A guest essay by former SEC enforcement official John Reed Stark and Duke University lecturer Lee Reiners suggests that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s changing stance on digital assets could recreate conditions that preceded the 2008 financial crisis.
According to the New York Times article, the pair warns that relaxed oversight of token markets and the simultaneous expansion of traditional banks into token services may establish opaque linkages across financial institutions that have not been subjected to regulatory stress testing.
The essay identifies the SEC’s rollback of crypto-specific enforcement efforts as a central catalyst. Stark and Reiners argue that these changes dismantle the legal separation between speculative digital asset markets and federally insured banking activities, especially as token issuers and lenders gain broader access to traditional financial rails.
Regulatory retrenchment and industry expansion
Since January, the SEC and federal banking agencies have taken a series of deregulatory steps. The SEC folded its Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit into a broader group focused on emerging technologies, downsizing staff, and excluding any explicit mandate for token oversight.
In early March, the commission issued internal guidance treating memecoins as collectibles, removing them from securities registration requirements while cautioning about potential fraud liability.
The SEC has also sought to withdraw from high-profile enforcement actions. The agency moved to dismiss its case against Coinbase and requested a pause in proceedings against Binance. At the same time, banking regulators have expanded the scope of permissible token activities.
On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency eliminated a prior review process, affirming that banks may now issue stablecoins, provide custody, and operate blockchain validation nodes without requiring special approval.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation followed with FIL-7-2025, which rescinded the mandatory advance notice for token-related activity by insured banks.
Parallel to these regulatory rollbacks, crypto-linked funding has intensified across federal politics. Bipartisan crypto donations surpassed $100 million in the 2024 election cycle, with pro-Trump super PACs receiving the largest share. The involvement of the president’s family in memecoins, World Liberty Finance, Hut8 mining, and ETF token issuance through Crypto.com further entwines industry influence with policymaking.
Congress is also moving toward formal rulemaking. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the GENIUS Act in mid-March. The bipartisan bill proposes a dual oversight structure for payment stablecoins, dividing supervisory responsibilities between state and federal agencies. It would also permit state-chartered entities to issue dollar-pegged tokens under national guidelines.
Liquidity risk through market integration
Stark’s argument centers on structural exposure. According to the essay, the combination of growing token lender operations, stablecoin holdings of U.S. Treasury assets, and interconnections with money market funds and repo markets could trigger cascading liquidity events during redemptions.
In this scenario, redemptions across token issuers could force asset sales into thin markets, drawing in broker-dealers and funds that maintain overlapping collateral bases. The essay contends that the SEC’s traditional role as an early-warning mechanism has weakened just as integration between digital assets and the financial system has accelerated.
Stark’s perspective is grounded in his opinion on the FTX bankruptcy. He petitioned the courts to appoint an independent examiner to investigate the firm’s internal financial practices.
The Third Circuit granted that request in January 2024. Stark argues that similar issues of non-transparent token reserves and insider lending, which contributed to the FTX collapse, remain unaddressed across much of the industry.
Forward outlook and legislative inflection point
While SEC leadership claims the current regulatory approach will shift from litigation to formal rulemaking, no new proposals have been published. Trade groups representing banks argue that bringing token custody into insured institutions reduces counterparty risk. Stark contests that claim, citing FTX’s misstatements and the lack of mandatory audits as systemic vulnerabilities.
Congressional deliberation over stablecoin oversight could determine whether issuer disclosures become mandatory or remain based on voluntary attestations. Hearings on the GENIUS Act will resume next month, and the preliminary findings from the FTX independent examiner are expected this summer.
Stark positions these forthcoming events as critical indicators of the broader market’s capacity to self-regulate. Without statutory safeguards, the essay suggests that future losses from token failures could be transmitted into pension funds and deposit accounts, extending consequences beyond crypto-native platforms.
The essay essentially posits that policy resolution may not arrive through gradual regulation but rather through a flashpoint event that compels institutional intervention. That scenario echoes unresolved debates over crypto’s integration with systemic finance, debates that have remained active since Bitcoin’s emergence more than a decade ago.
#SEC #lawyer #warns #SEC #crypto #action #trigger #bank #contagion
