The SEC’s Crypto Task Force announced the agenda for its next Roundtable discussion, which will focus on tokenization. The agenda will span two halves, presumably focusing on RWAs and generalized financial instruments.
The Commission announced that this discussion would focus on tokenization in March, but the full agenda provides more complete information. It includes a full list of participants, including many prominent firms.
The SEC Talks Tokenization
Since coming under new leadership this year, the Commission has been hosting Roundtable Discussions on topics in the crypto industry. According to a press release, the SEC’s next talk will concern tokenization, featuring representatives from firms like BlackRock, Nasdaq, Fidelity, Robinhood, Securitize, and more.
“Tokenization is a technological development that could substantially change many aspects of our financial markets. I look forward to hearing ideas from our panelists on how the SEC should approach this area,” Hester “Crypto Mom” Peirce, one of the SEC’s Commissioners, claimed.
Over the last few weeks, the SEC has shown an interest in tokenization. In late April, it planned a regulatory sandbox concerning real estate tokenization with counterparts in El Salvador and private firms. The results of this planning session seemed inconclusive; none of its non-SEC participants are scheduled to appear at the Roundtable. Still, it shows interest.
The discussion is split between two main panels: “Evolution of Finance: Capital Markets 2.0” and “The Future of Tokenization.” Both feature participation from some of the major firms involved, with the US ETF issuers primarily speaking on the first panel.
This could potentially suggest a focus on tokenization as a financial instrument for institutional investors. The latter panel involves RWA advocates like Securitize and Robinhood, possibly indicating that it focuses on RWAs. Still, that’s only speculation.
Other than these general outlines, the SEC hasn’t specified which areas of tokenization are its highest priorities. The Commission first planned this discussion in late March, but today’s agenda is the first major update since then.
PancakeSwap, the largest decentralized exchange (DEX) on BNB Chain, has officially announced the implementation of CAKE Tokenomics 3.0. This marks a major shift toward a more sustainable and deflationary ecosystem.
According to the announcement, PancakeSwap will begin rolling out the new tokenomics model on April 23, 2025. The main goals are to curb CAKE inflation, optimize system efficiency, and deliver long-term value to the community. However, the CAKE 3.0 proposal has sparked considerable debate.
What Are the Key Changes in CAKE Tokenomics 3.0?
PancakeSwap has set three primary goals for Tokenomics 3.0: achieve an annual deflation rate of 4%, eliminate complex mechanisms such as veCAKE, and reduce CAKE emissions to improve sustainability.
Retirement of CAKE Staking, veCAKE, Gauges Voting, Revenue Sharing, and Farm Boosting: PancakeSwap will discontinue CAKE staking and the veCAKE mechanism, which required users to lock tokens in exchange for voting rights or benefits. All locked CAKE and veCAKE will be unlocked.
Burn Mechanism to Reduce Circulating Supply: PancakeSwap will burn tokens to reduce supply instead of sharing trading fees with users. The team expects to burn approximately 5.3 million CAKE annually, supporting the deflation target.
Phased Reduction in CAKE Emissions: Daily CAKE emissions will be reduced from 29,000 to 20,000, and later to 14,500 tokens.
Users will have six months from April 23, 2025, to withdraw their previously locked CAKE.
The Debate Around CAKE 3.0
Several developers and community members believe CAKE Tokenomics 3.0 will benefit the project in the long term.
“At its core, CAKE Tokenomics 3.0 defends true value and protects CAKE holders by strengthening long-term fundamentals—such as aggressively cutting emissions to accelerate deflation and sustainably grow value,” Chef Philip said.
However, not everyone agrees. Cakepie DAO—one of the largest veCAKE holders—voiced strong concerns on X. They criticized the decision to eliminate veCAKE, calling it non-transparent and potentially damaging to projects built around that model.
This reveals a divide in the community over how PancakeSwap is balancing deflation and stakeholder interests.
“Sunsetting veCAKE would be devastating for Cakepie and for every project built on long-term alignment with PancakeSwap. Our entire ecosystem is structured around veCAKE, with millions of CAKE locked for four years as a clear show of commitment. Removing veCAKE would erase that commitment overnight and undermine the trust and efforts of all builders who believed in PancakeSwap’s vision,” Cakepie stated.
In response, PancakeSwap proposed a $1.5 million compensation package in CAKE tokens. They offered this to CKP (Cakepie’s token) holders if Cakepie agreed to allow a 1:1 swap from mCAKE (Cakepie’s CAKE derivative) to CAKE.
However, Cakepie is currently voting on whether to accept the offer.
At the time of reporting, CAKE is trading around $1.97, up 17% since April 8, when PancakeSwap first proposed Tokenomics 3.0.
Additionally, data from DeFiLlama shows that PancakeSwap’s 24-hour trading volume has surpassed $1 billion, overtaking Uniswap.
Meanwhile, a report from BeInCrypto reveals that PancakeSwap controls over 90% of the DEX market share on BNB Chain. This highlights the strong relationship between BNB Chain and PancakeSwap.
Regulatory sandboxes have emerged as a concept to drive innovation in a controlled setting. They allow companies to test new crypto products and services while regulators observe and adapt regulations. While jurisdictions like the UK, the UAE, and Singapore have already created sandboxes, the US has yet to create one at the federal level.
BeInCrypto spoke with representatives of OilXCoin and Asset Token Ventures LLC to understand what the US needs to build a federal regulatory sandbox and how it can unify a fragmented testing environment for innovators.
A Patchwork Approach
As the name suggests, regulatory sandboxes have emerged as a tool for providing a controlled testing ground. This environment allows entrepreneurs, businesses, industry leaders, and lawmakers to interact with new and innovative products.
According to the Institute for Reforming Government, 14 states in the United States currently have regulatory sandboxes for fintech innovation.
Of those, 11 are industry-specific and cover other sectors like artificial intelligence, real estate, insurance, child care, healthcare, and education.
Utah, Arizona, and Kentucky are the only jurisdictions among these states with an all-inclusive sandbox. Meanwhile, all but 12 states are currently considering legislation to create some regulatory sandbox for innovation.
Due to its relatively short existence, the crypto market has underdeveloped legislation. While state-level sandboxes enable innovators to demonstrate their products’ capabilities to the public, they are significantly constrained by the lack of federal regulatory sandboxes.
The Need for Federal Oversight
Though statewide efforts to create regulatory sandboxes are vital for innovation, entrepreneurs and businesses still face constraints in developing across borders or reaching an audience at a national level.
Rapid advancements in fields like blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) add a particular layer of uncertainty, given that existing legal frameworks may not be well-suited to these technologies.
At the same time, regulators may face difficulties in developing appropriate rules for these technologies due to a potential lack of familiarity with these constantly changing industries.
As a result, industry participants are increasingly calling for creating a federal regulatory sandbox. This environment could be a collaborative framework to address the gap, facilitating communication and knowledge sharing between regulators and industry stakeholders.
“The implementation of a federal regulatory sandbox in the United States has the potential to significantly enhance both innovation and regulatory oversight by reducing the uncertainties often associated with navigating the regulatory landscape across state lines. Such an initiative could help establish a coherent framework characterized by uniformity, continuity, and a conducive environment for innovation,” said Paul Talbert, Managing Director of ATV Fund.
According to Rademacher and Talbert, this proposal would meet the needs of all players involved.
Benefits of a Federal Regulatory Sandbox
A sandbox provides innovators with a controlled environment to test products under regulatory oversight without the immediate burden of full compliance with rules that may not yet fit their technology.
It also allows regulators to acquire firsthand insights into blockchain applications, facilitating the creation of more knowledgeable and flexible regulatory policies.
“Startups should have clear eligibility criteria to determine their qualification for participation, while regulators must outline specific objectives—whether focused on refining token classification frameworks, testing DeFi applications, or improving compliance processes,” Rademacher said.
It could also help the United States reinforce its position as a leader in technological innovation.
“By fostering innovation through simplicity, regulatory certainty, and conducive environments, the United States can significantly strengthen its competitive position in the global fintech landscape,” Talbert added.
While the United States has stalled in creating a federal framework for fintech innovation, other jurisdictions around the world have already gained significant ground in this regard.
Global Precedents
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates the United Kingdom’s financial services, launched the first regulatory sandbox in 2014 as part of Project Innovate. This initiative aimed to provide a controlled environment for testing innovative products.
The government asked the FCA to establish a regulatory process to promote new technology-based financial services and fintech and ensure consumer protection.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Singapore, in particular, have made progressive strides in creating federal regulatory sandboxes.
The UAE, for example, currently has four different sandboxes: the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Regulation Lab, the DSFA Sandbox, the CBUAE FinTech Sandbox, and the DFF Regulation Lab.
Their focus areas include digital banking, blockchain, payment systems, AI, and autonomous transport.
Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched its Fintech Regulatory Sandbox in 2016. Three years later, MAS also launched the Sandbox Express, providing firms with a faster option for market testing certain low-risk activities in pre-defined environments.
“The success of regulatory sandboxes in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates has highlighted the importance of key attributes: regulatory collaboration, transparent processes, continuous monitoring, and the allocation of dedicated resources. As a result, a growing number of jurisdictions worldwide are looking to replicate the frameworks established by these pioneering countries to strengthen their competitive position in the global fintech landscape,” Talbert said.
Rademacher believes these jurisdictions’ innovations should prompt the United States to accelerate its progress.
For that to happen, the United States must overcome certain hurdles.
Challenges of a Fragmented US Regulatory Landscape
A fragmented network of federal and state agencies overseeing financial services presents a key challenge to establishing a US federal regulatory sandbox.
“Unlike other countries with a single financial authority overseeing the market, the U.S. has multiple agencies—including the SEC, CFTC, and banking regulators—each with different perspectives on how digital assets should be classified and regulated. The lack of inter-agency coordination makes implementing a unified sandbox more complex than in jurisdictions with a single regulatory body,” Rademacher told BeInCrypto.
Yet, in recent years, important SEC and CFTC actors have expressed interest in adopting a more favorable regulatory approach to innovation.
“Even though I tend to be more of a beach than a sandbox type of regulator, sandboxes have proven effective in facilitating innovation in highly regulated sectors. Experience in the UK and elsewhere has shown that sandboxes can help innovators try out their innovations under real-world conditions. A sandbox can provide a viable path for smaller, disruptive firms to enter highly regulated markets to compete with larger incumbent firms,” Peirce said in a statement last May.
However, the full scope of national regulations far exceeds the authority of these two entities.
Congressional and Constitutional Hurdles
Any legislative measure to develop a federal regulatory framework for sandboxes in the United States would have to undergo Congressional approval. Talbert highlighted several potential constitutional dilemmas the promotion of an initiative of this nature may face.
“These dilemmas include issues related to the non-delegation doctrine, which raises concerns about the constitutionality of delegating legislative power; equal protection considerations under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; challenges arising from the Supremacy Clause; and implications under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and principles of judicial review,” he said.
To address these complexities, Congress must enact clear legal boundaries that ensure a regulatory framework is both predictable and open. Given the current administration’s emphasis on technological innovation, the prospects for creating a sandbox appear positive.
“Given the current composition of Congress, which aligns with the political orientation of the new executive branch, there may be a timely opportunity for regulatory reform. Such reform could facilitate the creation of a cohesive federal regulatory framework and enhance collaboration among federal agencies,” Talbert told BeInCrypto.
However, creating a federal regulatory sandbox is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Balancing State Autonomy and Federal Regulations
State autonomy is enshrined in the US Constitution. This protection means that, even though a regulatory sandbox may exist at the national level, individual states still have the authority to restrict or prohibit sandboxes within their jurisdictions.
Encouragingly, most US states are already exploring regulatory sandboxes, and the states that have already implemented them represent diverse political viewpoints.
However, other considerations beyond political resistance must also be addressed.
“A federal regulatory sandbox might also face opposition from established financial institutions, including banks, which may perceive potential threats to their existing business models. Furthermore, federal budgetary constraints could impede the government’s capacity to support the development and maintenance of a federal regulatory framework,” Talbert added.
Effective federal regulations will also require a balance between businesses’ concerns and regulators’ responsibilities.
“The two biggest risks are overregulation—imposing excessive restrictions that undermine the sandbox’s purpose—or underregulation, failing to provide meaningful clarity. If the rules are too restrictive, businesses may avoid participation, limiting the sandbox’s effectiveness. If they are too lax, there is a risk of abuse or regulatory arbitrage. A well-executed federal regulatory sandbox should not become a bureaucratic burden but rather a dynamic framework that fosters responsible growth in the digital asset space,” Rademacher told BeInCrypto.
Ultimately, the best approach will require coordination from different governing bodies, industry stakeholders, and bipartisan collaboration.
Fostering Collaboration for a Successful Sandbox
Due to recent strained communication between tech and federal agencies, Rademacher believes fostering a cooperative atmosphere is essential for creating a functional federal sandbox.
“The approach must be collaborative rather than adversarial. Agencies should view the sandbox as an opportunity to refine regulations in real time, working alongside industry participants to develop policies that foster responsible innovation. Involvement from banking regulators and the Treasury Department could also be valuable in ensuring that digital assets are integrated into the broader financial system in a responsible manner,” he said.
Achieving this requires a bipartisan approach to harmonizing regulatory goals and setting clear boundaries. Industry collaboration with lawmakers and regulators is vital to showing how a sandbox can promote responsible innovation while safeguarding consumers.
“Its success will ultimately depend on whether it serves as a bridge between innovation and regulation, rather than an additional layer of complexity,” Rademacher concluded.
