What entered OIRA review
Reginfo lists the initiative as Amendments to the Custody Rules under RIN 3235-AN46. OIRA records a received date of 25 August and the status Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review. The action is at the proposed-rule stage, meaning the agency is preparing a proposal that has not yet become a public notice of proposed rulemaking.
The SEC's Unified Agenda classifies the action as economically significant and designates it deregulatory under Executive Order 14192. That label indicates the agency's intended direction, but it does not reveal which obligations or exceptions the draft contains. While OIRA is reviewing a non-public submission, specific claims about the final wording would be speculation.
The agenda gives October 2026 as the target for an NPRM. It is a planning date rather than a statutory deadline: the same record says there is no legal deadline. Publication would expose the proposed text, economic analysis and comment process. Only then will advisers, funds and custodians be able to assess requirements for particular assets and custody models.
Why crypto assets strain the existing custody model
The current rule at 17 CFR 275.206(4)-2 applies to registered investment advisers that have custody of client funds or securities. Its baseline framework uses a qualified custodian, segregated client accounts, notices, periodic statements and, in certain custody arrangements, an annual surprise examination by an independent accountant. The rule contains exceptions, so the exact duties depend on the account and fund structure.
Crypto assets add a technical layer. Control of a private key can provide the practical ability to transfer an asset even when the legal account structure describes custody differently. At the same time, not every crypto asset is necessarily a security. Advisers therefore have to examine asset classification, wallet design, signing authority and the legal status of the custodian together.
The SEC agenda says investment advisers and investment companies have raised questions about holding crypto assets under existing custody requirements. The new work invokes both the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Its scope is therefore broader than the narrower debate over whether a particular crypto exchange can qualify as a custodian.
How this relates to the 2023 safeguarding proposal
In March 2023, the SEC published a separate proposal called Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets. It would have replaced the custody rule with a broader safeguarding rule, extended protections to all client assets held by an adviser and elaborated on possession or control by a qualified custodian. It also proposed written agreements, additional records and Form ADV changes.
The new agenda entry has a different title and speaks about modernizing rules for both advisers and funds. Because the current draft is not public, it is not possible to determine which elements of the 2023 proposal the SEC may retain, replace or discard. Describing the new action as either a simple revival or a complete reversal would go beyond the available record.
A deregulatory designation does not by itself mean abandoning asset safeguards. The official statement of need combines removal of outdated burdens with clarification of crypto custody. The real balance will depend on future definitions of custody and qualified custodian, audit and contractual requirements, and any transition period in the published NPRM.
What changes for investors and services today
At this stage, the proposal changes neither personal wallet custody nor exchange withdrawal terms. The rulemaking is directed at regulated investment advisers, investment companies and the custodians serving them. It does not prohibit self-custody and does not turn an ordinary hardware wallet into a regulated qualified custodian.
If the SEC eventually publishes and adopts a new rule, it could affect institutional custodian selection, client-asset segregation, key management, contracts, statements and independent verification. For crypto platforms, the important issue would not be the marketing word custody but whether the service meets the legal definition and can demonstrate control, segregation and performance of client-facing obligations.
Three official records matter now: the OIRA review page, the Unified Agenda timetable and any future Federal Register notice. Until an NPRM appears, claims about permitted custodians, removed examinations or treatment of specific tokens remain unverified. The next substantive event will be an OIRA conclusion or publication of the SEC proposal for public comment.
