Highlights

  • Grayscale and a16z are pushing the SEC to allow confidential draft ETF registrations and a firm 45-day response commitment.
  • Charles Schwab opposes full confidentiality, proposing that any confidentially reviewed filing become public at least 75 days before launch.
  • Jane Street warns that speeding up approvals risks rushed registrations with too little time for market-maker feedback, and wants a minimum of two authorized participants at launch.
  • a16z stresses that a faster process should not translate into a lighter review of the underlying product.

A public disagreement has broken out among some of the biggest names touching crypto exchange-traded funds over how fast, and how transparently, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission should move in approving them. As The Block reported, Grayscale, joined by venture firm a16z and the Crypto Innovation Council, is pressing the SEC to speed up parts of its review process, while trading giant Jane Street and brokerage Charles Schwab have pushed back with concerns that moving faster risks weaker product launches.

At the center of Grayscale's request is a proposal to let ETF sponsors file confidential draft registrations with the SEC rather than public ones from day one. The firm argues that an optional confidential track would reduce the incentive for competing sponsors to file imitative or duplicative products the moment a rival's plans become public, a dynamic that has repeatedly played out in the crypto ETF space as multiple issuers rush near-identical filings once one sponsor tips its hand. Grayscale has also asked SEC staff to commit to responding to filings within 45 days, turning what has often been an open-ended review timeline into something sponsors can plan around.

Schwab and Jane Street Push Back

Charles Schwab's objection is narrower but pointed: the brokerage does not oppose speed itself, but rejects making the review process fully confidential. Its proposed compromise would allow confidential SEC discussions with a sponsor but require that the filing become public at least 75 days before the fund is allowed to launch, giving market participants including brokerages like Schwab time to prepare trading, custody, and client-facing infrastructure before a new product goes live.

Jane Street's concerns cut closer to product quality than process transparency. The market-making firm argues that pressure to get a new ETF to market quickly can result in registrations that are rushed and leave sponsors with too little time to gather feedback from the market makers who will ultimately provide liquidity once the fund trades. To address that, Jane Street has proposed a structural requirement: any new crypto ETF should be required to launch with at least two authorized participants, the specialized firms responsible for creating and redeeming ETF shares, rather than relying on a single AP whose absence or technical problems could leave a fund with thin, unreliable liquidity from day one.

Why the Fight Matters Beyond This Filing Cycle

The debate lands at a moment when the SEC is already under pressure from multiple directions on crypto policy, including ongoing congressional wrangling over the CLARITY Act and the CFTC's own warning that it will write crypto rules unilaterally if Congress stalls, alongside a White House that has pushed publicly for faster, lighter-touch crypto rules. a16z's position threads a middle path in this fight: the firm backs faster review timelines alongside Grayscale, but has explicitly cautioned that speed should not come at the cost of a less rigorous review of what is actually being approved, a distinction that separates it from sponsors purely chasing quicker time-to-market. How the SEC ultimately balances these competing asks, speed and confidentiality against transparency and market-maker readiness, will likely shape the operational template for the next wave of crypto ETF filings, arriving as issuers continue to test the boundaries of the products that make it to market.

What to Watch Next

The SEC has not indicated a timeline for resolving the confidentiality and response-time questions raised in this exchange, but any formal rulemaking or guidance addressing them would set a precedent for future filings well beyond the current comment period. In the meantime, watch whether new crypto ETF applications begin voluntarily incorporating Jane Street's two-authorized-participant standard even without a formal SEC mandate, since sponsors sometimes adopt market-maker preferences informally to avoid liquidity problems that could sour a fund's early trading history.

FAQ

What is Grayscale asking the SEC to change?
Grayscale wants the SEC to allow confidential draft ETF registrations and to commit to responding to filings within 45 days.

Why does Charles Schwab oppose full confidentiality?
Schwab argues that if the SEC holds confidential discussions with a sponsor, the filing should still become public at least 75 days before the fund launches, giving the market time to prepare.

What is Jane Street's main concern?
Jane Street warns that rushing ETF approvals leaves too little time for market-maker feedback, and wants any new fund to launch with at least two authorized participants.

Does a16z want less scrutiny of crypto ETFs?
No. a16z supports faster review timelines but has stressed that speed should not translate into a lighter review of the products themselves.