खर्च $638M तक पहुँचने पर SEC ने टोकन बायबैक मार्गदर्शन में बदलाव किया

The US Securities and Exchange Commission tightened its guidance regarding crypto token buybacks just three days after its initial publication.

On Sept. 25, SEC staff indicated that a token issuer could announce a buyback without that statement being interpreted as an obligation to manage the asset’s value, provided the crypto system was already operational. On Sept. 28, the agency modified that position by introducing an additional requirement: the network must also feature “no central party.”

This adjustment represents a significant shift in the guidelines, given that many cryptocurrency initiatives utilize buybacks while maintaining varying degrees of oversight by individuals, companies, or committees regarding the execution of those purchases.

The updated statement from SEC staff clarifies that announcing a buyback for a non-security crypto asset does not, by itself, constitute a promise of essential managerial efforts when the system is both functional and free of a central party.

If the network is not yet operational, SEC personnel note that a buyback announcement could be construed as such a commitment if the issuer frames the purchases as a mechanism to produce yield or returns for tokenholders.

This revision arrives as token buybacks gain prominence across the digital asset sector. According to prior CryptoSlate reporting, crypto initiatives allocated a record $638 million toward token buybacks through late August.

The FAQ outlines the perspectives of SEC staff members. It carries no legal binding and does not establish whether any specific token qualifies as a security. Nevertheless, the modification introduces a practical dilemma for projects employing buybacks: who ultimately governs the purchasing process?

While a project may have already invested millions in acquiring its token, that figure provides limited insight into who determines if the next acquisition takes place, the scale of the transaction, or whether the initiative halts altogether.

The question behind the buyback

The SEC provided a more precise explanation of a “central party” in its crypto-asset interpretation released in March.

A central party is classified as an individual, entity, or collective holding operational, economic, or voting authority over a crypto ecosystem. Conversely, a decentralized system functions independently of such control.

This definition pertains to the crypto network as a whole. Consequently, managing a project’s treasury or buyback initiative does not automatically imply that the entire system incorporates a central party, though it can serve as a relevant factor when evaluating economic control.

This distinction becomes critical when a project merges automated buyback mechanisms with human-directed decisions.

A smart contract might execute automated token purchases under one segment of a program, whereas an organization, committee, or DAO retains the authority to dictate whether additional purchases occur.

Therefore, the central inquiry is not merely whether certain purchases happen automatically, but whether humans retain substantial influence over the network and its financial outcomes.

Pump.fun serves as a relevant illustration. In a disclosure on April 28, the platform clarified that references to PUMP acquisitions and a “buyback program” generally referred to operational plans or smart-contract functions rather than a definitive pledge to purchase tokens. An exception was made for transactions pre-programmed to execute automatically via on-chain code deployed prior to April 28, 2026 UTC.

Pump.fun also noted that statements regarding the allocation of roughly 50% of platform revenue toward token purchases represented projections rather than guarantees, adding that third parties could execute certain transactions.

Its PUMP token portal indicates that half of the designated platform revenue was programmatically locked and designated for burning over a one-year span starting April 28. However, the same portal notes that future acquisitions can generally be initiated, suspended, or modified unless they were previously automated.

The two disclosures also reference slightly differing timelines when categorizing automatic purchases. The April 28 disclosure points to code implemented before April 28 UTC, whereas the token portal references operations structured prior to April 29.

Ultimately, the takeaway is clear: Pump.fun outlines two distinct operational categories.

Certain token purchases are predetermined and executed automatically, while others rely on future discretionary choices. This distinction alone does not determine whether Pump.fun features a “central party” under SEC guidelines, as answering that question necessitates evaluating who governs the broader ecosystem rather than just its buyback protocols.

Aave’s pause shows discretion in action

Aave offers another example of how human discretion can influence a token-buyback framework.

In a funding update on Feb. 28, DAO contributor TokenLogic reported that the Aave Finance Committee could modify weekly AAVE buyback amounts within a 75% boundary. The committee was authorized to adjust these figures based on variables such as liquidity, market fluctuations, timing, and protocol earnings. TokenLogic stated that the DAO had dedicated $42 million to acquire over 205,000 AAVE during the first 10 months of the initiative.

The committee’s operational flexibility became evident in April. A governance notice issued on April 22 revealed that AAVE buybacks had been suspended beginning April 19 following an rsETH bridge security event the preceding day.

TokenLogic explained that the temporary halt aimed to afford the treasury greater adaptability while evaluating the impact of the incident, adding that any resumption would be communicated through standard funding updates.

A subsequent funding report between August and September listed AAVE among the assets eligible for purchase under revised token allocations.

Nevertheless, that report did not explicitly confirm that AAVE buybacks had resumed, nor did it supply logs of executed purchases following the suspension.

Consequently, the April notification verifies that the program was halted at that juncture, while the later update indicates that purchasing capabilities remained intact without definitively proving that buying activity had restarted.

Aave’s experience underscores the significance of the SEC’s revised terminology.

Stakeholders retained the ability to scale the buyback program and subsequently halt acquisitions when circumstances shifted.

Such oversight does not automatically classify Aave as having a central party under the SEC framework. The SEC’s evaluation standard is broader, examining who holds operational, economic, or voting authority over the entire crypto network.

However, for investors seeking to gauge the true decentralization of a buyback initiative, a fundamental question remains:

Who possesses the authority to initiate, halt, or alter subsequent purchases, and what broader influence do they exert over the network?

?अक्सर पूछे जाने वाले प्रश्न

01What changed in the SEC’s updated token buyback guidance?

The SEC added a new condition stating that for a token buyback announcement not to be treated as a promise of essential managerial efforts, the underlying crypto system must have no central party, in addition to being already functional.

Does the SEC guidance mean token buybacks are illegal?

No. The FAQ reflects the views of SEC staff, is not legally binding, and does not determine whether any particular token is a security.

02What defines a “central party” according to the SEC?

A central party is defined as a person, company, or group that holds operational, economic, or voting control over a crypto system.