After a three-year absence, crypto lender Nexo has officially returned to the United States, marking one of the most closely watched re-entries in the American digital asset sector. Many investors wonder if this comeback was made possible because crypto laws and policies in the country softened, or because Nexo restructured how it operates to fit within existing boundaries.
Nexo first began offering crypto-backed credit lines to U.S. customers in 2018. The global crypto firm soon expanded its footprint, adding its Earn Interest Product, which allowed users to earn yield on deposited cryptocurrencies. However, already in 2022, Nexo exited the U.S. market amid mounting regulatory pressure.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) argued that the Earn Interest product constituted an unregistered securities offering under longstanding securities laws and the Howey Test framework. Multiple state regulators also took action.
In early 2023, Nexo agreed to a $45 million settlement with federal and state authorities and ceased offering the interest product to U.S. customers. Shortly after, it withdrew from the American market altogether, citing regulatory uncertainty and an inability to find a sustainable path forward at the time.
In February 2026, Nexo has re-entered the U.S. but under a different structure. Rather than offering products directly in the same manner as before, Nexo has reportedly rebuilt its U.S. strategy, parterning with licensed comanies (like Bakkt) that meet local regulatory requirements regarding how the crypto products are built and delivered. Therefore, the firm’s digital asset products (like yield, loans, exchange, etc.) now comply with U.S. securities and financial laws through third-party support.
In essence, the platform adapted its operational model to the market requirements with stronger compliance controls, revised product structuring, clearer segmentation of services, and finally operating through regulated partner entities.
Did Crypto-Favourable Environment in the U.S. Help Nexo Return?
At the same time, many market observers acknowledge the merit of shifting financial policies in the U.S. as one of the factors that facilitated Nexo return as well. Do these statements hold any truth?
To understand Nexo’s initial departure, it’s important to revisit the 2022 legal environment.
Under the former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the regulator adopted quite an aggressive enforcement posture toward crypto firms. The agency maintained that many if not all crypto tokens and yield-bearing products qualified as securities and therefore required registration.
Major industry players faced investigations and later lawsuits for failing to properly register their offerings, including Coinbase, Kraken and Binance.
This period became widely described within the industry as “regulation by enforcement,” as companies argued that clear rulemaking had not preceded legal action.
Simultaneously, high-profile collapses, including FTX downfall, only intensified scrutiny of crypto lending and yield models, reinforcing regulators’ concerns about investor protection.
Today, the crypto stance in Washington appears somewhat less confrontational than during the peak enforcement wave. Court rulings have introduced nuances around token classifications. Policymakers have debated the need for clearer digital asset legislation. And some firms have begun cautiously re-engaging with the U.S. market.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that milder crypto attitude is more reflected in political statements than in actual legislation. There has been no comprehensive federal crypto law passed that redefines when a token is or is not a security. The SEC has not formally abandoned its position that many crypto assets may fall under securities laws. The fundamental legal framework that helps label crypto as securities that need proper registration, including the Howey Test, also remains intact.
In other words, the environment may feel more measured at the surface, but it has not been deregulated at its core. In this respect, Nexo’s return does not signal a retreat by regulators. Instead, it highlights a recalibration and adoption practiced by the industry players.
