Networks behind three of the most prominent non-Bitcoin digital assets, Stellar (XLM), Hedera (HBAR), and Cardano (ADA), are pressing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to establish
Networks behind three of the most prominent non-Bitcoin digital assets, Stellar (XLM), Hedera (HBAR), and Cardano (ADA), are pressing the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to establish durable commodity classification rules for digital assets, seeking the kind of regulatory predictability that Bitcoin has long held as the baseline standard for the broader industry.
The push centers on a specific regulatory outcome: persuading the SEC to codify commodity treatment for certain digital assets rather than leaving classification to ad hoc enforcement decisions. For XLM, HBAR, and ADA, formal commodity rules would draw a clear line between their networks and assets that regulators might treat as unregistered securities. For related coverage, see Perpl Review 2026: Complete Beginner's Guide to the On-Chain Perps DEX.
Bitcoin has occupied a distinct position in this debate since the CFTC and SEC both acknowledged, in separate proceedings, that Bitcoin functions as a commodity. That recognition underpins the regulatory legitimacy that spot Bitcoin ETF approvals later formalized. The networks behind XLM, HBAR, and ADA are seeking comparable clarity, arguing that continued ambiguity distorts compliance planning and limits institutional participation in their respective ecosystems.
Two points frame the core development. First, the organizations associated with XLM, HBAR, and ADA are making a coordinated call for the SEC to move beyond case-by-case enforcement and toward published, durable rules that define commodity treatment for digital assets. Second, the request is explicitly forward-looking: the goal is rules that persist across administrations and commission compositions, not informal guidance that can shift with personnel changes.
Stellar, Hedera, and Cardano represent three distinct network architectures and governance structures, yet they share a common regulatory problem. Without commodity classification, each network's native asset remains in a gray zone where it could theoretically be treated as a security depending on how regulators characterize its issuance and distribution history. That ambiguity has direct consequences for exchanges, custodians, and institutional investors who must assess liability before touching any asset with unresolved status.
The SEC has previously moved against several digital asset projects on securities grounds, making commodity classification the more favorable regulatory outcome for networks that operate public, decentralized infrastructure. Ripple's multi-year legal dispute with the agency over XRP illustrates precisely how prolonged regulatory uncertainty can affect an asset's availability on U.S. platforms, and Ripple itself has backed SEC rulemaking efforts aimed at ending case-by-case enforcement as a path to market stability.
Predictable classification affects three practical areas: compliance planning, market participation, and ecosystem confidence. On compliance, exchanges and custodians need a stable legal framework before committing to listing infrastructure. Repeated enforcement actions against specific assets create chilling effects that extend well beyond the targeted projects.
For HBAR, the stakes include not just exchange listings but institutional deployments. Hedera's hashgraph architecture has attracted enterprise-level interest, and that pipeline depends partly on whether U.S. financial institutions can treat HBAR as a commodity rather than a security on their balance sheets. Wall Street's move into spot HBAR ETF products signals that institutional demand already exists, but sustained demand requires the legal certainty that only formal rulemaking can provide.
Cardano's ADA faces a similar calculus. The network hosts a growing set of decentralized applications and a staking system that distributes protocol rewards to ADA holders. Whether staking rewards constitute investment income from a security or commodity-like protocol participation is a question with significant tax and compliance implications. Rules that establish ADA's commodity status would resolve that ambiguity for the entire ecosystem of developers, validators, and stakers.
For XLM, Stellar's focus on cross-border payment infrastructure means its regulatory classification affects not just U.S. crypto markets but the financial institutions and remittance corridors that use the Stellar network as settlement rails. Commodity treatment would make it substantially easier for regulated money-transfer operators to integrate XLM-based settlement without triggering securities compliance obligations.
The distinction between a request for rules and a confirmed SEC determination is important. As of this writing, the SEC has not issued a formal commodity classification for XLM, HBAR, or ADA. The networks are in the advocacy phase, making their case through public comment, industry coalitions, and direct engagement with the agency. Asset managers like Canary Capital have already moved to file HBAR ETF products, a step that implicitly depends on regulators treating HBAR as a commodity-like asset for investment vehicle purposes.
Formal SEC action, including the scope of any commodity classification rules, the specific assets covered, and the agency's timeline, remains to be established. The SEC operates through a rulemaking process that involves proposed rules, public comment periods, and final adoption, none of which have been confirmed for this specific initiative as described in current reporting.
The key watchpoints are straightforward. Observers should track whether the SEC issues proposed rules that explicitly define commodity treatment criteria for digital assets, which assets fall within any such definition, and how the agency responds to the coordinated advocacy from the XLM, HBAR, and ADA ecosystems. Congressional activity also matters: legislation that assigns primary jurisdiction over commodity-like digital assets to the CFTC rather than the SEC would achieve a similar outcome through a different channel.
Bitcoin's position in this regulatory landscape is worth noting. Bitcoin's commodity status is the most firmly established of any digital asset, and the regulatory infrastructure built around that classification, from futures markets to spot ETFs, provides a template that other networks are attempting to replicate. Hedera's growing momentum in the 2025 market reflects in part the expectation that regulatory clarity will eventually extend beyond Bitcoin to other decentralized networks.
The SEC's engagement with digital asset rulemaking has accelerated in recent years, but the agency has historically preferred enforcement to prospective rulemaking as its primary tool for shaping market behavior. That approach is precisely what the XLM, HBAR, and ADA networks are pushing back against, arguing that predictable rules serve the public interest better than unpredictable litigation outcomes. Whether the agency moves toward formal commodity classification rules, and on what timeline, will determine whether this coordinated advocacy translates into lasting regulatory certainty for the three networks and their token holders.
Bitcoin's hashrate and network security remain the standard against which other proof-of-work and proof-of-stake networks are measured. For XLM, HBAR, and ADA, achieving the regulatory standing that Bitcoin holds by default requires navigating a rulemaking process that Bitcoin never had to face. The outcome of that process will shape the compliance architecture of U.S. digital asset markets well beyond the three named networks.
Additional source references: source document 1.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
Bitcoininfonews first published the article titled XLM, HBAR, ADA Networks Ask SEC to Lock In Commodity Rules.
