A planned hearing on crypto policy may focus heavily on tokenized securities, derivatives, and the rules needed to support them. However, the structure of the panel may limit how far this discussion goes, according to public affairs attorney Andrew Rossow.
Rossow stated that the witness list leans toward incumbents and industry trade groups. In his view, this makeup shapes what the hearing can realistically bring to light. As a result, the discussion might concentrate on specific regulatory issues instead of exploring broader concerns within the digital asset space.
He also pointed to notable gaps in the lineup. Rossow said the list does not appear to include a consumer or investor protection advocate, an academic skeptic, or a representative from a DeFi or crypto-native protocol.
Rossow said those omissions matter because they affect the range of issues likely to surface. Without those perspectives, the hearing may give less attention to risks outside the priorities of large institutions and trade bodies.
This imbalance could also explain why the hearing may center on tokenized financial products and their regulatory treatment. Rossow said the conversation may lean toward questions that matter most to traditional market participants.
In turn, the absence of consumer-focused or crypto-native witnesses may leave some practical concerns underexplored. This includes risks tied to how these products function on blockchain networks.
Rossow identified classification as one of the core issues before lawmakers and regulators. He said current legal precedent does not clearly resolve how tokenized financial products should be treated.
He said the Howey Test was not made for easily movable, multifunctional assets. In his description, some of these instruments may act as securities while also operating with payment-related guardrails. This legal ambiguity remains central to the policy debate.
Rossow said neither of the bills tied to the hearing addresses what he described as the most consequential unresolved legal question in tokenized capital markets: whether a tokenized asset is, in fact, a security.
Also Read: ECB Enters Final Stage of Digital Euro as EU Lawmakers Advance Rules
Rossow also addressed a draft bill that would allow certain regulated firms to use blockchain-based records. While the measure may sound operational, he said it raises difficult questions.
These include the records' standards, who must prove their reliability, and how failures are handled. He specifically cited blockchain reorganizations and lost private keys as unresolved concerns.
He was similarly critical of the other bill on market modernization through tokenization. Rossow described it as a delay mechanism presented as an action rather than a direct answer to the core legal issues.
He also said materials released so far do not address investor risks linked to buggy code, unnoticed upgrades, or blockchain reorganizations. Those issues, he noted, remain relevant as lawmakers consider how tokenized capital markets should work.
The article shows that the US crypto hearing may focus on tokenized securities and blockchain records while leaving major legal and investor protection issues unresolved. Missing voices from consumer advocates, academics, and crypto-native groups may also limit the scope of the debate. Lawmakers may need broader input to address these gaps.