Key Takeaways
- • On August 12, 2026, the SEC's Division of Investment Management issued its first no-action letter applying Rule 17f-2's self-custody framework to digital assets, permitting Franklin Templeton registered funds to hold tokenized shares of the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Market Fund with an affiliated transfer agent.
- • The relief exempts Franklin Templeton funds from Rule 17f-2's traditional physical custody requirements—specifically vaulting, segregation, deposit-withdrawal notation, and physical examination by independent accountants—recognizing the inapplicability of 1947-era physical asset rules to blockchain-based securities.
- • This marks the first SEC staff position explicitly addressing digital asset self-custody under the Investment Company Act, establishing regulatory precedent for how Rule 17f-2 adapts to tokenized securities held within registered fund structures.
- • The no-action letter signals regulatory flexibility for affiliated custody arrangements involving digital assets, potentially broadening pathways for other fund families and registered investment advisers seeking comparable relief for crypto and tokenized asset holdings.
Summary
The SEC has granted meaningful regulatory relief to Franklin Templeton, marking a watershed moment in how federal securities regulators treat digital asset custody within registered fund structures. On August 12, 2026, the Division of Investment Management issued a no-action letter permitting Franklin Templeton's U.S. registered open-end and closed-end funds to self-custody tokenized shares of the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Market Fund using an affiliated transfer agent. The relief represents the first SEC staff application of Rule 17f-2's self-custody framework specifically to digital assets.
Critically, the no-action letter exempts Franklin Templeton from three core provisions of Rule 17f-2: the requirement for physical vaulting and segregation of securities (paragraph b), deposit-and-withdrawal notation requirements (paragraph e), and physical examination and verification by independent public accountants (paragraph f). These requirements, embedded in the rule since its adoption in 1947 and last amended in 1989, assume physical possession of certificated securities—a framework fundamentally incompatible with blockchain-based tokenized assets that exist in digital form and are verified through distributed ledger technology.
The regulatory background underscores the challenge that prompted Franklin Templeton's request. Section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act governs custodial arrangements for registered fund assets. Rule 17f-2 establishes conditions for self-custody by a fund or affiliated person, but the rule's language and operational requirements presume physical asset handling. By issuing this no-action letter, the SEC acknowledges that applying 1947-era custodial standards to digital securities would create unnecessary friction without enhancing investor protection—digital assets can be segregated and verified through cryptographic methods and blockchain records rather than physical vaulting and examination.
The letter's significance extends beyond Franklin Templeton. It establishes SEC staff's willingness to modernize legacy custody rules for digital assets and signals that registered advisers and fund families pursuing similar arrangements may have a viable regulatory pathway. The decision reflects broader SEC evolution toward accommodating digital securities within existing regulatory frameworks rather than imposing novel restrictions. However, the relief remains narrowly tailored to Franklin Templeton's specific arrangement with its affiliate, suggesting the SEC is proceeding cautiously, evaluating digital asset custody on a case-by-case basis while building regulatory precedent.
Critically, the no-action letter exempts Franklin Templeton from three core provisions of Rule 17f-2: the requirement for physical vaulting and segregation of securities (paragraph b), deposit-and-withdrawal notation requirements (paragraph e), and physical examination and verification by independent public accountants (paragraph f). These requirements, embedded in the rule since its adoption in 1947 and last amended in 1989, assume physical possession of certificated securities—a framework fundamentally incompatible with blockchain-based tokenized assets that exist in digital form and are verified through distributed ledger technology.
The regulatory background underscores the challenge that prompted Franklin Templeton's request. Section 17(f) of the Investment Company Act governs custodial arrangements for registered fund assets. Rule 17f-2 establishes conditions for self-custody by a fund or affiliated person, but the rule's language and operational requirements presume physical asset handling. By issuing this no-action letter, the SEC acknowledges that applying 1947-era custodial standards to digital securities would create unnecessary friction without enhancing investor protection—digital assets can be segregated and verified through cryptographic methods and blockchain records rather than physical vaulting and examination.
The letter's significance extends beyond Franklin Templeton. It establishes SEC staff's willingness to modernize legacy custody rules for digital assets and signals that registered advisers and fund families pursuing similar arrangements may have a viable regulatory pathway. The decision reflects broader SEC evolution toward accommodating digital securities within existing regulatory frameworks rather than imposing novel restrictions. However, the relief remains narrowly tailored to Franklin Templeton's specific arrangement with its affiliate, suggesting the SEC is proceeding cautiously, evaluating digital asset custody on a case-by-case basis while building regulatory precedent.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.