Cryptocurrency firms have asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to speed up its review of exchange-traded fund applications and to permit confidential draft filings, according to public comments submitted to the agency's rulemaking docket on novel ETFs, logged under file number S7-2026-24.

The submissions respond to the SEC's earlier request for public comment on novel exchange-traded funds, the formal opening that invited industry feedback on how these products are handled. The requests were first reported by The Block.

What the Firms Want the SEC to Change

The two requests are narrow, and both concern process rather than product. Firms want ETF reviews completed on a faster or more predictable timetable, and they want the option to submit draft filings confidentially rather than entirely in public.

ETF review timing refers to the window between when an issuer files and when the SEC either clears the product or forces changes. A confidential draft filing would let an issuer share a proposed fund structure with staff privately, resolving questions before the paperwork becomes part of the open record.

Neither request is a bid for automatic approval. The firms are asking the agency to adjust the mechanics of how it examines applications — a distinction that separates process reform from the decision to greenlight any specific fund. That framing echoes an earlier campaign in which industry groups pushed the SEC for tailored rules on novel ETFs.

Why Confidential Draft Filings Could Matter for Crypto ETF Launches

Confidential drafts would give issuers room to revise a filing before it faces public and competitor scrutiny, cutting down the back-and-forth that currently plays out on the open docket. A similar mechanism is already available to companies in other corners of the securities market — the SEC has long allowed traditional equity and debt issuers to submit draft registration statements for nonpublic staff review, a pathway formalized under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012 for emerging growth companies and later extended more broadly. The crypto firms' ask would carry that same disclosure convention into the fund space.

For issuers, the appeal is competitive timing. A more predictable review cycle lets teams plan launches, prepare compliance work, and line up market-making without broadcasting their structure to rivals mid-review — a dynamic visible in fast-moving races like the one in which Ripple's XRP won September's first ETF fight. The episode illustrates how public dockets currently surface competing structures while reviews are still pending.

The firms frame the confidential-draft option as leveling the playing field rather than seeking special treatment, arguing it would align crypto ETF handling with disclosure pathways already used elsewhere.

Implications for the Next Phase of SEC Crypto ETF Policy

The comments signal dissatisfaction with the current review cadence and disclosure pathway. Because they are attached to a rulemaking docket rather than a single product filing, any SEC response would set expectations for future crypto ETF applicants, not just one issuer.

The underlying rulemaking traces to the SEC's request for comment on novel ETFs, published in July 2026, which opened the door to exactly this kind of procedural input. How the agency weighs it will indicate whether it intends to standardize crypto ETF review or continue handling each product case by case.

For creators and issuers building tokenized and digital-asset funds, the outcome matters most as an infrastructure question: the rules that govern how a product gets to market shape who can realistically bring one. A precedent for procedural overhaul exists — the SEC's adoption of generic listing standards for most ETFs in 2019 significantly shortened standard review timelines for conventional funds, showing the agency has previously moved to make ETF approvals more routine. The comment file remains the place to watch for the SEC's next move.