the old regime clearly got things wrong. I'm asking about tokens like MANA and SAND which clearly function primarily as in-world currency and utility tools, with real user activity. Not what an old regime said. So these clearly are considered collectibles or Tools. Do they have to do a separate fill

What the new framework actually says about tokens like these

The March 2026 joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release changed the ground rules in one fundamental way. The SEC has indicated that the security status of a particular crypto asset depends on the facts and circumstances of its offer and sale, and that a crypto asset may no longer be linked to an investment contract as the relevant facts evolve. That is the key sentence for MANA and SAND. The early ICO sales in 2017 were the problem. The current reality, millions of users spending these tokens on virtual land, wearables, and in-world experiences, is what matters going forward.

The interpretation emphasizes a transaction-focused analysis, noting that marketing, commitments, and ongoing managerial efforts, not the token's form or label, are central to determining whether an arrangement constitutes an investment contract. If Decentraland and Sandbox can demonstrate that no one is buying MANA or SAND today because they expect a founding team to generate profits for them, that is a genuine argument that the investment contract analysis no longer applies.

Under the five-category taxonomy, digital tools and digital collectibles are the honest home for tokens that power a functioning economy inside a virtual world. The SEC's old enforcement posture was built on early distribution facts, not on what the tokens actually do at scale. Those are two different questions.

So do they have to file something?

The honest answer as of September 2026 is: yes, but the filing is not what it would have been.

The new token taxonomy addresses five asset categories, with only one of the five categories, digital securities, fully in scope of SEC jurisdiction. If Decentraland and Sandbox can credibly position MANA and SAND as digital tools or digital commodities, they are stepping out of the SEC's primary lane. But they do not simply declare that and move on.

Firms should plan for operations under the dual SEC/CFTC framework: classify assets as digital commodities or securities/investment contracts, prepare for CFTC registration if operating non-security token platforms, and align tokenized assets with the appropriate regulatory requirements including documented rights. In plain terms: you make the case through disclosure and documentation, not by ignoring the agencies.

The practical path for a token like MANA or SAND right now involves working with counsel to formally assert the classification, disclose the token's current mechanics, usage data, and governance structure, and engage the CFTC as the relevant regulator going forward rather than the SEC. It is lighter than a securities registration but it is not nothing.

The legislative wildcard

The CLARITY Act, which would write all of this into permanent statute with a formal mechanism for tokens to move between categories, failed its Senate cloture vote on September 15, 2026, falling eleven votes short of the 60 required. That matters because the March 2026 interpretation named sixteen major tokens as digital commodities, but only on interpretive footing a future administration could undo. The CLARITY Act would have turned that label into law.

So MANA and SAND are operating in a better environment than 2023, but not yet a settled one. The framework favors them on the substance. The process still requires them to make their case actively, not assume the old enforcement-era label has simply disappeared. The teams that do the work now, building the disclosure record and the CFTC relationship, will be the ones holding a stronger position if and when the statute eventually passes.