
The SEC's plan lets token issuers decide insider sale timing, while the Senate's CLARITY bill would force a 12-month hold. The two paths diverge on who bears the risk.
The SEC's new crypto fundraising proposal treats tokens as immediately tradable upon acquisition, leaving insider sale timing to each issuer. The Senate's July 22 CLARITY draft would force a different handling: a 12-month holding period before a token's network clears a control test, then six additional months after certification.
Both frameworks aim at the same concern – early holders with inside knowledge can sell before the public sees the full picture. They split on the fix.
Regulation Crypto Assets under the SEC spends several pages building the case for insider lockups. It cites the information gap between project teams and buyers. It reviews research showing token offerings perform better under vesting or lockup terms. Then it settles on disclosure as the answer. Issuers decide whether to restrict their own insiders. The SEC pushes the question one step further by asking commenters whether it should require a one-year holding period before finalizing the rule.
The Senate draft, in a section titled Special Restrictions on Disposition, simply mandates the hold. The clock starts at 12 months before the network is certified as free of coordinated control. Once that certification lands, the minimum drops to six months. The bill also caps how much an insider can sell in any 12-month stretch, with the SEC left to set the exact number.
The SEC's proposal does not skip sale caps entirely. A Tier 2 offering under the fundraising exemption can raise up to $75 million in a year, and affiliates of the issuer can supply up to $22.5 million of that. Tier 1 tops out at $20 million total, with $6 million available to those same insiders. A separate cap in the issuer's first year limits securities sold by insiders to 30% of the total raise. On a full $75 million Tier 2 offering, that ceiling matches the affiliate cap at $22.5 million.
The caps govern how much insiders can sell through a qualified offering. Timing remains the open question. Under the SEC's draft, an insider can sell the moment a token stops counting as a restricted security. No minimum holding period applies.
The comparison gets messier on who counts as an insider. The SEC casts a wide net built for disclosure: founders, employees, directors, consultants, immediate family members. Congress draws tighter lines based on crypto ownership thresholds – founders holding at least 4% of a project's ancillary asset, or holders controlling at least 10%. Decentralized governance systems are excluded from the definition altogether.
Both describe the same idea of someone close enough to a project to know things the public does not. The legal architecture differs.
The SEC's economic analysis argues both sides of the lockup question. Easier exits for founders and early employees can encourage investment and free up capital for its next use. In the same breath, the Commission admits that large insider sales can make the very conflicts a lockup would prevent even worse.
The SEC's proposal is built for crypto tied to an issuer that still has work to finish. That description fits early-stage projects more than an asset with no roadmap and no team left to deliver. Bitcoin's structure – no issuer, no roadmap, no team – is why the lockup debate barely touches it.
The bull case for tighter insider rules has the SEC's comment period building enough momentum to add a one-year holding requirement before the final rule ships. Congress could also pass something close to its current CLARITY language first. Either path pushes US token fundraising toward a world where insiders carry the same downside as everyone else for a defined stretch. The cost falls on the faster liquidity that founders and early employees were hoping for.
The bear case is that the SEC's disclosure-first approach becomes the operating reality while CLARITY sits unfinished in Congress. Crypto lockups turn into something projects opt into for credibility. A project with no restrictions at all can still raise money. It does so at a steeper discount, since the risk of insiders cashing out early stays on the buyer's side of the ledger.
Neither version is law yet. The two frameworks define insider in genuinely different ways. They agree the risk is real. They split on who has to live with it: the buyer who gets a disclosure or the insider who gets a deadline.
Prepared with AlphaScala editorial tooling from the source reporting linked above. Indexable analysis may include a cited Alpha Score value. Publishing checks screen each story before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.