Trump’s pick for SEC Chair, Paul Atkins, signals a potential shift in how the SEC regulates markets—especially crypto.
Let’s break down why this choice matters and what it could mean for the industry 👇
A Pro-Crypto Advocate
Atkins has been a strong supporter of digital assets, serving as co-chair of the Token Alliance.
His history with the SEC (2002–2008) focused on creating balanced regulations that encourage innovation while protecting investors.
What Makes Him Unique?
Atkins’ philosophy:
- Lower penalties for firms to avoid hurting shareholders
- Focus on innovation, competition, and efficiency
- Opposes “regulation by enforcement,” which Gary was a fan of
Perhaps a friendlier approach for emerging crypto projects.
The past week has brought about some very important realisations. Some things will not work anymore.
Here are 3 of the biggest realisations so far 👇
1) The returns from investing in early stage funding rounds is shrinking.
And, in some cases, there aren't even returns.
Case & Point: Layer Zero completed their Series B raise in April last year at a $3bn valuation. However, it's currently trading below a $3bn FDV.
If the VCs who invested in that round bought Bitcoin instead, they would be up 120% and it would be fully liquid. Remember, these investors are likely to be locked up in token vests for up to 2 years. The opportunity cost is massive.
LayerZero isn't the only example here. There were many projects that were heavily VC backed which have been underperforming since TGE.
Retail is a lot wiser to the low float / high FDV game and are way less likely to bid a token just because it has hype with big backers.
There needs to be a way to include retail investors & users earlier on that gives them a fair crack of the whip. Airdrops were the main meta & an attempt to include them early on.
However, that brings us to the second realisation.
2) Airdrops in their current form are dead. They have lost their allure.
The collapse of $STRK post launch is testament to that. The recent release of $ZK & $ZRO should reinforce that.
Teams have tried new & novel techniques to reward genuine users. But, in doing so, they have also enraged users who were expecting certain criteria to make them eligible.
The only airdrops that have resulted in praise from the community are those that had been generally unexpected. But, how can you incentivise use without an implicit promise of some form?
Then, one has to question whether the airdrops are net positive for protocols. What happens once they have been distributed? Either they continue with various seasons or they watch users drop off like flies (see Starknet).
It will be interesting to see how projects re-engineer their incentive mechanisms from here. But part of it will be protocols that users will want to use irrespective of potential rewards.