On 2 June 2026, US SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce delivered remarks titled “Base Case: Remarks at the IC3 Blockchain Camp” at Princeton University. The speech is not a binding US SEC rule, order or formal US SEC statement. It articulates a principles-based approach to determining where United States securities regulation should apply in the crypto and blockchain ecosystem, especially for DeFi protocols, blockchain infrastructure providers, open-source developers, non-custodial software interfaces, crypto user-interface providers, onchain trading systems and firms assessing whether their activities could fall within broker, dealer, exchange, clearing agency, transfer agent, investment adviser or investment company regulation.
Commissioner Peirce’s core thesis is that securities regulation should focus on regulated conduct, discretionary intermediation, custody and investor-facing control — not merely on technological proximity to securities-related activity. The remarks distinguish between neutral blockchain infrastructure and centralised actors that exercise discretion over customer assets, securities, funds or transaction flows.
Why the Speech Matters
Traditional securities regulation is built around identifiable intermediaries. The US SEC’s rulebook regulates brokers, dealers, exchanges, clearing agencies, transfer agents, investment advisers and investment companies. This structure works well where financial activity flows through centralised institutions with control over customer assets, order routing, execution, custody or advice.
Blockchain systems complicate that model. A decentralised protocol may allow users to transact directly. Open-source developers may publish code without operating a business that intermediates transactions. Infrastructure providers may process data neutrally without knowing or controlling the economic purpose of that data. User interfaces may range from passive access tools to active transaction-preparation systems.
Commissioner Peirce’s remarks therefore identify a critical regulatory-perimeter issue: the US SEC must distinguish between neutral technology and regulated financial intermediation.
That distinction is central to the future of DeFi, tokenised securities, onchain markets, wallet infrastructure and crypto user interfaces.
The Core Message: Regulation Should Follow Control, Custody and Conduct
The speech make the intent clear of the US SEC, that regulatory status should not be determined by technological proximity alone. A person or entity should not become a securities market participant merely because it provides technology that others may use in connection with securities. Instead, the categorisation is based on more relevant questions, which determine the functional outreach:
- Does the person take custody of customer assets?
- Does the person exercise discretion over transactions?
- Does the person route, match, recommend or execute trades?
- Does the person control the protocol or interface?
- Does the person operate a centralised business model around securities activity?
- Does the person hold itself out as providing investment access or financial intermediation?
This approach would treat genuine neutral infrastructure differently from centralised onchain financial services. It would also require regulators and firms to look past labels. Calling a project “DeFi” will not be enough if, in practice, the project is controlled, custodial or discretionary. Equally, the mere presence of blockchain technology should not automatically trigger registration obligations where the actor is only publishing code or maintaining neutral infrastructure.
Open-Source Code and the First Amendment
A major theme in the speech is the treatment of open-source code. Commissioner Peirce emphasises that publishing code is speech and that people who do nothing more than write open-source code for others to use should not have to register with the US SEC.
This is a significant policy signal for developers and protocol contributors. It suggests that the legal analysis should distinguish between:
| Activity | Regulatory posture |
|---|---|
| Merely publishing open-source code | Lower registration risk, subject to facts |
| Maintaining neutral software without custody or discretion | Lower to moderate risk |
| Operating a front-end that prepares or routes securities transactions | Higher perimeter risk |
| Exercising control over user assets or transaction flow | Higher regulatory risk |
| Running a centralised trading, custody or investment platform | High regulatory risk |
The compliance point is not that developers are always outside the regulatory perimeter. The point is narrower: code publication alone should not be treated as securities intermediation without additional conduct.
Blockchain Infrastructure Is Not Automatically Securities Infrastructure
Commissioner Peirce also stresses that blockchains are general-purpose technologies. Like the internet, they can be used for many purposes, only some of which may involve securities. The US SEC is not a general-purpose technology regulator.
This matters for validators, node operators, infrastructure providers, wallet tools, data processors and protocol-layer participants. If an infrastructure provider merely processes data through open, verifiable and non-discretionary logic, the case for treating that provider as a securities intermediary is weaker.
The speech therefore supports the concept of base-layer neutrality. A neutral blockchain should not lose its neutrality simply because some users may deploy it for securities-related transactions. Regulatory frameworks should govern conduct, control and intermediation, not mere proximity to regulated activity.
DeFi, Onchain CeFi and the Importance of Factual Control
One of the most useful distinctions in the speech is between genuine DeFi and onchain CeFi.
Genuine DeFi generally involves self-directed users, non-custodial architecture, autonomous smart contracts and limited or no centralised control. Onchain CeFi, by contrast, may use blockchain infrastructure while retaining centralised custody, discretion, governance control, transaction control or customer-facing intermediation.
For compliance teams, this distinction is essential. Regulators will not be bound by branding. A platform that calls itself decentralised but retains practical control over assets, upgrades, governance, access, transaction approval or user funds may still be treated as a centralised actor.
The more a project controls user experience, transaction flow, custody, execution, governance or access, the harder it becomes to argue that it is merely neutral technology.
User Interfaces and Broker-Dealer Risk
The speech also connects to the US SEC’s broader 2026 focus on crypto user interfaces. User interfaces are becoming a central regulatory issue because they sit between decentralised protocols and end users.
Some interfaces may simply allow users to view information or connect directly to autonomous smart contracts. Others may prepare transactions, structure trades, route orders, recommend assets, simplify investment activity or influence execution. The latter category raises more serious broker-dealer, exchange or adviser questions.
Crypto firms should therefore map their interfaces carefully.
| Interface function | Possible compliance concern |
|---|---|
| Passive display of protocol information | Lower risk |
| Wallet connection to autonomous protocol | Fact-specific risk |
| Transaction preparation | Broker-dealer analysis may be required |
| Order routing or trade matching | Exchange / broker-dealer risk |
| Recommendations or prompts | Adviser / broker-dealer risk |
| Custodial execution | High regulatory risk |
| Revenue from transaction flow | Market-intermediary risk |
The central question is whether the interface is merely a neutral access layer or whether it performs regulated intermediation.
Cross-Border Relevance
Offshore foundations, token issuers, DeFi projects, wallet providers, infrastructure companies and crypto platforms may still face US SEC exposure where they have United States users, United States-facing interfaces, United States securities exposure or marketing directed at United States investors. Non-US projects may consider to not assume that decentralisation alone removes United States risk. The stronger compliance approach is to document the factual position: who controls the protocol, who controls the interface, whether the system is custodial, whether users are self-directed and whether the project performs any regulated intermediary function.
Conclusion
Commissioner Peirce’s June 2026 speech calls for regulatory precision, and that is clear: securities regulation should apply where there is securities-market conduct, custody, discretion, control or intermediation. It should not automatically attach to neutral infrastructure, open-source code or user-directed non-custodial software merely because those tools may be used in connection with securities activity.
The future of US SEC crypto compliance will turn less on labels and more on facts. DeFi will need to prove decentralisation. Infrastructure providers will need to evidence neutrality. User interfaces will need careful legal mapping. Centralised actors operating onchain should expect continued regulatory scrutiny.
(Source: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-ic3-blockchain-camp-060226)
