No, the SEC did not just declare Bitcoin, Ether, XRP and Solana commodities

A version of this has been circulating for three weeks: the SEC officially labels Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP and Solana commodities. The underlying document is real. The description of it is not.

Order No. 34-106268, dated 3 September 2026, granted accelerated approval to a proposal Nasdaq Texas filed on 20 August. It amends Rule 5711(d), that exchange's generic listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares, which is the product category spot crypto ETFs sit in. The order introduces a definition of "digital commodities" and names Bitcoin, Ether, Solana and XRP as assets currently meeting the eligibility requirements, as CoinGape reported.

What it does not do

It does not classify anything under federal law. As 24/7 Wall St put it, the order "does not create a new law or declare XRP, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana commodities under federal statute." It changes what a fund must satisfy to list a product on one exchange.

There is also a structural reason the headline cannot be right. The SEC does not have the power to designate something a commodity. Commodity status comes from the Commodity Exchange Act and sits with the CFTC. An SEC order approving an exchange's listing rule is not the venue for that question, and the agency was not attempting to answer it.

Two further details deflate the "breaking" framing. Equivalent rule changes were already approved for Nasdaq, NYSE Arca and Cboe in July, so the September order brought a fourth venue into line rather than breaking new ground. And a separate SEC and CFTC joint interpretation in March did address these assets directly. That is a different document from a different process, and conflating the two is where most of the confusion comes from.

The parts that actually matter

Buried under the misdescribed headline are two amendments with real consequences:

• A 15% buffer. A fund may now hold up to 15% of net asset value in assets that fail the exchange's eligibility test. That is the door through which smaller tokens, ones without mature futures markets, can reach an exchange-listed wrapper for the first time. It is the single most consequential line in the order and it was in almost no coverage.
• Active management is allowed. The passive-management requirement is removed, so a listed crypto product no longer has to track a fixed formula. Actively managed crypto funds become possible on that venue.

Between them, those two provisions do more to change what can be sold to retail investors than any labelling question. A 15% allocation to assets that could not otherwise qualify, inside an actively managed fund, is a materially different product from a passive spot Bitcoin trust.

Why the distinction is worth holding onto

This is the second time in a month that an agency action has been read as more permanent than it is. The CLARITY Act failed in the Senate on 15 September by 49 votes to 50, and the SEC moved two days later to open a path for tokenized stocks through guidance rather than legislation. We wrote about why that route is weaker than a law, not stronger.

The same logic applies here. An agency interpretation embedded in an exchange listing standard can be revisited by a future commission, and since the Supreme Court ended Chevron deference in 2024, it is also easier to challenge in court. Useful today, and not the settled statutory answer the industry has been asking for since 2018.

If you are checking a claim like this yourself, the order number is the fastest route. Release numbers beginning 34- are Exchange Act releases and are published on the SEC's own site. Reading the order beats reading the graphic about the order.

Sources checked 23 September 2026. Order number, dates and provisions from CoinGape, 24/7 Wall St and U.Today. Nothing here is investment, legal or tax advice.