SEC Proposes Crypto Custody Rules for Investment Advisers and Regulated Funds

Self-custody would be allowed only for crypto assets that no qualified custodian will hold, and only if the adviser alone holds the keys. State trust companies would become qualified custodians for crypto assets, and the traditional custody rules would be modernized with no transition period.

On October 1, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules that would give registered investment advisers and regulated funds (registered management investment companies and business development companies) a defined path to custody crypto assets, including assets that no qualified custodian will yet hold.[1] The central change is conditional self-custody. An adviser could hold a client’s crypto assets itself, but only after determining in writing that no qualified custodian will maintain the asset, only while that remains true, and only if the adviser alone possesses the keys. The proposal would also make state trust companies qualified custodians for crypto assets under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) and permitted custodians under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”). A separate set of amendments would modernize the custody rules for advisers and funds that hold no crypto assets at all.

Chairman Paul Atkins described the proposal as closing “a gap that has left investment advisers and funds guessing how to effect lawful custody of an asset class that their clients increasingly demand.”[2] The release runs to 760 pages and closes that gap on narrow terms. Six points define it:

• Self-custody is a fallback. It requires a written determination, renewed quarterly, that no qualified custodian will maintain the asset. Cost is not a permissible basis, and the asset must move to a qualified custodian as soon as reasonably practicable once one is available.
• Any key share is self-custody, and keys cannot be shared. An adviser that possesses any portion of a crypto asset’s key materials has self-custody and must possess them exclusively. Arrangements in which an adviser holds a key share alongside a custodian, a client, or a wallet provider do not fit the proposal.
• Scope depends on the client. For clients other than regulated funds, the rule reaches only crypto assets that are funds or securities, and the Commission states that bitcoin, ether, and solana generally are neither. For regulated funds, those assets are covered as “securities and similar investments.”
• Article 8 is mandatory. The adviser and client must agree to treat self-custodied crypto assets as “financial assets” held by the adviser as a “securities intermediary” under Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”).
• The state trust company pathway replaces the 2025 staff letter. The proposed conditions track the letter’s diligence requirements but omit its contractual bar on rehypothecation.
• No transition period is proposed. The modernization amendments, including a new exception for discretionary trading authority and elimination of the PCAOB-registered accountant requirement, would apply on the effective date.

Comments are due 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.

Background

The Advisers Act custody rule requires an adviser with custody of client funds or securities to maintain them with a “qualified custodian”: a bank or insured savings association, a registered broker-dealer, a registered futures commission merchant (for certain assets), or a qualifying foreign financial institution.[3] Section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act and the rules under it prescribe a parallel set of custodians for regulated funds.[4]

Crypto assets strain that structure. The Commission identifies a limited pool of custodians that are both technically capable and eligible, which “may create concentration risk”; a lag in custodial support, because “[t]hird-party custodians may not be capable of providing custodial services initially or quickly after launch of a particular crypto asset”; and uncertainty over whether the state trust companies that have emerged as crypto custodians are “banks.”[5]

The Commission’s last attempt ran the other way. The 2023 Safeguarding proposal would have extended the custody rule to all client assets, crypto assets included. It was withdrawn on June 12, 2025.[6] Three months later, the staff of the Division of Investment Management stated that it would not recommend enforcement action against advisers and funds that treat state trust companies as banks for crypto asset custody, subject to conditions.[7] That letter, in the Commission’s words, “has no legal force or effect.”[8] The proposal would replace it with rule text and add self-custody.

Adviser Self-Custody

What counts as self-custody

The Advisers Act custody rule would be redesignated as Rule 223-1.[9] Under it, an adviser has “self-custody” if it possesses “any portion of a client crypto asset’s key materials,” meaning the private keys or any part of them needed to access and transact in the asset.[10] Authority to obtain the keys, without possession, is custody but not self-custody. Self-custody is limited to crypto assets for which the adviser provides investment advice.[11]

Two consequences follow from the definition. First, possession must be exclusive. In the Commission’s view, “sharing key materials with anyone outside of the adviser would be a violation” of the key management condition, and that includes sharing with the client.[12] Wallet and key management vendors may be used only if they cannot access key materials or move assets unilaterally.[13] Second, there is no hybrid model. An adviser that keeps a client’s crypto asset at a qualified custodian “would not be able to hold any portion” of the keys, because holding a key share is self-custody and self-custody is available only where no qualified custodian will maintain the asset.[14] Multi-party computation and multi-signature arrangements remain available, but only among the adviser’s own designated personnel.[15] Advisers that today hold a key share alongside a custodian, a client, or a technology provider would need to restructure for assets within the rule’s scope. The Commission asks whether they would need time to do so.[16]

The conditions

An adviser with self-custody would be excepted from the qualified custodian, client notice, and custodian account statement requirements if it satisfies each of the following:[17]

1. Qualified custodian determination. Before taking self-custody of each crypto asset, and at least quarterly thereafter, the adviser determines in writing that it has a reasonable basis, after due inquiry, for believing that no qualified custodian will maintain the asset. If one becomes available, the adviser must place the asset with it as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. Expertise and safeguarding systems. The adviser has, and documents the basis for, expertise in safeguarding each crypto asset. Its systems must limit access to key materials to designated supervised persons, require joint authorization of transfers by two or more designated persons (at least one a management person), and hold each client’s crypto assets in addresses that store only that client’s crypto assets.
3. The adviser performs written cybersecurity risk assessments at least annually and maintains measures to detect, mitigate, and remediate threats and to respond to and recover from incidents.
4. Internal control report. Within six months of taking self-custody, and each calendar year thereafter, the adviser obtains a report from an independent public accountant with an opinion on the design and operating effectiveness of its custodial controls. The accountant must verify that client crypto assets reconcile to the crypto network.
5. Annual review. The adviser reviews, in writing, the effectiveness of its safeguarding systems and cybersecurity controls within a year of taking self-custody and annually thereafter.
6. Account statements. At least quarterly, the client receives a statement identifying the crypto asset address and network, period-end balances, and all transactions, with a legend urging the client to compare the statement against the balances and transactions shown at that address. Electronic transmission of the same information, with notice of the address and network, also suffices. Audited pooled investment vehicles and regulated funds are excepted.
7. Financial asset election. The adviser and client agree in writing to treat each self-custodied crypto asset as a financial asset, and the adviser as a securities intermediary, under the state law governing their agreement.

The rest of the custody rule continues to apply. A self-custodying adviser remains subject to the annual surprise examination unless the client is a pooled investment vehicle relying on the audit provision.[18] Crypto assets received through an airdrop or similar distribution do not violate the rule if, as soon as reasonably practicable, the adviser either meets the self-custody conditions for them or places them with a qualified custodian.[19]

The determination does the work

The qualified custodian determination is made asset by asset. Blanket determinations are not permitted. The Commission does not expect “boundless analysis,” but it does expect due inquiry into the asset, the custodial marketplace, and whether generally known custodians support the asset.[20] The adviser may not base the determination on what a qualified custodian costs.[21] As drafted, the test is whether any qualified custodian “will maintain” the asset, so a custodian that will hold an asset but cannot stake it or support the adviser’s trading still forecloses self-custody. The Commission asks whether that should change.[22] Because the proposal would add state trust companies to the list of qualified custodians, the population of assets with no willing custodian will shrink on adoption.

The cost is real

The Commission estimates the internal control report at $376,000 a year per adviser, in addition to about $173,000 in one-time and $58,000 in recurring annual compliance costs.[23] A SOC 1 Type 2 report would satisfy the requirement. A Type 1 report would not.[24] The joint authorization condition excludes one-person advisers, and the segregation condition rules out omnibus wallets.[25] The pathway is built for managers that already run institutional key management.

Article 8

The Commission describes the financial asset election as “critical to the protection of advisory clients” because advisers lack the FDIC and SIPC backstops that apply to banks and broker-dealers.[26] Under Article 8, property held in a securities account becomes a financial asset when the securities intermediary expressly agrees to treat it as one, and the customer then holds a security entitlement.[27] The intermediary must maintain enough of each financial asset to cover all entitlements. The assets it holds for entitlement holders are not its property and generally are not subject to its creditors’ claims.[28]

The election is not self-executing. Article 8 defines a securities intermediary by function, as a person that “in the ordinary course of its business maintains securities accounts for others.” The Commission says a self-custodying adviser “could come within that definition,” then asks whether there is any reason it could not and what negative ramifications follow.[29] State versions of Article 8 vary, so the governing-law clause in the advisory agreement or fund document becomes part of the custody analysis. A secured creditor of the intermediary that has control of the asset takes priority over entitlement holders.[30] The Commission also asks, without answering, whether holding client crypto assets could bring advisers within other regimes, such as those governing banks and money transmitters.[31] The release does not otherwise address state money transmission and virtual currency licensing laws, which can reach persons that hold digital assets for others.

Regulated Funds

Proposed Rule 17f-9 would permit a regulated fund to place crypto assets with an adviser that complies with the self-custody conditions, under board oversight.[32] The board, including a majority of independent directors, would review the adviser’s written report supporting its qualified custodian determination before self-custody begins and quarterly thereafter. It would also determine, initially and annually, that the asset “will be subject to reasonable care” if maintained with the adviser, after evaluating the adviser’s written report on its expertise and systems, its most recent annual review, and its most recent internal control report. The formulation tracks the reasonable-care finding that Rule 17f-5 requires for foreign custody arrangements.[33] For fund assets, the board designates by resolution the persons with access to key materials, and at least one person authorizing each transfer must be an officer of the fund. For an open-end fund that trades actively and meets daily redemptions, that authorization chain is an operational constraint, and the board will need to designate enough officers and operations personnel that two of them can approve a transfer promptly. The constraint should bind less often than it first appears. Self-custody is unavailable for any asset a qualified custodian will maintain, and the liquid assets that open-end funds trade most are generally the ones custodians already support. Unit investment trusts and face-amount certificate companies could not rely on the rule.[34]

State Trust Companies

The proposal would add state trust companies as qualified custodians under Rule 223-1 and as permitted custodians under new Investment Company Act Rule 17f-8, for crypto assets and related cash and cash equivalents only.[35] A state trust company is “a legal entity organized under State law that is supervised and examined by a State authority having supervision over banks and permitted to exercise fiduciary powers under applicable State law.” No determination that the trust company is a “bank” is required.

Before engaging a state trust company, and annually thereafter, the adviser or fund must determine in writing that it has a reasonable basis, after due inquiry, for believing that the trust company is authorized by its state banking authority to provide custody services for crypto assets and that it maintains and implements written policies and procedures reasonably designed to safeguard them. Those policies must address private key management and cybersecurity. The adviser or fund must also receive and review the trust company’s most recent audited financial statements, prepared under U.S. GAAP, and its most recent internal control report. A fund’s custodial services agreement must provide for segregation of fund assets from the trust company’s proprietary assets.[36]

The proposed conditions differ from the 2025 Letter in one respect that matters. The letter required the custodial agreement to bar lending, pledging, or rehypothecating client crypto assets without consent. The proposed rule text has no counterpart.[37] The Commission instead asks whether state trust companies rehypothecate client assets and whether clients should be allowed to consent.[38] The letter’s risk-disclosure and best-interest conditions are likewise left to disclosure guidance and the adviser’s fiduciary duty.[39] If the proposal is adopted, inconsistent staff views would be superseded, and the Commission asks whether rescission of the letter should be delayed to allow a transition.[40] The Commission estimates that about 19 state trust companies currently specialize in crypto custody.[41]

Scope: Funds, Securities, and Digital Commodities

The Advisers Act custody rule applies to “funds and securities,” and the proposal does not change that for clients other than regulated funds.[42] The Commission’s statements about which crypto assets fall on which side of that line may be the most practically important passages in the release:[43]

• Payment stablecoins issued by permitted payment stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act, or by registered foreign issuers, and tokenized deposits are digital representations of funds and are subject to the rule.
• Digital securities, including tokenized securities, are crypto assets subject to the rule.
• Digital commodities. Bitcoin, ether, and solana “are generally not subject to the Advisers Act custody rule with respect to advisory clients that are not regulated funds because they are not funds or securities.”
• Regulated funds. For a regulated fund’s account, the same digital commodities are “securities and similar investments” covered by the rule when the adviser holds them in self-custody.

Two questions are left open. The Commission notes that a digital commodity may be offered and sold subject to an investment contract, which is a security, and asks whether guidance is needed for non-security crypto assets in that position.[44] It also asks whether other crypto assets need clarification as “funds.”[45] For private fund advisers and separate account managers, the result is that the self-custody conditions and the bar on shared keys apply to tokenized securities, covered stablecoins, and other in-scope assets. On the Commission’s stated view, they do not apply to digital commodities such as bitcoin and ether. The adviser’s fiduciary duty applies regardless.

Decentralized Finance and Trading

The Commission proposes no rule for decentralized finance. Its position is that an adviser or fund participating in DeFi activities “must do so in compliance with the custody rules.” A client’s crypto asset may be deposited in a smart contract only if it continues to be maintained by the adviser in self-custody or by a permitted custodian, or an exception applies.[46] A deposit that takes the asset out of that custody “would not be permitted.” The Commission asks when staked or deposited assets remain in custody, citing the staff’s 2025 protocol staking statement, and whether receipt tokens, lending protocols, and similar arrangements should be addressed by rule, by guidance, or through case-by-case exemptive relief.[47]

On trading, the Commission “explored and rejected” a stand-alone rule that would let advisers and funds maintain assets on trading platforms that are not permitted custodians, finding no evidence that one is needed.[48] It asks whether to permit placement of assets at a trading platform under conditions, including a 24-hour limit.[49]

Modernization of the Traditional Custody Rules

The following amendments would apply whether or not an adviser or fund holds crypto assets.[50]

• Discretionary trading authority. An adviser would be excepted from the rule for funds and securities over which it has custody because of discretionary trading authority if three conditions are met. It must trade only from and into designated client accounts in the client’s name, or have the transfer recorded in the client’s name by the issuer. It must have no authority to transfer assets to itself, a related person, or any non-client account except as the client directs in connection with trading. And it must comply with the rule for any other basis of custody. The exception does not turn on whether trades settle delivery versus payment, which resolves a question open since 2017.
• The requirement that accountants performing audits, surprise examinations, and internal control reports under the rule be registered with, and subject to regular inspection by, the PCAOB would be eliminated. They must remain independent.
• Audit provision. Delivery deadlines would be 180 days for funds of funds and 260 days for funds of funds of funds. A pooled vehicle formed in the last 90 days of its fiscal year could deliver unaudited financial statements within 90 days and fold the stub period into the next year’s audit. Financial statements must be prepared under U.S. GAAP, with a reconciliation alternative for foreign pooled vehicles, and may be delivered to an investor’s independent representative.
• Standing letters of authorization. An adviser with custody solely because of a qualifying standing letter of authorization would be excepted from the surprise examination, consistent with a 2017 staff no-action letter.
• Inadvertent custody. An adviser would be excepted where custody arises solely from a client’s custodial agreement and the adviser did not recommend, request, or require the custodian. The adviser must either have no copy of the agreement and no reason to know of the authority, or promptly repudiate the authority in writing and ask that it be removed.
• Other changes. The client notice would include the account number, and the exception for registered investment companies would extend to business development companies. The rule’s lead-in would no longer frame custody without compliance as a fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative act under Section 206(4). The release also previews Commission views on cash held as bank deposits, seller escrow accounts, and accommodation reporting on custodial statements.

Under the Investment Company Act, Rule 17f-1 would permit custody with any registered broker-dealer whose custody is subject to Exchange Act Rule 15c3-3, in place of the current exchange-member limit and its conditions. Rule 17f-3 (free cash accounts) and Form N-17f-1 would be rescinded, and business development companies would be added to the fund custody rules.[51]

Records relating to crypto assets could be maintained on a crypto network if the adviser or fund can promptly produce them to the Commission in a human-readable and reasonably usable electronic format. Form ADV would add questions on self-custody, state trust company custody, and tokenized private funds. Form N-CEN would add corresponding items for registered funds. The release also describes the risk disclosures the Commission expects from advisers and funds that self-custody, including the client’s recourse if assets are lost and the steps taken to keep client crypto assets out of the adviser’s bankruptcy estate.[52]

Timing and Context

The Commission proposes no transition period. Advisers and funds could rely on the self-custody and state trust company provisions as of the effective date, and compliance with the modernization amendments would be required as of the effective date.[53] The Commission asks whether more time is needed, including for advisers that hold key materials today.[54]

Chairman Atkins placed the proposal within a broader program that includes the March 2026 interpretation on which crypto assets are securities, proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, and an Innovation Exemption for trading in tokenized NMS stock. He added that “[m]ore regulatory proposals are on the horizon.”[55] The legislative backdrop has shifted. On September 15, 2026, the Senate failed, 49 to 50, to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.[56] With market structure legislation stalled, more of federal crypto policy will be made by the agencies. Rules adopted through notice and comment are more durable than staff letters, but a future Commission can amend them through the same process.

Where Comments Can Matter

The Commission poses more than 330 questions. These bear most directly on how the framework will work in practice:

• Functional unavailability. Whether self-custody should be permitted when an available custodian cannot support staking, governance, or the trading a strategy requires, and whether to except native tokens held to pay network fees (Questions 38, 40).
• Shared keys. Whether a non-controlling key share should trigger self-custody, and how multi-party arrangements with custodians, clients, and wallet providers should be treated (Questions 13–16, 23, 68).
• Segregation and timing. Whether omnibus addresses should be permitted, and whether the “as soon as reasonably practicable” standards for transfers and airdrops need outer limits (Questions 30, 45, 81).
• Article 8 and other regimes. Whether an adviser can be a securities intermediary, what follows from that status, and whether self-custody triggers bank or money transmitter regulation (Questions 7, 118–124).
• Non-security crypto assets subject to an investment contract, other assets that may be “funds,” and tokenized securities (Questions 5, 11, 12).
• DeFi, staking, and trading. When deposited or staked assets remain in custody, and whether assets may be placed on trading platforms under conditions (Questions 171–182).
• State trust companies. Rehypothecation, the exclusion of other state-licensed entities such as BitLicense holders, and the transition from the 2025 Letter (Questions 142, 160–164, 330).

Near-Term Steps

1. Classify holdings. Sort client crypto assets into funds (covered stablecoins and tokenized deposits), securities (including tokenized securities), digital commodities, and assets whose status is unsettled, separately for regulated fund clients and other clients. The proposal applies differently to each. The line between settled and unsettled status will not always be clear, particularly for assets sold subject to an investment contract and assets that may be “funds,” both of which the Commission has flagged for possible guidance. Record the basis for each classification.
2. Map key possession. Identify every arrangement in which the adviser, a related person, a client, a custodian, or a vendor holds key materials for in-scope assets. Shared-key structures are the first thing the proposal would require advisers to unwind.
3. Test custodian availability. For each in-scope asset held outside a qualified custodian, document which banks, national trust banks, broker-dealers, and state trust companies will maintain it. That record is the qualified custodian determination.
4. Reconcile state trust company arrangements. Compare diligence files and custody agreements under the 2025 Letter to the proposed conditions, and keep the letter’s contractual protections in place.
5. Price the build. Budget for the internal control report, per-client addresses, and two-person authorization before committing to self-custody of any asset, and plan the Article 8 amendments to advisory agreements or fund documents.
6. Prepare the board. A regulated fund’s board will need a reporting package for the quarterly review and the annual reasonable-care determination, a resolution designating key holders, and a fund officer in the authorization chain.
7. Review traditional custody positions. Advisers that have treated non-DVP trading authority, standing letters of authorization, or inadvertent custody conservatively should assess the proposed exceptions. Fund sponsors should note the audit provision changes.
8. The comment file is No. S7-2026-35. The deadline will be set by Federal Register publication.

* * *

CFDB can assist with comment letters and with assessing existing or planned custody arrangements against the proposed conditions.

Please contact a member of the CFDB team for any inquiries relating to this matter.

David Lopez-Kurtz
Partner
dlopezkurtz@crokefairchild.com
513.666.2241

Khalif Timberlake
Associate
ktimberlake@crokefairchild.com

Tanner Dowdy
Associate
tdowdy@crokefairchild.com

This alert is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

[1] Adviser and Regulated Fund Custody Rules; Crypto Custody Rules, Release Nos. IA-7023; IC-36353, File No. S7-2026-35 (Oct. 1, 2026) (the “Proposing Release”). Page citations are to the version posted on the Commission’s website and will differ in the Federal Register. See also SEC, Fact Sheet: Investment Adviser and Regulated Fund Custody Rules; Crypto Custody Rules (Oct. 1, 2026); Press Release No. 2026-100, SEC, SEC Proposal Would Address How Investment Advisers and Funds Can Custody Crypto Assets Under the Federal Securities Laws (Oct. 1, 2026).

[2] Paul S. Atkins, Chairman, SEC, Statement on Proposal to Address the Custody of Crypto Assets Under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act (Oct. 1, 2026) (the “Atkins Statement”).

[3] 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2(a)(1), (d)(6).

[4] Investment Company Act § 17(f), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-17(f); 17 C.F.R. §§ 270.17f-1 to 270.17f-7.

[5] Proposing Release at 21–24, 39.

[6] Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets, Advisers Act Release No. 6240 (Feb. 15, 2023), 88 Fed. Reg. 14,672 (Mar. 9, 2023); Withdrawal of Proposed Regulatory Actions, Advisers Act Release No. 6885 (June 12, 2025), 90 Fed. Reg. 25,531 (June 17, 2025).

[7] Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, SEC Staff No-Action Letter (Sept. 30, 2025) (the “2025 Letter”).

[8] Proposing Release at 23.

[9] The rule would be issued under Advisers Act § 223, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-18b, which Congress added in 2010. Proposing Release at 267–68.

[10] Proposed Rule 223-1(d)(10), (d)(16). The definition excludes key materials that the adviser or a related person holds solely in its capacity as a qualified custodian.

[11] Proposing Release at 59, 64, 106.

[12] Proposing Release at 105–06.

[13] Proposing Release at 60–63.

[14] Proposing Release at 64–65.

[15] Proposing Release at 110–11.

[16] Proposing Release at 66–68 (Questions 13–16), 399–400 (Question 329).

[17] Proposed Rule 223-1(b)(7)(i)–(viii); Proposing Release at 44–46.

[18] Proposing Release at 46, 154.

[19] Proposed Rule 223-1(b)(11); Proposing Release at 72–77.

[20] Proposing Release at 82–83.

[21] Proposing Release at 83.

[22] Proposing Release at 86–87 (Question 38). The Commission also asks whether to except crypto assets held only to pay network transaction fees. Proposing Release at 87–88 (Question 40).

[23] Proposing Release at 466, 486.

[24] Proposing Release at 140.

[25] Proposing Release at 110, 119.

[26] Proposing Release at 162–63.

[27] U.C.C. §§ 8-102(a)(9)(iii), (a)(17), 8-501(a)–(b) (Am. L. Inst. & Unif. L. Comm’n 2022).

[28] U.C.C. §§ 8-503(a), 8-504(a).

[29] U.C.C. § 8-102(a)(14)(ii); Proposing Release at 165–66 (Questions 122, 124).

[30] U.C.C. § 8-511(b).

[31] Proposing Release at 51 (Question 7).

[32] Proposed Rule 17f-9(a)–(b); Proposing Release at 166–74.

[33] See 17 C.F.R. § 270.17f-5(c)(1).

[34] Proposing Release at 175 (Question 126).

[35] Proposed Rule 223-1(d)(13)(v), (d)(18); Proposed Rule 17f-8; Proposing Release at 179–84.

[36] Proposing Release at 187–99.

[37] 2025 Letter; Proposed Rule 223-1(d)(13)(v); Proposed Rule 17f-8.

[38] Proposing Release at 200–01 (Questions 160–164).

[39] Proposing Release at 182, 393.

[40] Proposing Release at 397, 400 (Question 330).

[41] Proposing Release at 447.

[42] Proposing Release at 43–44.

[43] Proposing Release at 52–54.

[44] Proposing Release at 51 (Question 5), 53 n.131. See Application of the Federal Securities Laws to Certain Types of Crypto Assets and Certain Transactions Involving Crypto Assets, Securities Act Release No. 11412 (Mar. 17, 2026), 91 Fed. Reg. 13,714 (Mar. 23, 2026).

[45] Proposing Release at 57 (Question 11).

[46] Proposing Release at 204–05.

[47] Proposing Release at 205–12 (Questions 171–180).

[48] Proposing Release at 212–15.

[49] Proposing Release at 215–16 (Question 182).

[50] Proposed Rule 223-1(a)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8)–(10); Proposing Release at 265–327.

[51] Proposed Rule 17f-1; Proposing Release at 216–17.

[52] Proposed Rule 204-2(g)(1)(iii), (g)(4); Proposed Rule 31a-1(b)(14); Proposing Release at 347–50, 362–66, 380–86, 389–93.

[53] Proposing Release at 398–99.

[54] Proposing Release at 399–401 (Questions 329–333).

[55] Atkins Statement.

[56] Senate Roll Call Vote No. 234, 119th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 15, 2026) (cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633).