Key takeaways:

• The SEC introduced new post-shutdown guidelines that explain how registration statements, including crypto ETF filings, progress through Sections 8(a) and 461 of the Securities Act.

• Generic listing standards approved in September 2025 removed the need for individual 19(b) approvals for qualifying crypto ETPs.

• The government shutdown created a backlog of more than 900 filings, pushing issuers to rely on the automatic 20-day effectiveness mechanism under Section 8(a).

• The new SEC instructions allow issuers to choose between automatic effectiveness or requesting accelerated effectiveness under Rule 461 for faster launches.

After years of slow progress and periodic regulatory pauses, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has released new guidelines that may speed up the approval timeline for cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds (ETFs).

These updates follow an extended, record-long government shutdown that halted progress on more than 900 pending registration filings across financial markets. As federal operations resumed, the SEC issued technical guidance outlining how issuers can advance ETF applications under Sections 8(a) and 461 of the Securities Act of 1933.

This article explains what changed, why it matters and how the updated procedures could shorten timelines for new crypto ETF launches in the US.

The regulatory freeze: A look back

For most of 2025, ETF issuers, especially those focused on crypto, were already dealing with a heavy procedural load. Following the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 and Ether ETFs in May 2024, the filing activity has surged, coming from firms seeking to list products tracking altcoins such as Solana (SOL), XRP (XRP), Chainlink (LINK), Dogecoin (DOGE) and others.

The regulatory process for many of these products still required individualized review under Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This meant issuers depended on the SEC to publish proposed rule changes, open public comment periods and issue approval or denial orders. Timelines varied widely.

Pathway to generic listing standards

On Sep. 17, 2025, the SEC approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares on Nasdaq, the Chicago Board Options Exchange BZX Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange Arca. This changed the regulatory process by removing the need for individual Section 19(b) rule change approvals for every qualifying crypto ETF.

The new standards were announced alongside the approval of the first multi-crypto asset ETF, the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund, which holds Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and other coins.

This streamlining removed the years-long bottleneck that had previously stalled products, but the immediate push to launch was halted by the government shutdown.

The shutdown backlog

During the 43-day shutdown, more than 900 filings were submitted but could not be processed. ETF issuers were left with no review mechanisms, no staff communication and no way to advance pending filings.

In this environment of regulatory paralysis, the only path forward for some issuers was to use an existing mechanism: the automatic 20-day effectiveness provision under Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. This allowed registration statements filed without a delay-in-time clause to automatically become effective after 20 days if the SEC did not take action or object. This mechanism was helpful for the launch of several funds, including Canary Capital’s spot XRP ETF.

The crisis and the reliance on a technical workaround highlighted the need for a more efficient and formal review process.

This approach was referenced directly in the SEC guidance published after operations resumed. Once the SEC reopened, staff was instructed to resume work promptly and orderly. Issuers immediately requested clarity on how filings submitted during the shutdown would be sequenced or amended.

What the SEC’s new guidelines actually change

On Nov. 13, 2025, the SEC published a detailed set of technical clarifications explaining how it would process the shutdown-period backlog.

The SEC’s new guidance was applied to issuers such as Bitwise, which had an XRP ETF filing pending but had not yet completed the Section 8(a) process.

The post-shutdown guidance created two primary mechanisms to move stalled applications toward launch.

Automatic 20-day effectiveness

As a remedy for filings submitted during the shutdown, the guidance confirmed that registration statements filed without a deferral would gain automatic effectiveness after 20 days under Section 8(a). The SEC also clarified that staff would not recommend enforcement action even if the filing does not include Rule 430A information.

Request for acceleration via amendment

For issuers who want a faster approval timeline or who want to restore active regulatory oversight, the SEC guidance clarified that it may add an amendment deferral and then formally request acceleration under Rule 461. This allows issuers to move beyond the automatic 20-day countdown and seek accelerated effectiveness. The SEC also noted that the division would review filings in the order in which they were received.

Did you know? The generic listing standards apply only to exchange-traded products (ETPs) that hold an underlying commodity, such as digital assets, that trades on an ISG-member exchange or is subject to a regulated futures market with appropriate surveillance sharing.

What this means for crypto ETF issuers moving forward

The SEC’s guidance does not guarantee faster approval for every crypto ETF. Substantive legal review remains unchanged. What has changed is the friction in the process. The automatic-effectiveness mechanism under Section 8(a) now plays a larger role because filings submitted without a delay clause during the shutdown can become effective after the standard 20-day period unless the SEC intervenes.

Rule 461 allows an issuer to request that the SEC accelerate the effective date of its registration statement to a specific time. To do this, an issuer must first amend its filing to return it to the standard delayed status and then submit a formal Rule 461 request to the SEC. This request is not a mere formality. It serves as confirmation that the issuer, underwriters and advisers are fully aware of, and accept, their legal and antifraud liabilities under the Securities Act.

By combining a Rule 461 acceleration request with the new generic listing standards, which bypass the older Section 19(b) delays, issuers have streamlined the entire process. This combination makes the path for compliant altcoin ETPs quicker and more predictable, allowing managers to target specific launch windows with greater certainty.

Why speed doesn’t mean safety

While the SEC has accelerated the timing of approvals, it has also emphasized that core investor protection rules have not been relaxed.

The primary takeaway for issuers is that fast approval does not reduce their legal responsibility. The SEC’s post-shutdown guidance clarifies that the liability and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws still apply to all registration statements, including those that become effective automatically under Section 8(a).

This is backed by the core of the Securities Act of 1933: Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2). These rules impose strict liability under Section 11 and a heightened liability standard under Section 12(a)(2) for any material false statements or omissions in the registration documents. In simple terms, if the prospectus is misleading, the issuer is liable, and investors do not have to prove that the company acted carelessly or intentionally.

The burden of ensuring accuracy remains with ETF providers, who must conduct thorough internal checks and due diligence to meet this high standard, especially when timelines are compressed.

A group of prominent British lawyers and former cabinet ministers have raised “profound concerns” about the trial of Labour MP Tulip Siddiq over corruption allegations in Bangladesh.

The warning comes in an open letter signed by Cherie Blair – the barrister and wife of ex-prime minister Sir Tony Blair – and two former Tory cabinet ministers: Sir Robert Buckland, who served as justice secretary and Dominic Grieve, an ex-attorney general.

They wrote that the criminal proceedings against Ms Siddiq were “artificial and a contrived and unfair way of pursuing a prosecution”.

Politics latest: Milkshakes and lattes to be taxed in budget

Ms Siddiq resigned as city minister earlier this year following accusations she illegally received a plot of land in a new high-end development on the outskirts of Bangladesh’s capital, from her aunt, Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted as prime minister last year.

Bangladesh’s anti-corruption commission (ACC) has claimed the Labour MP received a 7,200sq ft plot in the diplomatic zone through “abuse of power and influence”.

An investigation by the prime minister’s ethics adviser did not find “evidence of improprieties” but said it was “regrettable” that Ms Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt.

Her trial began in August, and media reports in Bangladesh suggest a verdict could be handed down in Dhaka within days.

The former minister has not attended the trial and has maintained that the allegations against her are vexatious and part of a smear campaign.

Earlier this month, Hasina was sentenced to death by a Bangladeshi court after she was found guilty of crimes against humanity.

In the letter, which was hand-delivered to the Bangladeshi High Commission on Monday evening, the lawyers wrote that Ms Siddiq “does not have a proper opportunity of defending herself”.

“She is being tried in her absence without justification and… the proceedings fall far short of standards of fairness recognised internationally,” they said.

Read more from Sky News:
Reeves issues ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ warning ahead of budget
Are we set for another astoundingly complex budget?

The letter was also signed by the high-profile lawyers Philippe Sands and Geoffrey Robertson.

They have called for the Bangladeshi authorities to put all the allegations to Ms Siddiq’s lawyers “so that she has a fair opportunity to address them”.

The Bangladeshi High Commission has been approached for comment.

South Korea is likely to end the year without a framework for locally issued stablecoins, amid ongoing disputes over the role of banks in stablecoin issuance.

The country’s central bank, the Bank of Korea (BOK), and other financial regulators have clashed over the extent of banks’ involvement in issuing Korean won-backed stablecoins, delaying a framework widely expected to arrive in late 2025, the Korea JoongAng Daily reported Tuesday.

According to the BOK, a consortium of banks should own at least 51% of any stablecoin issuer seeking regulatory approval in South Korea, while regulators are more open to the involvement of diverse industry players.

“Banks, which are already under regulatory oversight and have extensive experience handling anti-money laundering protocols, are best positioned to serve as majority shareholders in stablecoin issuers,” a BOK official reportedly said.

Banks should play leading role to curb stablecoin risks, BOK says

The central bank said that giving banks a leading role in stablecoin issuance would help mitigate potential risks to financial and foreign exchange stability.

The BOK also warned that allowing non-bank companies to take the lead in issuing stablecoins could undermine existing regulations that bar industrial firms from owning financial institutions, as stablecoins effectively function like deposit-taking instruments by collecting funds from users.

“Allowing non-bank companies to issue stablecoins is essentially equivalent to permitting them to engage in narrow banking — simultaneously issuing currency and providing payment services,” the BOK reportedly wrote in a recent stablecoin study. It added that stablecoins issued by technology firms could also pose monopoly risks.

Three stablecoin bills under review

The Financial Services Commission (FSC) was expected to introduce a regulatory framework for won-backed stablecoins as part of a government bill in October.

According to a report by the local industry publication Bloomingbit, the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee is now reviewing three bills related to stablecoin issuance submitted by ruling and opposition party lawmakers on Monday.

The proposed legislation includes two bills put forward by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) and one from the opposition People Power Party (PPP).

While all three proposed bills stipulate a minimum capital of 5 billion won ($3.4 million) for issuers, some of the disputed areas include whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer interest on holdings.