Benchmark calls SEC’s NMS bid to repeal Rules 611 and 610(e) the year’s most consequential crypto move

The most important part of the SEC’s crypto-adjacent market-structure play may not be new requirements. It may be removing old ones.

Benchmark said last week’s SEC proposal to rescind NMS Rules 611 and 610(e) is the year’s “most consequential” U.S. crypto rule. In the same sentence, Benchmark basically signals what matters for exchanges and trading venues. Those rules shape how orders route and how competition for liquidity plays out.

What the SEC is trying to undo

The SEC proposal, according to Benchmark, seeks to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e). Those rules live in the SEC’s broader National Market System framework, which governs how registered trading venues operate in U.S. equity markets. Benchmark’s framing matters because it treats this as a rule that changes incentives and constraints, not a minor clarification.

If the SEC moves forward, the practical impact would flow from one thing. Fewer or different constraints on order handling and related routing obligations could change how market participants manage trading activity across venues.

Why Benchmark thinks it’s “most consequential”

Benchmark’s choice of words is about reach. Rules 611 and 610(e) sit at the intersection of market structure and liquidity competition. Benchmarks like this are usually less about whether the rule is “important” in the abstract and more about whether it meaningfully shifts power between venue operators and traders.

Benchmark’s comment suggests the market-structure knock-on effects could matter more than other crypto-adjacent rulemaking that mostly adjusts disclosure or narrows specific conduct.

Who benefits when constraints get lifted

Benchmark’s statement does not spell out a winner and a loser, but the logic is straightforward. When the SEC proposes to rescind specific NMS rules, any reduction in mandated behavior gives market participants more discretion.

That usually means room to optimize routing, execution strategy, and venue selection. It can also mean that the competitive balance between venues depends more on business choices than on the baseline obligations baked into the rule text.

At minimum, Benchmark’s “most consequential” label implies the repeal could alter how trading infrastructure competes for order flow. That tends to show up as changes in execution quality, speed, and cost for traders, even if the underlying trading assets remain the same.

What readers should watch next

Benchmark’s assessment hinges on the SEC proposal itself. The next question is whether the SEC rescinds those rules as proposed and what timeline follows. Until the SEC finalizes anything, the relevant signal is procedural.

Readers should track the SEC’s next steps after the proposal, because the difference between “proposed” and “effective” is where real-world behavior actually changes. For market participants, that’s the point when compliance teams stop modeling scenarios and start mapping obligations to outcomes.

The bottom line for crypto-adjacent markets

Even though this is an NMS proposal and not a spot exchange listing rule, Benchmark’s framing treats it as crypto-relevant. Benchmark argues the biggest U.S. crypto impact this year comes from market-structure constraints that could be removed, not added.

That means the story to follow is not headlines about “innovation.” It is rulemaking that changes who controls execution mechanics, how competition works, and what deadlines the SEC sets for the market to adjust.