In April 2025, Paul S. Atkins was sworn in as the 34th Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), marking a significant shift in the agency’s stance toward digital assets. Nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate in a 52–44 vote, Atkins takes over from Gary Gensler with a mandate to recalibrate crypto regulation.
A former SEC Commissioner (2002–2008) known for advocating cost-benefit analysis and market-friendly policies, Atkins has publicly vowed to establish a “firm regulatory foundation for digital assets” through a “rational, coherent, and principled” approach.
This represents a clear break from the previous administration’s strategy of “regulation by enforcement,” which drew heavy criticism from the crypto industry for its aggressiveness and lack of clear rules.
Indeed, Coinbase’s chief legal officer applauded Atkins’ appointment as “sorely needed and cannot come a day too soon”, reflecting the optimism among crypto stakeholders.
Atkins brings not only regulatory experience but also direct involvement in the digital asset sector. He helped develop best practices for the crypto industry in his post-SEC career and even disclosed personal investments of up to $6 million in crypto-related assets (including stakes in a crypto custodian and a tokenization platform) during his confirmation.
While this crypto-friendly background signals an embrace of innovation, it has also raised eyebrows. Senator Elizabeth Warren described Atkins’ potential conflicts of interest as “breathtaking”, underscoring concerns that a more industry-sympathetic SEC could go too soft on investor protection.
Balancing these perspectives, Atkins has promised to “go back to the basics” of the SEC’s mission – protecting investors, ensuring fair markets, and facilitating capital formation – but with a fresh strategy for digital assets.
Below, we examine how Chair Atkins is expected to regulate three key categories of emerging assets: non-fungible tokens (NFTs), gaming-related digital assets, and tokenized real-world assets (RWA). We also contrast his approach with that of former Chair Gensler, highlighting philosophical and strategic differences.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) – From Crackdown to Clarity
Gensler’s Crackdown: Under Gary Gensler, the SEC started scrutinizing NFTs as a potential vehicle for unregistered securities offerings. In 2023, the SEC brought enforcement actions against multiple NFT issuers – for example, charging Los Angeles-based company Impact Theory for a $30 million NFT sale that the SEC argued was essentially an investment contract (the firm had encouraged buyers to view NFTs as an investment in its business).
Another high-profile case involved the “Stoner Cats” NFT project, which was fined for raising funds through NFT sales to fund a web series, deemed by regulators as an unregistered securities offering.
Gensler’s SEC even probed major NFT marketplaces and creators; investigations into OpenSea (the largest NFT trading platform) and Yuga Labs (creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs) were launched to determine if certain token sales qualified as securities.
This aggressive posture sent a chill through the nascent NFT industry – any token, even digital art or collectibles, that was marketed with an expectation of profit could become an SEC target.
Atkins’ Shift to Clarity: The Atkins-led SEC is poised to take a more nuanced and measured approach to NFTs. Even before Atkins took office, the Commission had begun quietly pulling back on some NFT enforcement.
In late 2024, the SEC withdrew certain lawsuits against NFT projects, choosing to reserve enforcement for only the most egregious cases involving “clear promises of returns” or fraud (essentially, Ponzi-like NFT schemes).
Moreover, in early 2025, the SEC dropped its probes into OpenSea and Yuga Labs, a move welcomed by the industry as a sign of relief. However, legal experts cautioned that this did not mean NFTs have a free pass; whether an NFT is deemed a security will “depend on how it is sold,” i.e. the specifics of the transaction and the promises made to buyers.
In other words, an NFT purely functioning as a digital collectible or artwork may fall outside SEC purview, whereas one sold as an investment with an expectation of profit could still be subject to securities law.
Atkins appears intent on drawing a clearer line between those two scenarios. He is expected to prioritize guidance over crackdown in the NFT arena – providing the market with clearer criteria for when an NFT might be considered a security (for instance, fractionalized NFTs or those that include profit-sharing rights likely still trigger SEC scrutiny).
This more “rational and coherent” stance stands in stark contrast to the previous approach of casting a wide net. By focusing enforcement on outright scams and ponzi-like token schemes, Atkins’ SEC aims to foster a creative NFT economy while still policing fraud. Such an approach aligns with the new Chair’s broader philosophy of not “predetermining economic winners and losers” through overzealous regulation.
It also heeds Commissioner Hester Peirce’s call for “clear and reasonable boundaries of regulatory authority” so that compliance is achieved via rulemaking rather than courtroom battles. The coming months may see the SEC issue interpretive guidance or even a report on NFTs (analogous to its 2017 DAO Report), clarifying how securities laws apply in this domain.
For NFT creators and marketplaces, Atkins’ tenure so far signals a more open dialogue: the focus is on transparency and compliance strategies going forward, rather than punishing past sales that were conducted in murky regulatory waters.
Gaming Tokens and Digital Assets – Recognizing Utility vs. Speculation
Play-to-Earn or Pay-to-Play (by SEC rules)? Digital assets in video games and online worlds – including in-game cryptocurrencies, tokens, and gaming NFTs – form another frontier of regulation. Under the prior SEC regime, these assets were largely viewed through the same lens as other tokens.
Chair Gensler repeatedly asserted that the “vast majority” of crypto tokens are securities, with “all digital assets other than Bitcoin” falling under SEC jurisdiction in his view. This uncompromising stance implied that even tokens primarily used for gameplay or virtual goods could be deemed securities if, in substance, they involved an investment scheme.
For example, if a game developer sold tokens to the public to finance game development (with promises that the tokens would rise in value as the game grew popular), the SEC would likely consider it an unregistered securities offering.
Under Gensler, the SEC did not carve out exceptions for “utility tokens” used in games – as regulators often noted, “merely calling a token a ‘utility’…does not prevent [it] from being a security”. This lack of distinction sowed uncertainty for blockchain gaming companies.
In fact, by late 2024 the SEC had reportedly extended investigations into blockchain gaming firms like Immutable (a platform for in-game NFTs and tokens), leaving the entire Web3 gaming sector unsure of what token activities might trigger enforcement.
Atkins’ Level-Up for Game Assets: The new SEC leadership signals a greater recognition of the difference between speculative crypto investments and genuine in-game utility assets. A telling development came in March 2025, when the SEC terminated its inquiry into Immutable and related gaming projects, finding no violations and opting not to pursue enforcement.
Immutable’s president, Robbie Ferguson, lauded this outcome as bringing “regulatory clarity to the Web3 gaming industry” and predicted it would “drive more institutional investment” into blockchain games. The decision suggests that regulators, under Atkins, concluded those gaming tokens were not being used as investment contracts in practice.
It marks a notable shift to a more permissive (or at least, understanding) stance: if a token’s primary function is to be used within a game ecosystem (for playing, trading in-game items, or rewarding players), and not marketed for profit-potential, the SEC is more inclined to let it be.
Moving forward, we anticipate Atkins will work to articulate clear guidelines for gaming-related digital assets. The goal is to ensure “utility tokens” get treated by their use-case, not just by their name. This could involve factors like: whether the token is sold to investors or only earned through gameplay, whether its value is tied mainly to game utility or speculative demand, and what promises (if any) are made to purchasers.
By engaging with the industry – for instance, through the SEC’s new Crypto Task Force and public roundtables – the agency can refine its approach in collaboration with game developers. Indeed, one of the SEC’s spring 2025 roundtables focuses on “DeFi and the American Spirit”, a discussion likely to touch on decentralized gaming economies as well.
Such dialogue-based governance is a far cry from the confrontational tone of prior years and aligns with Atkins’ intent to regulate with the market rather than against it.
It’s worth noting that a more accommodative approach does not mean gaming tokens are completely off the hook. Atkins’ SEC will still police schemes where a “game” is merely veneer for fundraising. Projects that sell tokens with grand promises (“buy our tokens now and profit as our metaverse expands!”) will remain in the crosshairs as potential unregistered securities.
However, bona fide gaming platforms integrating blockchain – think play-to-earn games where tokens reward players for participation – may find a more receptive regulator willing to provide no-action assurances or tailored rules. By acknowledging the utility aspect of these digital assets, Atkins aims to avoid stifling a burgeoning sector that merges tech innovation with entertainment.
The broader impact is that companies in the blockchain gaming space can operate with less fear of sudden enforcement, as long as they steer clear of treating their players like passive investors. This balanced mindset could keep the U.S. as a competitive hub for Web3 gaming development, whereas a rigid Gensler-style approach risked driving these projects overseas.
As one commentator put it, the SEC’s recent flexibility is turning a potential “game over” into a “game on” for the crypto gaming industry – albeit under reasonable guardrails that Atkins believes can protect players and investors alike.
Tokenized Real-World Assets – Bridging Traditional Finance and Blockchain
The Promise and Peril of RWA: “Tokenized real-world assets” (often abbreviated RWA) refer to digital tokens that represent ownership of tangible or traditional financial assets – for example, tokens representing shares of stock, fractions of real estate, commodities, bonds, or even fine art.
This concept holds transformative promise: by putting real assets on blockchains, trading can become more efficient and accessible 24/7, with potentially greater liquidity and transparency. Under Gary Gensler, the SEC’s stance on RWA was guarded. Gensler acknowledged that nothing about crypto technology negates the need for investor protection- a tokenized stock is still a stock, and thus subject to securities laws.
His SEC did not actively oppose tokenization outright, but it provided no special accommodations for it either. In practice, that meant any firm offering tokenized securities had to fully comply with existing registration, disclosure, and exchange regulations.
The previous Commission proposed broad rules (such as expanding the definition of “exchange” to capture crypto trading platforms) which, if enacted, could have made trading tokenized assets on decentralized platforms illegal without broker-dealer registration.
This cautious approach, critics argued, left the U.S. behind as other jurisdictions experimented with regulated tokenized bonds or funds. Security token projects complained that Gensler’s SEC offered little guidance on how they could lawfully issue and trade tokenized assets beyond telling them to “come in and register” – a process ill-suited for novel blockchain-based markets.
Atkins’ Embrace of Tokenization: Paul Atkins appears far more enthusiastic about integrating blockchain into traditional finance. His own financial ties underscore this: prior to taking office, Atkins had board or equity stakes in Securitize (a platform for tokenizing real-world assets) and a fintech firm called Pontoro. While he has pledged to divest those holdings to avoid conflicts, the insight he gained from them is likely to inform the SEC’s policy.
Observers note that Atkins’ appointment “signals an immediate shift toward more crypto-friendly regulation” and a push to “reduce barriers to capital and crypto markets”, consistent with the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating regulations that stifle innovation. In the context of RWA, this means creating a regulatory environment where tokenization projects can flourish under clear rules.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a leading crypto proponent, said she expects Atkins will “work quickly to provide regulatory certainty for the digital asset industry” – which would include clarity on tokenized stocks, bonds, and other instruments.
Early signs of this direction are evident. The SEC has scheduled a public roundtable in May 2025 on “Asset Tokenization and Integration with Traditional Finance”, signaling that the agency is actively seeking input on how to modernize rules to accommodate blockchain-based assets. Rather than shunning tokenization, the Commission under Atkins is exploring how to harness it safely.
This could involve updating custody rules (so brokers can securely hold tokenized securities), refining disclosure requirements for on-chain issuances, and coordinating with other regulators on issues like settlement and market infrastructure.
The new Chair has also indicated support for legislative efforts to define digital assets in law. He may back the proposed “Digital Asset Market Structure Act,” which aims to delineate regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC and clarify what counts as a security token versus a commodity token. By reducing regulatory overlap and uncertainty, such legislation would directly benefit RWA initiatives.
Critically, Atkins’ SEC seems inclined to approve or at least seriously entertain innovative tokenized products that were stalled under Gensler. It now has 70+ crypto-related ETF applications in the queue – ranging from spot Bitcoin ETFs to more exotic crypto asset funds – and analysts describe issuers taking a “spaghetti cannon approach” to see what the new regime might allow.
Outside of ETFs, companies like Robinhood are “accelerating their push” into offerings like tokenized equities, explicitly because the regulatory climate is “shifting in [their] favor” with Atkins at the helm. This palpable optimism suggests that tokenized stocks or funds, once nearly taboo, could soon hit U.S. markets through proper channels.
Even Wall Street giants are vocal – BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink has touted tokenization as the “future of markets,” and with an SEC chief now sympathetic to that vision, collaborations between traditional finance and crypto tech are expected to deepen.
Of course, a fair and critical assessment must note that easing the path for tokenization carries risks. The SEC will need to ensure that investor protections (disclosures, antifraud provisions, etc.) remain robust in this new medium. Atkins has framed his mission as making the U.S. “the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business”.
Thus, his approach to RWAs will likely pair deregulation in the form of removing “unnecessary barriers to entry” with vigilance on core protections. We might see, for example, streamlined approval for a blockchain-based securities exchange – but coupled with strict reporting standards and oversight of that exchange’s operations. The net effect could be a win-win: legitimate asset tokenization ventures get a green light, while scams (e.g. sham “tokenized real estate” offerings with no real assets behind them) still get shut down.
If successful, Atkins’ strategy could position the U.S. as a leader in the tokenization of finance, unlocking capital and liquidity in new ways, much as his supporters predict.
From Gensler to Atkins: A Philosophical and Strategic Shift
The change in SEC leadership from Gary Gensler to Paul Atkins represents a tectonic shift in regulatory philosophy. While both men profess the same statutory mission, their interpretations and tactics differ sharply:
Regulatory Philosophy: Gensler maintained that existing securities laws are largely sufficient for crypto; he famously took the view that nearly every digital asset (apart from Bitcoin) is a security by default. Under his tenure, the SEC for years declined to write new crypto rules or definitions, insisting the industry “figured it out” on their own at their peril.
In contrast, Atkins espouses a philosophy of engagement and update. He acknowledges that the digital asset market needs a “regulatory foundation” built on clarity and modernized rules. Rather than stretching 90-year-old laws to cover every blockchain token, he favors working “with…Congress” to fill in gaps and explicitly “clarify the standards for distinguishing between securities and non-securities tokens”.
Philosophically, Gensler was more of a strict constructionist of securities law, whereas Atkins is more of a reformer seeking to adapt the framework to contemporary markets.
Enforcement vs. Guidance (Strategic Approach): Under Gensler, the SEC’s primary tool was regulation by enforcement. The agency brought numerous high-profile cases against crypto exchanges (e.g. Coinbase, Binance), token issuers, lending platforms, and even NFT creators, often without accompanying guidance or rulemaking.
This approach, described by many in the industry as capricious and opaque, led to accusations that the SEC was effectively making policy through lawsuits.
Atkins, by contrast, is pivoting towards “dialogue-based governance”. In the first months of 2025, the Commission (led first by Acting Chair Mark Uyeda and now Atkins) dropped or settled several crypto enforcement actions – some against major firms like Coinbase, ConsenSys, Gemini, and Uniswap were reportedly halted or reassessed.
Simultaneously, the SEC launched a Crypto Task Force to liaise with industry and scheduled multiple public roundtables on crypto trading, custody, DeFi, and tokenization. This strategy suggests Atkins prefers to set policy through consensus-building and clear rules, using enforcement more selectively (targeting fraud and egregious violations) rather than as a blanket policy instrument.
Tone on Innovation: Gensler’s tenure was characterized by a guarded, often skeptical tone toward crypto innovation. He frequently highlighted the risks of crypto – fraud, market volatility, investor harm – and showed willingness to sacrifice some innovation in order to enforce compliance. In practice, this meant many novel crypto products (from lending yields to tokenized stocks) were stymied or pushed offshore due to regulatory fear or uncertainty.
In contrast, Atkins strikes a tone of qualified optimism. He has “spoken favorably of blockchain technology within financial systems” in the past and signals that the SEC should not impede the growth of digital asset markets so long as core investor protections are met.
The new Chair’s mindset is summed up in a guiding principle from a recent White House directive: regulations “should not predetermine economic winners and losers” nor “reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation”. In practice, Atkins’ SEC is more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to innovators – allowing pilot programs, sandboxes, or exemptions to let new products come to market under supervision – whereas Gensler’s SEC was more likely to say “no” first and ask questions later.
That said, Atkins is not an uncritical cheerleader: his promise to uphold the SEC’s investor protection mandate means outright speculative mania without disclosure won’t get a free ride. It’s a more balanced rhetoric: encouraging responsible innovation, versus Gensler’s emphasis on reining in irresponsible innovation.
Industry and Political Reception: The divergent approaches have elicited very different responses. Industry players, who often felt antagonized by Gensler, have largely welcomed Atkins. As noted, crypto executives described his arrival as a “ray of hope” and U.S. firms like Robinhood immediately began charting expanded crypto offerings in expectation of a friendlier regime.
Under Gensler, some companies faced a choice of compliance puzzles or lawsuits – prompting lawsuits against the SEC in return (Coinbase sued the SEC for lack of rulemaking, for instance) and leading to courtroom battles that sometimes undercut Gensler’s claims (e.g. the partial court victory for Ripple in 2023, where a judge ruled XRP sales on exchanges were not securities by default).
Atkins aims to avoid such deadlocks by addressing concerns upfront and mending the SEC’s relationship with the sector. Politically, Gensler’s aggressive stance pleased certain lawmakers (many Democrats, like Sen. Warren, praised his tough enforcement), but drew ire from others (Republican lawmakers frequently accused him of overreach).
Atkins, as a Trump-appointed Republican, enjoys support from pro-crypto legislators who see him as an ally for sensible rules. However, he faces skepticism from staunch crypto critics who worry the SEC might become too lenient or even “captured” by the industry. During his Senate hearing, Atkins acknowledged the “backlash” the SEC had incurred and called some prior practices “disturbing,” vowing to “boost the Commission’s image” and restore trust.
This indicates a desire to be seen as fair by the broad public – not just a crypto booster – as he navigates between fostering innovation and preventing abuse.
In sum, where Gary Gensler saw the crypto world largely as a Wild West to be tamed with the whip of enforcement, Paul Atkins sees a developing frontier that should be guided with a more nuanced hand. Gensler leaned on 20th-century interpretations to regulate 21st-century assets, often resulting in adversarial showdowns; Atkins is inclined to update the rulebook for the 2020s, seeking collaborative input and only drawing the line when necessary.
This philosophical shift is already manifesting in day-to-day SEC policy: fewer headline-grabbing lawsuits, more engagement with industry, and a concerted effort to actually write regulations (or support legislation) that address digital assets explicitly.
Whether one approach is “better” will ultimately be judged by outcomes – can Atkins’ SEC protect investors as effectively as Gensler’s did, while also fostering a healthier environment for innovation? Early indications are promising, but only time (and wise execution) will tell if this critical balance can be achieved.
Conclusion
As Paul Atkins assumes the reins of the SEC, the regulatory landscape for digital assets is undergoing a careful but consequential recalibration. In the realms of NFTs, gaming tokens, and tokenized real-world assets, Atkins’ message is one of “rational” calibration rather than blunt-force crackdown. He appears determined to draw clearer lines: distinguishing art and collectibles from investment contracts, distinguishing in-game economies from securities markets, and distinguishing genuine asset tokenization from unlawful offerings.
This nuanced approach, backed by public statements and early policy moves, reflects an optimism that smart regulation can both protect investors and allow novel markets to thrive. It’s a departure from the prior chair’s philosophy that saw nearly every crypto innovation as a potential threat to be smothered under existing law.
Atkins’ tenure is still in its infancy, and being “critical yet fair,” one must recognize the road ahead is not without hazards. By easing up on across-the-board enforcement, the SEC risks creating a gray zone – industry players must be careful not to misinterpret regulatory forbearance as a green light for reckless behavior.
As one legal expert noted regarding the recent enforcement pullbacks, the absence of active cases could leave the industry in a “vacuum” of uncertainty that only formal guidance or new laws can fill. Atkins will need to follow through on issuing that guidance and supporting those new laws; otherwise, the clarity he promises could remain patchy.
Moreover, his friendly stance will surely be tested the moment a major fraud or market meltdown occurs on his watch – the true measure of his approach will be how swiftly and decisively the SEC responds in such crises, proving that “crypto-friendly” does not mean “fraud-friendly.”
Still, the strategic differences between Atkins and Gensler are stark and, many argue, refreshing. By realigning the SEC toward rulemaking, public engagement, and targeted enforcement, Chair Atkins is charting a course that could make the U.S. a global leader in responsible digital asset innovation.
Already, the change in tone has led to tangible shifts: previously reluctant companies are expanding crypto offerings domesticallythe-cfo.io, and international observers see the U.S. regulatory stance softening after years of hostility. Atkins’ own words upon being sworn in encapsulate the balance he strives for: “Together we will work to ensure that the U.S. is the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business”.
Achieving “the best” while maintaining “the secure” is no easy task – but if Atkins can provide clear rules for NFTs, gaming assets, and RWAs that legitimize these markets without inviting abuse, he will indeed have engineered a pivotal regulatory evolution.
In comparing the two eras – Gensler’s and Atkins’ – a fair conclusion is that neither extreme enforcement nor total laissez-faire is a viable long-term strategy. The SEC’s credibility depends on protecting investors and fostering fair, orderly markets. Gensler hammered the first point, arguably at the expense of the second; Atkins is now tilting back toward the center.
His early initiatives (dropping marginal cases, convening roundtables, articulating guiding principles) have set a constructive tone. The coming year will reveal how this translates into concrete policy – be it new safe-harbor rules for tokens, approvals of long-pending crypto ETFs, or clearer definitions distinguishing a game coin from a stock.
The digital asset industry and its skeptics alike should stay engaged in this process. A sustainable regulatory framework for digital assets in the U.S. will require input and compromise from both sides of the aisle and both sides of the crypto debate.
In steering that process, Paul Atkins has positioned himself as a pragmatic referee, one who understands the game but is unafraid to call fouls. His tenure offers a critical opportunity to get crypto regulation right – an opportunity forged in contrast to his predecessor’s path, and one that, if executed wisely, could benefit investors, innovators, and the markets at large.
