Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett)

🚨NEW: The @SECGov just updated its crypto FAQ on token buybacks to add a stipulation that if there is no central party behind those token buybacks, then this arrangement likely does not constitute an investment contract. It comes following comments from @a16zcrypto General Counsel and Head of Policy @milesjennings last week that the prior wording could “empower an issuer to announce the buyback program without that announcement then creating an investment contract.”

🚨NEW: SEC staff has issued new FAQs clarifying how the Commission’s March interpretive release on digital assets applies to token functionality, staking receipt tokens and investment contracts. Among the guidance: once a network is functional, services to maintain, improve or grow it generally would not count as “essential managerial efforts” under the Howey test. The FAQs reflect staff views and have no legal force or effect.

Might be a hot take, but I didn’t read the @jpmorgan blog post as backing the Clarity Act, as some have suggested. While the authors praised digital assets for their potential to enable tokenization and modernize financial infrastructure, they stopped short of endorsing any specific legislation, instead advocating more broadly for a digital asset market structure “framework” with stronger safeguards, while echoing concerns JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has previously raised about stablecoin yield and illicit finance. The line that stood out to me was the paragraph immediately after the authors outlined the bank’s digital asset initiatives: “Responsible innovation is already possible within existing guardrails, and it can scale further with the right framework in place.” To me, that suggests JPM believes it can already innovate responsibly under today’s regulatory framework, while viewing market structure legislation as beneficial if it also addresses long-standing concerns around stablecoin yield and illicit finance.