When SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce launched her assertion on February 21, 2025, titled “There Must Be Some Way Out of Here,” it didn’t learn like a typical piece of regulatory commentary. The title, a nod to Bob Dylan’s “All Along the Watchtower,” set the tone: frustration, urgency, and possibly even a quiet plea for readability.
The SEC printed a proper Request for Info — an open name for public enter on the way to decide whether or not crypto belongings needs to be categorized and controlled as securities. It was the primary actual invitation in years for the broader crypto ecosystem to assist form the foundations.
In response, on March 13, enterprise capital large Andreessen Horowitz (A16z) submitted a proposal constructed round what it calls a “control-based decentralization framework.” The thought is that this: if a blockchain community is open, autonomous, and not beneath the management of a central group, then the tokens working on it shouldn’t be handled as securities.
It’s a neat idea — clear, structured, and seemingly grounded in logic. However as I dug into the small print and spoke with consultants, together with Alice Frei, Head of Safety and Compliance at Outset PR, a extra difficult image started to emerge.
As a result of whereas the proposal affords a possible “way out,” not everyone seems to be satisfied it leads anyplace good.
The Promise — and Downside — of Expertise-Impartial Regulation
One of many pillars of A16z’s framework is the concept crypto regulation needs to be each “merit-neutral” and “technology-neutral.” If a crypto token capabilities like a conventional asset — say, a share or bond — it needs to be handled the identical method beneath the regulation.
However Frei sees a disconnect.
“A technology-neutral approach sounds fair in theory. But it just doesn’t apply cleanly to blockchain. Crypto isn’t a re-skin of the traditional financial system — it’s something fundamentally different. It constantly redefines its own economic and functional properties.”
She identified how every main innovation in crypto launched fully new financial behaviors: Bitcoin with decentralized digital shortage, Ethereum with programmable governance, DAOs with collective decision-making, NFTs with digital possession, and DeFi with permissionless monetary markets.
“These aren’t just new wrappers for old assets. They come with entirely different risk models, incentive structures, and governance challenges. Ignoring that in the name of ‘neutrality’ means we’re regulating what crypto looks like — not what it is.”
Code Isn’t the Solely Drive Driving Markets
One other key argument in A16z’s proposal is that if a token’s design is totally embedded in code — which means its financial logic is pre-programmed and autonomous — then its worth shouldn’t be seen as counting on third-party efforts. And if that’s true, it wouldn’t go the Howey take a look at.
However based on Frei, that logic doesn’t maintain up in immediately’s markets.
“Just because staking rewards or token burns are automated doesn’t mean the market is… Valuations in crypto are driven by much more than code. Speculation, sentiment, macro events — those things move prices just as much, if not more.”
She pointed to Bitcoin’s value actions for example. Its code could also be predictable — fastened provide, halving cycles — however its valuation fluctuates wildly based mostly on rates of interest, institutional adoption, and even viral tweets.
“Look at Terra. Its whole value proposition was a self-correcting, algorithmic stablecoin — a system designed to maintain its peg to the U.S. dollar through code-based incentives and automated supply adjustments. But even that couldn’t withstand a speculative run. Once confidence cracked, the algorithm spiraled out of control. Billions were wiped out in days. Code didn’t save it.”
The Contradiction of ‘Control-Based Decentralization’
One of many extra debated components of A16z’s proposal is the phrase itself: control-based decentralization. Based on the framework, if operational, financial, and governance management have been sufficiently subtle, the community needs to be thought-about decentralized — and subsequently exterior the SEC’s jurisdiction.
However Frei challenged the concept decentralization could be so cleanly measured.
“Framing decentralization around the absence of control is already tricky. But when you start building checklists to define it, you risk mistaking surface-level decentralization for real autonomy.”
In follow, she defined, most so-called decentralized programs nonetheless contain central factors of affect. Builders retain management over upgrades. Governance tokens typically focus energy within the fingers of early buyers. And infrastructure like exchanges and custodians stay centralized chokepoints.
“True decentralization is a spectrum,” she stated. “It’s not a yes-or-no checkbox. And pretending it is opens the door to performative decentralization that looks good on paper but doesn’t hold up in reality.”
A Potential Regulatory Loophole
The larger concern, Frei warned, is how simply A16z’s proposed framework could possibly be exploited — particularly with out rigorous enforcement requirements.
“You could have a project that looks decentralized from the outside, but still has insiders pulling the strings.”
Which may imply token distributions that seem broad however are tightly coordinated behind the scenes. Or governance buildings that appear democratic however are designed to funnel decision-making to some wallets. Or protocols that shift management simply lengthy sufficient to go a regulatory take a look at, solely to re-centralize later beneath totally different names.
“If we’re not careful,” she stated, “this becomes a guidebook for regulatory arbitrage. Not for transparency.”
The place Do We Go From Right here?
To be clear, Frei doesn’t dismiss the hassle behind A16z’s proposal. Like many within the trade, she welcomes the dialogue and agrees that regulatory readability is urgently wanted. However she’s skeptical {that a} framework based mostly on inflexible decentralization checklists can actually replicate the complexity of immediately’s crypto panorama.
“We need a model that respects the innovation happening in this space,” she stated, “but doesn’t ignore the human, economic, and governance dynamics driving it.”
Meaning acknowledging that expertise isn’t impartial — it modifications how belongings behave. It means recognizing that markets are emotional, not mechanical. And it means treating decentralization as a transferring goal, not a field to tick.
As for the SEC, it now faces the troublesome process of turning all this suggestions into actionable coverage. Whether or not or not A16z’s framework makes it into the ultimate image, one factor is evident: the dialog has solely simply begun.
“The goal isn’t just to regulate crypto,” Frei advised me as we wrapped up. “It’s to do it in a way that protects people — without pretending this space is something it’s not.”
And possibly, simply possibly, there’s a method out of right here — however provided that we’re trustworthy about the place we’re ranging from.