BLOCKCHAIN LAB BRIEFING · CUSTODY

The SEC Proposes a Custody Path for Crypto Held by Advisers and Funds

The Commission has proposed rules for how registered advisers and regulated funds may custody crypto assets. A proposal opens a comment process. It is not an adopted permission to hold client coins.

1 October 2026

All briefings

What happened

On 1 October 2026 the SEC’s account said the Commission had proposed rules and amendments for the custody of crypto assets by registered investment advisers and by regulated funds, meaning registered investment companies and business development companies.

Minutes later, Chair Paul Atkins wrote that the market had grown faster than the rules, and that the proposal would give advisers and funds a compliant custody path where none existed before. Coin Bureau, Watcher.Guru and Eleanor Terrett each described the same proposal. This briefing follows the Commission’s notice and the chair’s statement. It does not treat the later write-ups as separate events.

Why it matters

Custody is the point at which a portfolio stops being a price and becomes an operating system: who may sign, where the assets sit, what happens if a vendor fails, and which clients are even allowed to be in the product. A proposal aimed at advisers and funds is about that operating system for firms already inside the securities laws.

It is not a general licence for exchanges, brokers, or venture studios to hold coins because the Commission mentioned crypto.

The operating layer

The useful reading is the scope. Registered advisers. Regulated funds. A comment period. Whatever the text eventually says about qualified custodians, surprise exams, or state trust companies has to be read in the release, not in a sentence that says a pathway now exists.

Two commissioners, in the descriptions around this proposal, treated self-custody as the exception an adviser would have to keep justifying, not as the modern default. That is a control question. It is not a market call.

What is verified

The Commission said it had proposed rules. The chair said the proposal is meant to give advisers and funds a custody framework the old rules did not. Both statements are the agency’s.

A proposal is not a final rule. Comments can change the text. Nothing in the posts adopts a standard or blesses a vendor.

What remains unclear

Which entities would qualify as custodians, how state trust companies are treated, and what an adviser must show to keep assets outside a qualified custodian. Those answers are in the proposing release, and they can move.

The chair’s historical framing, from bitcoin in 2008 to a multi-trillion-dollar market, is rhetoric around the proposal. It is not a finding about any token.

The catch

Firms that do not manage registered funds or act as investment advisers are not suddenly inside a safe harbour. State trust companies are not, as a class, declared fit for every asset. A comment period is not a bull market.

Blockchain Lab does not custody client assets. The practical work, for anyone who does, is still policy: who approves a movement, where the threshold sits, and how a client is made whole if a vendor stops.

WATCH

What builders should watch

01The comment deadline and any staff FAQ that narrows who is in scope.
02How the release treats state-chartered trust companies against bank custodians.
03Whether the final rule keeps self-custody as a justified exception.
04What advisers change in their written policies before a rule is adopted. A proposal is not that change.

BOTTOM LINE

The development that matters is a proposed custody framework for advisers and funds, on the Commission’s own paper. It is not permission for everyone else to hold crypto, and it is not evidence that a particular custodian is safe.

Sources

Blockchain Lab uses public social posts as reporting leads, not as proof. Every published briefing is assessed against primary sources, available documentation and relevant technical context. Social engagement is not used as evidence of the underlying claim.