Original report published: November 4, 2026, at 06:10:48 UTC+8.
Event status: The SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance published a no-action letter on Tuesday, according to The Block.
What the letter covers
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance said it views Canton Coin (CC) as a digital commodity and would not recommend enforcement action over its programmatic issuance under the circumstances described in Canton’s submission.
Deputy Chief Counsel Jonathan Ingram wrote that the division would not recommend enforcement action if CC were minted programmatically by Super Validators, Validators and application providers, in reliance on counsel’s opinion and under the specified conditions, without registration under Section 5 of the Securities Act or Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.
The division said CC derives its value from the Canton Network’s programmatic operation and supply-and-demand dynamics, rather than expectations of profit from others’ managerial efforts. It also cited the absence of a central party.
Scope matters: The letter states a staff enforcement position based on the specific facts and representations submitted by Canton. It does not express a legal conclusion on the issues presented, including whether CC is a security.
Earlier milestones in the report
Canton Network is blockchain infrastructure developed by Digital Asset, intended to support secure, privacy-enabled and interoperable transactions across institutions and networks.
- May: According to the report, 21Shares became the first U.S. ETF issuer to offer direct exposure to CC, the network’s native utility token.
- June: Digital Asset raised $355 million in a round led by Andreessen Horowitz’s a16z crypto fund to expand the Canton ecosystem and accelerate institutional adoption of its infrastructure.
Industry reaction
a16z partner Miles Jennings welcomed the letter in a Tuesday post on X. He argued that the SEC’s March token taxonomy and subsequent FAQs had created a broader pathway for network tokens to fall outside securities laws. That interpretation was Jennings’ view, not a legal conclusion established by the no-action letter.