Andreessen Horowitz, DeFi Education Fund ask SEC to exempt DEXs from registration

Andreessen Horowitz and the DeFi Education Fund have fired off a joint letter to SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, making the case that certain decentralized exchanges shouldn’t have to register as traditional securities exchanges. The September 14 submission lays out a detailed framework for what they’re calling a “safe harbor” for qualifying DEX protocols and the apps built on top of them.

The core argument is straightforward: protocols that don’t custody user funds, execute trades automatically, and let anyone participate without gatekeepers aren’t really doing the same thing as the New York Stock Exchange. Regulating them identically, the letter suggests, creates a mismatch between rules designed for centralized intermediaries and software that operates more like public infrastructure.

What the safe harbor would actually look like

The proposed framework rests on four criteria that a DEX protocol must satisfy to qualify for the exemption. First, the protocol must be non-custodial, meaning no single party holds or controls user assets during the trading process. Second, trade execution must be automated rather than dependent on human discretion. Third, access must be permissionless, open to anyone without approval from a central authority. Fourth, the protocol must demonstrate what a16z and DEF call “credible neutrality,” essentially proving that no party involved in the trading process enjoys discretionary privileges or outsized control.

For the front-end applications that provide user interfaces to these protocols, the letter introduces a separate but related standard. DEX Apps, as the letter terms them, would need to source their market data from objective, publicly available sources rather than proprietary feeds.

Neither the letter nor the proposal names specific protocols, tokens, or applications. The criteria are meant to be technology-neutral, applying to any system that meets the objective thresholds rather than carving out exceptions for politically connected projects.

A year of building the case

This isn’t the first time these two organizations have knocked on the SEC’s door. Back on August 13, 2025, a16z and the DeFi Education Fund submitted a separate proposal advocating for a broker-dealer safe harbor for DeFi applications. That earlier effort focused on the intermediary layer, the apps and interfaces that connect users to on-chain liquidity, rather than the underlying protocol infrastructure.

In April 2026, SEC staff issued guidance that effectively endorsed the idea that non-custodial user interfaces occupy a different regulatory category than custodial platforms. That staff statement didn’t create binding exemptions, but it signaled internal momentum toward the kind of framework a16z and DEF are now formally requesting.

The latest letter also aligns with broader policy directions set by SEC Chair Paul Atkins and directives from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets. Commissioner Peirce, who leads the agency’s Crypto Task Force, received the submission.

Why this matters for DeFi markets

Registration as a securities exchange under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is not a light lift. It requires compliance infrastructure, surveillance systems, and operational standards built for organizations with centralized management and identifiable counterparties. For a smart contract deployed on a public blockchain, many of these requirements are either technically impossible to satisfy or fundamentally mismatched to how the technology works.

By defining a narrow category of qualifying DEXs, the framework implicitly signals that protocols falling outside those criteria—ones with governance tokens that confer special privileges, discretionary listing processes, or centralized sequencing—remain squarely within the SEC’s enforcement perimeter. The safe harbor protects the most decentralized systems while potentially increasing scrutiny on everything else.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.