ether, or 2% on a qualifying payment stablecoin, and a December 17, 2025 statement on possession says it has no legal force. The books-and-records benchmark remains the US$125 million penalty in Release No. 93807 against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. MiCA and Hong Kong already publish capital figures that this file still lacks.

FAQ

What is RIN 3235-AN48?

It is the regulatory identification number for an SEC action titled “Amendments to Broker-Dealer Financial Responsibility and Recordkeeping and Reporting Rules Regarding Crypto Assets.” The Unified Agenda, Publication ID 2026, places it at the proposed-rule stage and marks it economically significant. The abstract says the Division of Trading and Markets is considering recommending amendments to Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3, other financial responsibility rules, and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4. Legal authority is listed as Exchange Act sections 15(c) and 17(a). No Code of Federal Regulations citation has been assigned.

Is there a public rule text?

As of November 12, 2026 the Commission had yet to post a proposing release, and the agenda shows no Federal Register citation. The review record shows receipt on November 3, 2026, and the review was still pending. A card records a title, a stage and flags such as economic significance, while the operative requirements await a proposing release, and nothing here invents them. A firm cannot draft a control or a comment from language that has not been released.

Does the December 17, 2025 staff statement amend Rule 15c3-3?

Staff say they will not object to a “physical possession” claim for a crypto asset security if the firm can transfer it, assesses the ledger, protects private keys and plans for failures and a wind-down. The statement covers only paragraph (b)(1), and only possession, not control. Footnote 1 says the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved it and that it has no legal force. Commissioner Peirce asked the same day for real amendments. A request is not a rule.

What haircut have staff said they will not object to?

On May 15, 2025 staff said they would not object if proprietary bitcoin or ether were treated as readily marketable for the 20% commodity haircut in Appendix B of Rule 15c3-1. On February 19, 2026 they said they would not object to a 2% haircut on the greater of the long or short position in a payment stablecoin meeting the FAQ’s definition. Commissioner Peirce said a 100% haircut, which some firms had considered, would be unnecessarily punitive. None of those figures appears in a published amendment under 3235-AN48.

Does SIPC protect crypto assets held at a broker-dealer?

Staff say no, unless the asset is a SIPA security. An investment contract qualifies only if it is the subject of a Securities Act registration statement. Non-security crypto assets are outside that cover. The FAQs describe SIPC protection for securities and cash as up to US$500,000 per customer, including a US$250,000 cash limit. A contract to treat other crypto assets as financial assets under Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code might keep them out of the estate. That contract would remain a commercial arrangement, separate from SIPC protection, and amending the statute would require a release this proposal has yet to become.

How is this different from the adviser custody proposal?

RIN 3235-AN46 is the public adviser-custody proposal, file number S7-2026-35, releases IA-7023 and IC-36353, issued October 1, 2026, on adviser and fund custody of crypto assets, with comments due December 7, 2026. RIN 3235-AN48 is an Exchange Act broker-dealer file received for review on November 3, 2026, still without text and without a comment deadline, and the two files rest on different statutes. Commenting on the adviser release does not comment on the broker-dealer file, because that file has not been published.

This article is informational analysis only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or investment advice. Regulatory frameworks change frequently and interpretation depends on facts and circumstances; primary documents and official regulator guidance always supersede summaries. Firms should consult qualified legal counsel and their relevant supervisory authority before taking any action based on the analysis above.