The SEC’s generic listing standards, approved September 17, 2025, cut spot crypto exchange-traded product (ETP) launches to roughly 75 days — but staking products sit outside the fast track and still face individual review, splitting the US market in two just as Hong Kong writes staking directly into its fund rules and the EU routes around the question entirely.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares on September 17, 2025, allowing NYSE Arca, Nasdaq and Cboe BZX to list qualifying spot crypto ETPs under Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(e) without individual Commission approval. What the standards deliberately exclude is any product that stakes, lends or rehypothecates trust assets — those still require case-by-case review. Bitwise’s July 2, 2026 amendment adding staking to its proposed NEAR ETF makes that exclusion the live regulatory question of the second half of 2026, and this analysis walks through the rule mechanics, the four-jurisdiction divergence, and what the two-track regime means for issuers, exchanges and compliance teams.

Key Facts:

• The SEC approved generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares on three exchanges on September 17, 2025, under Exchange Act Section 6(b)(5) and Rule 19b-4(e) — SEC press release 2025-121
• Time-to-market for qualifying spot crypto ETPs falls from up to 240 days of 19b-4 review to roughly 75 days driven by S-1 registration — SEC / industry estimates, September 2025
• Three eligibility pathways: trading on an Intermarket Surveillance Group (ISG) member market; a futures contract listed at least six months on a CFTC-designated contract market; or an existing ETF providing at least 40% net-asset-value exposure — Commissioner Peirce statement, September 17, 2025
• Products involving staking, revenue-sharing or rehypothecation of trust assets remain outside the generic standards and need individual approvals — Dechert OnPoint, October 2025
• Bitwise’s S-1/A of July 2, 2026 adds staking as a second objective of its proposed NEAR ETF, naming NYSE Arca as listing venue — SEC EDGAR
• Hong Kong’s SFC has permitted SFC-authorised virtual-asset funds to stake through licensed platforms, subject to a cap and prior SFC approval, since April 7, 2025 — SFC circular
• Grayscale Investments, LLC v. SEC, 82 F.4th 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2023) forced the approval pathway the generic standards now codify — D.C. Circuit opinion

Methodology and sources

This analysis rests on primary documents: the SEC’s September 17, 2025 approval of the exchanges’ proposed rule changes (press release 2025-121 and the accompanying Federal Register order of September 22, 2025), Commissioner Hester Peirce’s and Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw’s same-day statements, the Bitwise NEAR ETF Form S-1/A filed July 2, 2026, and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission’s (SFC) April 7, 2025 revision of its December 22, 2023 circular on authorised funds with virtual-asset exposure. Secondary analysis draws on the Dechert OnPoint client alert of October 2025. Jurisdictional scope: United States, Hong Kong, European Union and Canada. Time window: September 2025 through July 6, 2026. Caveat: the SEC has not published a formal position on the Bitwise NEAR staking amendment; its treatment is inferred from the standards’ text and the Solana staking-fund precedents.

What the rule actually says

The generic listing standards operate through Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(e) (17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)): once the Commission has approved an exchange’s trading rules, procedures and listing standards for a product class, a new product fitting that class is not a “proposed rule change” requiring its own filing. Before September 2025, every spot crypto ETP needed an individual 19b-4 approval — a process that consumed up to 240 days and, in Bitcoin’s case, a decade of rejections. Now the exchange simply certifies the product against the generic standards and the issuer’s timetable is governed by S-1 registration review, in practice about 75 days.

Eligibility under the generic listing standards runs through three alternative pathways, and a crypto asset needs only one. First, the asset trades on a market belonging to the Intermarket Surveillance Group, giving the listing exchange cross-market surveillance reach. Second, the asset underlies a futures contract that has traded for at least six months on a CFTC-regulated designated contract market — the pathway Bitcoin and Ether cleared through CME futures, and the one most large-cap altcoins now target. Third, an existing exchange-traded fund providing at least 40% of its net asset value in economic exposure to the asset already lists on a national securities exchange. Commissioner Peirce’s September 17, 2025 statement records all three tests, and notes that exchanges may propose additional objective criteria over time — meaning the eligible universe is designed to expand without further Commission votes (SEC statement, September 17, 2025).

The carve-out matters as much as the fast track. As Dechert’s October 2025 client alert puts it, products with “staking, revenue-sharing, or rehypothecation of trust assets will also continue to need to seek individual approvals.” A plain spot NEAR trust could qualify generically; the moment Bitwise added staking as a second trust objective in its July 2, 2026 S-1/A, the product stepped outside the generic lane.

Jurisdiction / Regulator	Spot crypto ETP route	Effective date	Staking treatment	Key reference
US (SEC; NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, Cboe BZX)	Generic listing standards under Rule 19b-4(e); ~75-day S-1 timetable	September 17, 2025	Outside generic standards; individual approval required for staking/revenue-sharing/rehypothecation	SEC press release 2025-121; 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)
Hong Kong (SFC)	SFC-authorised virtual-asset funds, including spot BTC/ETH ETFs listed April 2024	December 22, 2023 circular; revised April 7, 2025	Permitted through licensed VATPs or authorised institutions, subject to a management-set cap and prior SFC approval	SFC circular on SFC-authorised funds with exposure to virtual assets
EU (ESMA / national regulators)	No UCITS route — direct crypto holdings ineligible; exposure via exchange-traded notes under the Prospectus Regulation	MiCA fully applicable December 30, 2024	Not addressed at fund level; MiCA Article 2(4)(a) excludes crypto-assets qualifying as MiFID II financial instruments	Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA)
Canada (OSC / CSA)	Prospectus-qualified spot funds since the Purpose Bitcoin ETF, February 18, 2021	February 2021	Staking permitted in ether funds with regulator sign-off since 2023	OSC prospectus decisions

Sources: SEC press release 2025-121 (September 17, 2025); SFC circular of April 7, 2025; Regulation (EU) 2023/1114; OSC decisions. Last updated July 6, 2026.

How the four jurisdictions compare

The US now has the fastest spot lane and the slowest staking lane of any major market. Hong Kong took the opposite sequencing: the SFC authorised spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs in April 2024, then resolved staking by rule rather than by product-by-product review — its April 7, 2025 circular lets authorised virtual-asset funds stake through licensed trading platforms or authorised institutions, capped at a level the manager must justify against liquidity needs, with staked holdings remaining in licensed custody and prior SFC consultation required. That is a conservative regime, but it is a written one: a Hong Kong issuer knows the conditions in advance.

The EU’s divergence is structural rather than philosophical. Direct crypto holdings remain ineligible for UCITS funds, so European exposure trades as exchange-traded notes under national prospectus regimes — debt instruments, not fund shares — and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) does not fill the gap because Article 2(4)(a) excludes crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II). The result is regulatory-arbitrage pressure in both directions: US issuers advertise a 75-day path that Europe cannot match, while staking-yield products list in Hong Kong and Toronto under conditions Washington has not yet written down. Canada, which approved the world’s first spot Bitcoin ETF in February 2021 and folded staking into ether funds two years later, demonstrates that neither question is technically novel — only procedurally unresolved in the US.

“By approving these generic listing standards, we are ensuring that our capital markets remain the best place in the world to engage in the cutting-edge innovation of digital assets. This approval helps to maximize investor choice and foster innovation by streamlining the listing process and reducing barriers to access digital asset products within America’s trusted capital markets.”

— Paul S. Atkins, Chairman, US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC press release 2025-121)

Enforcement and litigation context

The generic standards codify a position the Commission was litigated into. In Grayscale Investments, LLC v. SEC, 82 F.4th 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2023), decided August 29, 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SEC’s denial of Grayscale’s spot Bitcoin ETP conversion as arbitrary and capricious, holding the agency had failed to explain why it approved Bitcoin-futures ETPs while rejecting a spot product resting on the same underlying market. Commissioner Peirce’s September 17, 2025 statement acknowledges the lineage — the Commission acted “after notorious delay and judicial prodding” — and the surveillance-sharing logic the court examined in Grayscale survives directly in the generic standards’ ISG and designated-contract-market pathways.

The asset-eligibility question carries its own enforcement history. XRP funds now extending a third consecutive month of inflows — tracked in our XRP ETF flow coverage — exist only because SEC v. Ripple Labs, Inc., No. 20-cv-10832 (S.D.N.Y.), ended with an August 7, 2024 judgment imposing a $125 million civil penalty over institutional sales while leaving programmatic exchange sales outside Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. That split holding is what let exchanges treat XRP as a commodity-pathway candidate rather than an unregistered security. The precedent cuts both ways for the 100-plus filings now queued: an asset’s eligibility under the generic standards is only as stable as its securities-law characterisation, which the pending CLARITY Act market-structure split would finally place on a statutory footing.

What this means for issuers, exchanges and compliance teams

For issuers, the operational fork is explicit. A spot-only trust on an eligible asset is a certification exercise: confirm the asset clears one of the three pathways, file the S-1, and plan for roughly 75 days. Adding staking converts the filing into a negotiated approval with no published timetable — which is why Bitwise’s NEAR amendment, covered in our report on the July 2 filing, functions as the market’s test case. Issuers that cannot wait are structuring yield through fee mechanics instead, as with the 0.14% staking pass-through pricing seen on ETH and SOL products.

For exchanges, the certification burden shifts in-house: listing teams must document pathway eligibility — six-month DCM futures history, ISG membership of the underlying market, or the 40% NAV-exposure test — at listing and on an ongoing basis, because a delisted futures contract or a shrinking reference ETF can knock an asset out of eligibility. For compliance and legal teams at fund managers, the two documents to diarise are the S-1 effectiveness date (the new gating item) and any staking rider, which triggers the individual-review lane and should be priced into launch calendars as an open-ended timeline. EU-facing teams face the added complication that none of this maps onto MiCA authorisation, which governs service providers rather than fund products — a distinction our MiCA grandfathering analysis covers in depth.

“The Commission is passing the buck on reviewing these proposals and making the required investor protection findings, in favor of fast tracking these new and arguably unproven products to market.”

— Caroline A. Crenshaw, Commissioner, US Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC statement, September 17, 2025)

The forward view

Three things are pending. First, the Bitwise NEAR S-1/A: if the SEC lets a staking-enabled trust proceed on an ordinary S-1 timetable, the individual-review lane collapses into the fast track in practice, whatever the standards say; if it stalls, expect issuers to split products into spot trusts now and staking amendments later. Second, pathway expansion: Peirce’s statement invites exchanges to propose additional objective eligibility criteria — quantitative liquidity or market-cap tests are the obvious candidates — which would widen the generic universe beyond assets with six-month futures histories. Third, the statutory overlay: the CLARITY Act’s SEC/CFTC boundary would harden asset eligibility that today rests on litigation outcomes like Ripple. The contested question underneath all three is Crenshaw’s: whether investor-protection findings can be made generically for a product class this young. The first staking-product approval — or refusal — will answer it.

FAQ

What are the SEC’s generic listing standards for crypto ETPs?

They are exchange rules, approved September 17, 2025, that let NYSE Arca, Nasdaq and Cboe BZX list Commodity-Based Trust Shares — including spot crypto ETPs — without an individual SEC approval under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Qualifying products rely on Rule 19b-4(e), and time-to-market falls to roughly 75 days, governed by S-1 registration review rather than a bespoke rule filing.

Which crypto assets qualify under the generic standards?

An asset needs one of three pathways: it trades on an Intermarket Surveillance Group member market; it underlies a futures contract listed for at least six months on a CFTC-designated contract market; or an existing exchange-traded fund providing at least 40% of net asset value in exposure to it already lists on a national securities exchange. Exchanges may propose additional objective criteria over time.

Why are staking ETFs excluded from the fast track?

The approved standards cover passive trusts holding the commodity. Products involving staking, revenue-sharing or rehypothecation of trust assets fall outside the product class the Commission pre-approved, so each still requires its own review. The concern is operational: staked assets carry lock-up, slashing and custody risks that a passive spot trust does not, and the Commission has not yet made generic investor-protection findings for them.

What is the significance of the Bitwise NEAR filing?

Bitwise’s Form S-1/A of July 2, 2026 adds staking as a second objective of its proposed NEAR ETF and names NYSE Arca as the listing venue. It is the cleanest test of whether a staking-enabled trust can move through registration on a normal timetable or will be held in individual review — the outcome will set the template for the altcoin ETF queue behind it.

How does Hong Kong regulate staking in crypto ETFs?

The SFC’s April 7, 2025 revision of its December 22, 2023 circular permits SFC-authorised virtual-asset funds to stake, but only through licensed virtual-asset trading platforms or authorised institutions, subject to a cap the manager must justify against liquidity needs, with staked holdings kept in licensed custody and prior SFC consultation and approval required before an existing fund adds staking.

Can EU funds hold spot crypto?

Not as UCITS — direct crypto holdings remain ineligible, so European retail exposure trades mainly as exchange-traded notes issued under national prospectus regimes. MiCA does not change this: Article 2(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 excludes crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments under MiFID II, and MiCA governs service providers rather than fund products.

What did Grayscale v. SEC decide?

In Grayscale Investments, LLC v. SEC, 82 F.4th 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2023), the D.C. Circuit vacated the SEC’s rejection of Grayscale’s spot Bitcoin ETP conversion as arbitrary and capricious, because the agency approved futures-based products resting on the same underlying market. The ruling forced the January 2024 spot Bitcoin approvals and supplied the surveillance-sharing logic the generic standards now codify.

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.