Avalanche sits at the center of the SEC’s evolving crypto framework, and as a securities law nerd, this is the kind of debate I genuinely enjoy. With the agency’s 2026 interpretation recognizing “digital commodities” and Ava Labs advancing a functional, infrastructure-first approach, the analysis is becoming more precise. This piece explores whether AVAX fits within securities law, how the SEC’s latest guidance reshapes the landscape, and where automation, liability, and real-world network activity still leave meaningful open questions.
The CFTC did what needed to be done. The tension between federal derivatives law and state gambling regimes around prediction markets has been building for years, with states pushing back through enforcement. This move forces the issue into a federal forum and puts jurisdiction squarely where the Commodity Exchange Act says it belongs. It also reflects the underlying competitive dynamic, as these markets sit directly alongside state-regulated gaming. For participants in the space, this is a meaningful step toward clarity and stability.
Robo-advisers are not a regulatory shortcut. They are fully regulated investment advisers operating through code. While automation reduces human infrastructure, it embeds fiduciary duties, disclosure obligations, and compliance requirements directly into the platform. For fintech founders and financial institutions, success depends on designing systems that satisfy the Advisers Act at scale.
The DOJ’s indictment of John Dean Daghita for the alleged theft of $46 million in U.S. Marshals Service crypto assets reveals a deeper institutional breakdown: flawed custody design, concentrated authority, and a failure to apply basic financial controls to digital assets.
The SEC’s definition of a “small investment adviser” hasn’t kept up with reality, and it shows in how rules are written and analyzed. Firms managing $150–300 million in AUM are still treated like large institutions, even though many are lean, founder-led operations navigating real compliance strain. A proposed shift to a $1 billion threshold is a step in the right direction, but without legislative backing, it may not stick. This piece breaks down why the definition matters, how it shapes regulatory outcomes, and what needs to happen next.
The SEC’s 2026 CAT amendment reduces costs, limits data retention, and introduces a spending cap. Key implications for broker-dealers and market structure.
A Securities Docket poll showing 85% support for judicial recusal has sparked renewed debate after Elon Musk’s legal team moved to disqualify a Delaware judge over a LinkedIn “like.” This piece examines how that poll reflects public sentiment, while contrasting it with the governing legal standards for recusal under Delaware law and key precedent like Liteky and Caperton. The result is a clear tension between optics and doctrine, with the law suggesting a far higher threshold for disqualification than the poll implies.
The SEC’s case against Ally Invest is a reminder that “no fee” does not mean no conflict. When incentives shape portfolio design, advisers must say so clearly. A closer look at disclosure, fiduciary duty, and where robo-advisers get it wrong.
A federal jury delivered a split verdict in Pampena v. Musk, a rare securities class action tied to Elon Musk’s Twitter acquisition. The case highlights growing exposure around public statements, including social media, and their impact on stock prices during M&A transactions.
FINRA’s proposed amendments to Rule 2210 signal a meaningful evolution in broker-dealer communications, moving away from a categorical prohibition on performance projections toward a principles-based framework grounded in substantiation and disclosure. The proposal reflects both market realities and regulatory convergence, while placing renewed emphasis on rigor, transparency, and supervisory oversight.
The SEC’s 2026 interpretive framework on crypto does more than clarify how Howey applies, it introduces a long-missing concept into securities law: time. In Howey Reconstructed, we examine how the Commission reframes the investment contract as a dynamic condition rather than a static classification, and why that shift matters not just for digital assets, but for the future of securities regulation more broadly. The result is a more coherent, lifecycle-based approach that finally addresses when the securities laws stop applying.
Arizona’s criminal charges against Kalshi mark a turning point in the regulation of prediction markets, escalating the conflict between federal commodities law and state gambling regimes. This article examines the legal and structural implications of the case, including preemption, CFTC authority, and the growing tension between derivatives markets and sportsbook regulation. As prediction markets continue to expand, this enforcement action may shape the future of event-based trading in the United States.
The SEC’s proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-11 mark a long-overdue correction to years of regulatory uncertainty affecting fixed-income markets. By narrowing the rule’s scope to equity securities, the Commission is realigning its application with market reality and prior intent. This article breaks down what went wrong, why it matters, and what the proposal signals for future rulemaking and regulatory discipline.
The SEC’s March 17, 2026 crypto guidance marks a turning point in digital asset regulation. By clarifying token classifications and, critically, when an investment contract begins and ends under Howey, the Commission introduces a lifecycle-based framework that brings long-awaited structure to the market. This article breaks down what the new interpretation means for crypto projects, investors, and regulatory strategy going forward.
On February 24, 2026, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement published a revised Enforcement Manual. This article is a clean-room, original discussion of the press release and the 2026 Enforcement Manual. It is also meant to sit naturally inside the enforcement “throughline” I have been building on Anderson Insights: the idea that enforcement outcomes are increasingly driven by (i) data and surveillance sophistication, (ii) procedural architecture, and (iii) the downstream consequences of resolutions, often more than the headline penalty itself.
This piece analyzes the CFTC’s advisory confirming that prediction markets are regulated derivatives subject to anti-fraud and manipulation rules. Braeden Anderson explains how insider trading doctrines apply to event contracts and what this means for exchanges, fintech platforms, and sophisticated traders operating in evolving markets.
The SEC Division of Trading and Markets updated its crypto FAQs on February 19, 2026 to add new net capital guidance for “payment stablecoins.” Specifically, the staff states it will not object if a broker-dealer treats a proprietary position in a qualifying payment stablecoin as having a “ready market” under Rule 15c3-1 and applies a 2% haircut to the market value of the greater of the long or short position.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce used their ETHDenver 2026 remarks to outline the SEC’s evolving approach to crypto regulation, including a possible innovation exemption for tokenized securities, new guidance on investment contracts, and planned rulemaking on custody and transfer agent modernization. This post summarizes what they said and what it signals for crypto issuers, exchanges, broker-dealers, and blockchain developers.
Backbone confirmed. In a development that underscores the accelerating evolution of financial innovation policy, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig has publicly articulated a significant shift in the agency’s posture on prediction markets — just days after my commentary highlighted expectations for decisive leadership.
On January 28, 2026, staff from the SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets published a joint statement aimed at one thing: forcing the market to be precise about what, exactly, is being “tokenized.” What follows is our practitioner’s read: the taxonomy, the legal consequences that flow from each branch, and a compliance checklist for anyone building in the space.
Fintech founders love referral programs for the same reason regulators are skeptical of them: incentives work.
If you are offering an interval fund direct-to-consumer (especially on a “self-distributed” model), a well-designed incentive program can become your most efficient acquisition channel. The wrong program, or the right program implemented the wrong way, can create problems fast: unregistered broker activity, improper compensated solicitation, and RIA Marketing Rule violations, often all at once.
This article is meant to help you spot the issues early, frame the choices, and understand why “just pay people for referrals” is not a clean concept in the securities world. It is not a blueprint you can copy-paste into your business. The details matter, and the compliance architecture matters even more.
On January 26, 2026, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda delivered the Alan B. Levenson Keynote Address at the 53rd Annual Securities Regulation Institute in Coronado, California, laying out a clear theme for the Commission’s next phase of disclosure policy: tighten the focus on materiality, reduce low-value compliance load, and recalibrate requirements for smaller issuers. The speech is notable not just for its tone, but for its specificity. Uyeda does not speak in abstractions. He names the parts of Regulation S-K he thinks are ripe for revision and ties the policy direction to a broader institutional effort.
Braeden Anderson, Sr. was quoted in Bloomberg Law’s article, “Crypto, Prediction Market Chiefs Gain Sway as CFTC Advisers,” by Ben Miller, where he discussed the CFTC’s evolving approach to prediction markets: “The inclusion of prediction markets in the CFTC’s innovation architecture is a clear statement that the agency intends to treat event contracts as a legitimate market-structure category within its federal remit, not as a novelty to be tolerated until the states shut it down.” Anderson added, “I would not frame Selig as ‘pro-Kalshi’ in any cheerleading sense, but I also would not assume he will shy away from defending the CFTC’s institutional lane. Everyone is looking to Selig to provide backbone here.”
When an SEC exam request hits, some firms panic and start “Googling the exam” or relying on AI to decode what staff wants. That approach can backfire fast, leading to overproduction, credibility issues, privilege mistakes, and avoidable escalation risk. This article explains why AI is not a substitute for experienced SEC exam counsel, what exam staff is really testing, and how disciplined legal strategy can keep a routine examination from turning into a serious problem.
Excited to share that Securities Docket has released its Advisory Board for 2026, and I’m honored to be included among this year’s group of practitioners.
This case strikes at a fundamental tension in modern sports: the growing reach of legalized sports wagering colliding with the amateur status of college athletics. The charges underscore significant criminal and regulatory risks for athletes, institutions, and the broader collegiate ecosystem. Here is a legal analysis of the charges, defense considerations, and broader implications for stakeholders.
FINRA’s 2026 Oversight Report offers a clear preview of the examination and enforcement themes that will shape broker-dealer compliance in the year ahead. This piece distills the key risks, emerging priorities, and persistent problem areas firms should be addressing now.
I recently published an article in Law360 (linked below) that uses the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s settlement with Virtu as a jumping-off point to think through a question MNPI doctrine has not fully confronted yet. The article is less about Virtu as a case study and more about using a familiar enforcement posture to explore how those same principles may apply as AI becomes embedded in trading, surveillance, and compliance functions.
On January 8, 2026, the SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation released its annual staff report on capital-raising dynamics and delivered it to Congress. The report is not a policy document. It is a data compilation. But the data tells a clear story about how capital formation is functioning in practice.
FinCEN’s 2026 AML/CFT proposal reshapes compliance by focusing on risk-based programs, effectiveness, and reduced regulatory burden. Attorney Braeden Anderson provides a detailed legal analysis of what it means for financial institutions.