Menu
MCAP $2.89T ▼-2.82%
BTC $85,287 ▲+0.73%
ETH $2,700 ▲+0.58%
BNB $788.28 ▲+2.42%
XRP $1.500 ▲+0.88%
SOL $121.18 ▲+1.54%
DOGE $0.0935 ▲+0.73%
ADA $0.245 ▼-0.08%
TRX $0.3361 ▼-0.13%
LINK $14.09 ▲+1.14%
AVAX $10.98 ▼-1.52%
HYPE $90.22 ▲+2.55%
DOT $1.190 ▼-0.48%

CFTC

Every Crypto Coin Show story tagged CFTC, newest first, alongside the guides and interviews that give it context.

Guide: SEC vs CFTC: how US cryptoGuide: Perpetual futures, funding rates and liquidations,Newsletter
Leveraged funds narrow Bitcoin futures net shorts to 35,720 BTC-equivalent
Bitcoin

Leveraged funds narrow Bitcoin futures net shorts to 35,720 BTC-equivalent

, , , , , , ,

BitcoinCrypto Coin Show News Team·October 3, 2026·3 min read

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s latest Bitcoin futures positioning data shows leveraged funds cutting their reported short exposure by 5,300 BTC-equivalent in the week to September 29, even as their overall long positions contracted. For institutional traders and fund managers, the reduction in shorts occurred alongside a contraction in overall futures market exposure, though a futures short may be part of a hedge and does not necessarily establish fresh spot-market demand or reflect a sustained conviction reversal.

  • Leveraged funds’ reported Bitcoin futures shorts fell 5,299.69 BTC-equivalent between September 22 and September 29, according to CFTC data released October 2.
  • Their net short position narrowed by 4,390.70 BTC-equivalent to 35,720.13 BTC-equivalent, even as longs fell 908.99 BTC-equivalent in the same period.
  • Combined open interest across CME standard and micro Bitcoin futures plus Coinbase Derivatives nano products fell 13.31% to 103,343.14 BTC-equivalent, signaling overall market contraction.
  • 5,300 BTC-equivalent reduction in leveraged funds’ reported short positions week-over-week
  • 13.31% decline in total open interest across all four tracked Bitcoin futures products
  • 35,720 BTC-equivalent net short position for leveraged funds after the week’s repositioning

The CFTC’s latest futures-only positioning data covers four Bitcoin derivatives markets: CME standard Bitcoin futures (5 Bitcoin contracts), CME micro Bitcoin futures (Bitcoin X $0.10 contracts), Coinbase Derivatives nano Bitcoin futures, and nano perpetual-style futures. The data, released in the October 2 reporting cycle, converts different contract sizes into BTC-equivalent exposure to allow institutional traders and analysts to compare positioning across all four venues on a standardized basis.

Leveraged funds cut shorts faster than they reduced longs as markets contracted

On CME standard Bitcoin futures, leveraged fund shorts declined and accounted for 4,310 BTC-equivalent of the total 5,300 BTC-equivalent short decline. This single product bore most of the repositioning, while their long exposure on the same venue actually grew by 1,175 BTC-equivalent, between the two dates.

The picture diverged sharply on CME micro futures and both Coinbase products. Leveraged fund longs fell across all three, with the micro venue seeing significant declines that offset the gains in standard CME longs. Total leveraged fund exposure across all four products consequently narrowed, with short reduction outpacing the long contraction by 4,391 BTC-equivalent in net terms.

Asset managers, a separate category tracked by the CFTC, moved in the opposite direction, increasing their net long position by 2,137.90 BTC-equivalent to 18,069.10 BTC-equivalent, driven mostly by falling shorts (down 1,564.80 BTC-equivalent) rather than expanding longs.

September micro contract expiry and classification shifts muddy causation behind the repositioning

The CFTC data does not distinguish between active liquidation and automatic roll-overs. CME’s monthly micro Bitcoin contract expired on September 25, falling between the two observation dates, and traders typically shift positions forward to the next month’s contract. This mechanical factor could explain part of the open interest contraction without implying any change in underlying conviction.

Category reclassification compounds the interpretation challenge. The CFTC groups traders by their predominant business activity, and entities that shift their primary focus move to a new category in the next reporting cycle.

A fund might move from leveraged-funds to asset-manager classification if its trading profile changes, which would reduce reported leveraged-fund shorts even if no actual position was closed. The data release does not flag individual reclassifications, making it impossible to isolate how much of the week’s move came from genuine position reduction versus administrative recategorization.

Smaller short positions do not confirm spot buying or conviction change

A reduction in futures shorts does not automatically signal reduced bearish conviction or increased spot-market demand. Leveraged funds often use futures shorts as a hedge against physical bitcoin holdings or to manage risk on long spot positions they hold elsewhere. Closing a short leg could reflect profit-taking on an existing hedge rather than a turn toward bullish positioning.

The CFTC reports do not capture paired spot and ETF positions, so a complete picture of leveraged fund conviction remains obscured by this data window alone.

The CCS read. We note the source did not address whether this short reduction reflects genuine capitulation by leveraged traders or mechanical expiry and roll effects. If the next report, due October 9, shows leveraged funds maintaining smaller short exposure and rebuilding longs, the shift gains institutional weight. If shorts rebound, this week’s move becomes noise in the normal churn of futures markets.

The next CFTC Commitments of Traders release is scheduled for October 9 (Friday) and will cover positions as of October 6. That report will clarify whether leveraged funds have sustained their short reduction, reversed it, or simply moved positions forward into new contract months without changing exposure.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Kalshi ends volume-incentive program early amid trading pattern scrutiny
Exchange News

Kalshi ends volume-incentive program early amid trading pattern scrutiny

, , , , , , ,

Exchange NewsCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 30, 2026·4 min read

Kalshi is terminating its volume-incentive program nearly a year early and replacing it with a more flexible rewards framework, even as the prediction-market operator defends itself against scrutiny over trading patterns and approaches a $40 billion valuation. The shift raises hard questions about whether the exchange’s record-breaking activity reflects genuine demand or dependence on rewards engineering.

  • Kalshi filed to end its Volume Incentive Program on October 13, 2026, nearly a year ahead of its original October 1, 2027 deadline.
  • The exchange handled $3.24 billion in contracts on September 27 alone, with weekly volume reaching $15.66 billion, capturing 80% of all tracked prediction-market volume.
  • Kalshi is replacing fixed-pool volume rewards with targeted promotions allowing up to $2,500 per participant and $5,000 lifetime, with heightened surveillance for abusive trading.
  • $40B Kalshi’s target valuation in ongoing funding talks, up from $22 billion in May 2026
  • 80% Kalshi’s share of tracked prediction-market volume as of late September 2026
  • $15.66B Weekly contract volume in the seven days through September 27

Kalshi told the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a September 28 filing that its Volume Incentive Program will terminate no earlier than October 13 (Tuesday, October 13, 2026), accelerating by 363 days its previously scheduled wind-down. The decision comes as researchers have identified repetitive trading patterns in Kalshi’s perpetual futures markets, including clusters of roughly $5,500 trades in Ethereum contracts. Kalshi has rejected allegations of wash trading, saying such activity reflects market makers placing fixed-size quotes that other traders repeatedly hit. The company says it is not under investigation. The filing provides no explanation for the early termination and does not link it to the trading scrutiny.

Kalshi replaces volume pools with targeted trader promotions and surveillance

Days before filing to end the original program, Kalshi submitted a new Deposit and Trading Reward Incentive Program to the CFTC, with the modified version received September 25 and effective as of September 28. The two programs can overlap during the transition, but the new framework grants the exchange far greater discretion in how it spends money to attract traders.

Under the old structure, Kalshi distributed fixed reward pools proportionally to each trader’s share of eligible market volume. The new program lets Kalshi run time-limited promotions lasting three to 90 days, each tied to deposits, trading activity or both.

Individual promotions can pay up to $2,500 per participant; total rewards are capped at $5,000 per person over a planned two-year program life. Kalshi can offer percentage matches or fixed-value incentives across any category it designates, crypto, sports, economics, financials, politics, weather and entertainment.

The new framework explicitly addresses suspected abusive trading. Transactions under review for potential self-matching, wash trading, prearranged trading or other prohibited conduct will be excluded from promotional rewards. Kalshi’s surveillance staff will apply heightened monitoring to incentive recipients and can terminate eligibility or pursue disciplinary action.

Record volume masks unresolved questions about reward dependency

The incentive transition unfolds against a backdrop of record trading activity. According to DeFiRate data, Kalshi handled $3.24 billion in contracts on September 27 alone, with weekly volume reaching $15.66 billion in the seven days through that date. Its share of tracked prediction-market volume climbed to near 80%, up substantially from levels a year earlier.

That growth is driving investor appetite. Kalshi is in advanced discussions to raise approximately $1 billion at a valuation near $40 billion, Reuters reported. Sequoia Capital and Wellington Management are discussing leading the round, with Tiger Global and Dragoneer Investment Group also considering participation. A deal at that price would nearly double the $22 billion valuation Kalshi secured in a $1 billion raise in May. The company is also exploring expansion beyond prediction markets into additional asset classes and has held preliminary discussions about a potential initial public offering.

The critical question investors now face is whether Kalshi’s activity reflects durable customer demand or continued reliance on the economics the exchange engineers.

The structure of the new program suggests Kalshi believes targeted acquisition can work without fixed-volume pools. By tying rewards to account age, funding status, prior activity levels, geography and contract categories, Kalshi can segment its customer base and tailor incentives to retention rather than raw volume.

Yet the program’s inclusion of heightened surveillance language, explicitly excluding suspected wash trading and self-matching from rewards, implies Kalshi acknowledges that some activity flagged by researchers may not reflect genuine market demand.

One material question remains unresolved: whether Kalshi’s data on “abusive trading” will be disclosed to the CFTC or made public, and if so, in what form.

The filing states that Kalshi’s surveillance staff will apply heightened monitoring and can exclude transactions, but it does not specify whether results of that monitoring will be reported to regulators or become subject to the CFTC’s docket on prediction-market operator rules. That transparency question matters to institutional investors assessing the health of Kalshi’s orderbook and the reliability of volume figures used to support a $40 billion valuation.

The CCS read. Kalshi’s shift from pooled to targeted rewards may reduce headline volume in the short term but could improve quality by filtering out mechanical trading tied to fixed incentive structures. For ETF sponsors and institutions benchmarking prediction-market liquidity, the early program termination signals either confidence that underlying demand is durable or a defensive move to preempt further scrutiny. The heightened surveillance language suggests Kalshi is tightening definitions of acceptable activity, a prudent step if regulators are watching, but one that could reveal margin between reported and genuine volume.

Watch for the CFTC’s response to Kalshi’s new framework. The regulator must rule on whether the modified program meets the standards set in its prediction-market operator rules. Any conditions the CFTC imposes, particularly around surveillance disclosure or transaction exclusion thresholds, will signal how closely federal regulators are examining the relationship between incentives and trading volume across the crypto derivatives sector.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

CFTC registers Coinbase Clearing as derivatives clearinghouse while stock perpetuals await approval
Exchange News

CFTC registers Coinbase Clearing as derivatives clearinghouse while stock perpetuals await approval

, , , , , , , ,

Editor's ChoiceCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 30, 2026·3 min read

Coinbase has closed the final structural gap in its US derivatives business after the CFTC registered Coinbase Clearing LLC as a derivatives clearing organization, giving the exchange control over trading, listing and clearing for the first time. Yet the product Coinbase has promoted hardest, single-stock perpetual futures, still depends on a rival clearer and remains stuck in regulatory review.

  • The CFTC registered Coinbase Clearing LLC on Sept. 28 (Monday), authorizing it to clear fully collateralized futures, options on futures and swaps.
  • Coinbase’s Single Stock Perpetual Futures Contract, filed Sept. 18 (Friday) with Apple as the representative contract, still showed “Approval Pending” as of Sept. 30.
  • The Apple perpetual names Nodal Clear LLC, not Coinbase’s own clearinghouse, as central counterparty, and trades only from 8 p.m. ET Sunday through 5 p.m. Friday.
  • Sept. 28 date CFTC registered Coinbase Clearing as a DCO
  • Sept. 18 date Coinbase filed its stock-perpetual futures proposal
  • 24/7 settlement Coinbase claims versus stock perp’s five-day window

Coinbase now sits atop all three layers of the regulated US derivatives market. Coinbase Financial Markets operates as a futures commission merchant, Coinbase Derivatives as a designated contract market, and the newly registered Coinbase Clearing as the clearinghouse that settles trades.

Coinbase Clearing Wins Authority Over Fully Collateralized Contracts

The registration, first detailed by CryptoSlate, lets Coinbase Clearing create and settle fully collateralized futures, options on futures and swaps without routing them through an outside clearing partner. That is a structural shift for an exchange that previously depended on third parties for the function that guarantees trades and manages counterparty risk. Coinbase said the new entity gives it end-to-end infrastructure to bring regulated products to market.

The pitch centers on USDC collateral and 24-hour settlement, features Coinbase is building around always-on crypto markets rather than the fixed hours of legacy futures venues. Owning the clearing layer can shorten product-development cycles for contracts that stay within its collateral model, since Coinbase no longer needs a third party’s sign-off to launch.

That advantage matters for institutional desks that already use Coinbase’s credit lines, as it signals deepening reliance on Coinbase-run financial infrastructure beyond spot trading.

Apple Perpetual Filing Still Routes Through Nodal Clear

The clearinghouse approval does not extend to Coinbase’s most closely watched planned product. The CFTC’s product record for Coinbase Derivatives continued to list the Single Stock Perpetual Futures Contract as “Approval Pending” as of Sept. 30, twelve days after Coinbase submitted the proposal.

The Sept. 18 filing proposes cash-settled perpetual futures on individual US equities and ETFs, using Apple stock as the representative contract with no fixed expiration and periodic funding payments to track the underlying share price. That structure mirrors the tokenized-equity products already moving through DeFi. Critically, the Apple contract names Nodal Clear LLC rather than Coinbase Clearing as central counterparty, and its trading window runs 8 p.m. Eastern Sunday through 5 p.m. Friday, a schedule at odds with the round-the-clock settlement Coinbase is marketing for its own clearinghouse.

CFTC Decision on Stock Perpetuals Remains the Open Milestone

Coinbase said it intends to list the stock perpetuals shortly after approval, subject to any additional regulatory requirements, but gave no firm date. Until the CFTC rules, the contracts will launch, if approved, on infrastructure Coinbase does not control, splitting its derivatives business between an owned clearing system and a partner arrangement for its highest-profile equity product.

The CCS read. Owning the clearing layer lets Coinbase keep more of the margin it currently pays to outside clearers on eligible contracts, a quiet revenue lever institutional holders should weigh alongside trading fees. Investors watching Coinbase’s diversification beyond spot volume should treat clearinghouse ownership as the more durable balance-sheet story, with stock perpetuals as a separate, still-unresolved regulatory bet.

The next milestone is procedural rather than technical: whether the CFTC clears the Apple-referenced stock perpetual filing, and whether any approval requires Coinbase to eventually shift clearing from Nodal Clear onto its own newly registered system.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Leveraged funds widen Bitcoin futures short bets while asset managers go long
Bitcoin

Leveraged funds widen Bitcoin futures short bets while asset managers go long

, , , , , , ,

BitcoinCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 28, 2026·3 min read

The CFTC’s Commitments of Traders report shows leveraged funds widened their net short position in CME Bitcoin futures to 7,953 contracts as of Tuesday, September 22, 2026, up from 6,354 a week earlier. Asset managers moved the opposite way, lifting their net long to 3,171 contracts, a split that matters to institutional investors because it shows two of the largest futures participant classes disagreeing on direction even as total contract interest grew.

  • Leveraged funds held 4,745 long and 12,698 short contracts, widening their net short by 1,599 contracts in one week.
  • Asset managers added 434 new longs against just 23 new shorts, lifting their net long by 411 contracts to 3,171.
  • Total CME Bitcoin futures open interest rose 1,542 contracts to 22,315 as of the Tuesday, September 22 cutoff.
  • 7,953 leveraged funds’ net short contracts, up from 6,354 a week prior
  • 3,171 asset managers’ net long contracts, up from 2,760 the prior week
  • 22,315 total open interest contracts, up 1,542 week over week

According to the CFTC’s Commitments of Traders report, leveraged funds, the category covering hedge funds and other speculative accounts, held 4,745 long contracts and 12,698 short contracts in the standard CME Bitcoin futures contract as of Tuesday, September 22, 2026. That left the group net short 7,953 contracts, reversing the prior week’s easing, as CryptoSlate first reported in its reading of the filing. At five BTC per standard contract, the shift equals roughly 7,995 BTC of net futures exposure, a figure that measures only the futures-market change with no corresponding spot sale visible in the report.

Leveraged Funds’ Longs Fell 800 Contracts While Shorts Rose 799

The widened net short was not built from fresh shorting alone. Longs fell by 800 contracts and shorts rose by 799, a combination that produced the same net effect as new short-selling but came from both sides of the book unwinding and adding at once.

The CFTC’s futures-only categories do not show whether a fund’s short is paired with a long spot Bitcoin or ETF position, so the net-short print cannot be read as an outright bearish call.

CryptoSlate’s related coverage has noted that Bitcoin futures carry trades have recently outyielded Treasuries at an annualized 7.89%, a dynamic that would show up in the data as funds selling futures against existing spot or ETF holdings rather than betting on lower prices.

Asset Managers Lift Net Long to 3,171 Contracts on New Buying, Not Short-Covering

Asset managers held 4,962 long contracts and 1,791 short contracts, a net long of 3,171 that grew from 2,760 the week before. Unlike the leveraged-fund move, this group’s shift came almost entirely from new buying, with 434 added longs against just 23 added shorts.

The gain arrives as institutions broaden their entry points into digital assets beyond spot exchange-traded funds. BlackRock has separately flagged AI agents as a potential new source of crypto demand, part of a wider push by asset managers to diversify how they gain exposure.

The Report Can’t Show Whether Either Side Is Hedged Against Spot

The CFTC’s own explanation of the program notes the weekly Commitments of Traders report has run since 2000 and is normally released the third business day after its Tuesday cutoff, typically Friday at 3:30 p.m. Eastern time.

That means Tuesday, September 22’s positioning only became public days later, while CryptoSlate’s own market tracking showed BTC near $84,650 with roughly $16.14 billion in 24-hour volume in a snapshot around 09:13 UTC on Sunday (September 27), five days after the data was captured.

Total open interest rising 1,542 contracts to 22,315 indicates new capital entering the market rather than existing positions simply trading places between the two groups. The material open question is whether leveraged funds’ widened short reflects a directional bet or a basis trade against spot and ETF holdings; the CFTC’s categories cannot distinguish between the two. The agency has also been clarifying recordkeeping standards for tokenized investments, a sign regulators are paying closer attention to how digital-asset futures data get reported and used

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

CFTC adds crypto FAQs on tokenized investments and recordkeeping
Blockchain

CFTC adds crypto FAQs on tokenized investments and recordkeeping

, , , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 24, 2026·3 min read

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division, Division of Market Oversight and Division of Clearing and Risk updated the agency’s crypto FAQs, adding guidance on tokenized permitted investments and blockchain-based recordkeeping. The update ties directly to two prior staff letters on tokenized collateral and digital assets used as margin.

  • FAQs now address investing customer funds in tokenized forms of permitted investments
  • FAQs now address using blockchain technology to satisfy registrant recordkeeping rules
  • Update builds on CFTC Staff Letters 25-39 and 26-05, both issued this year

The release says the three divisions updated the FAQs “to address investments of customer funds in tokenized forms of permitted investments and the use of blockchain technologies to satisfy a registrant’s recordkeeping requirements.” The FAQs were first published March 20, 2026, roughly six months before this update.

Two New Topics Added

The update adds two specific items to the existing FAQ set: whether registrants can put customer segregated funds into tokenized versions of already-permitted investments, and whether ledger-based blockchain records can satisfy standing recordkeeping rules.

Neither topic is defined further in the release itself; the document points readers back to the FAQs for the actual text of the guidance rather than spelling out the specifics in the press release.

Tied to Letters 25-39 and 26-05

The release links the update to two earlier staff actions: CFTC Staff Letter 25-39, described as “Tokenized Collateral Guidance,” and CFTC Staff Letter 26-05, the “Staff No-Action Position Regarding Digital Assets Accepted as Margin Collateral.”

Together the three documents form a stack: a no-action letter on accepting digital assets as margin, a tokenized-collateral letter, and now an FAQ update that extends the logic to permitted investments and books-and-records rules.

Who Has to Read This

FCMs and derivatives clearing organizations that hold customer segregated funds are the direct audience, since permitted-investment rules under CFTC regulation govern where that money can sit. Registrants already relying on Letter 26-05’s no-action position to accept digital assets as margin now get parallel guidance on the investment side.

Custodians and tokenization platforms building products around tokenized Treasuries or money market funds gain a regulatory reference point, though the release names no specific tokens, chains or platforms.

What The Release Does Not Say

The document gives no compliance deadline, no list of approved chains or custodians, and no indication of how many registrants have already used the March FAQs or the underlying staff letters.

It also does not say whether FAQ guidance carries the same weight as a formal rule, a distinction that matters because FAQs and no-action letters are staff positions, not Commission-voted regulations, and can be withdrawn or revised without notice-and-comment.

What Changes In Practice

Before this update, the March FAQs addressed accepting tokenized collateral and digital-asset margin under the two staff letters, but left open whether customer segregated funds could be invested in tokenized instruments or whether blockchain ledgers count as compliant recordkeeping. This update closes both gaps at the FAQ level.

For a registrant, that could mean parking customer segregated cash in tokenized Treasuries or money market funds and keeping records on a distributed ledger instead of legacy systems, without waiting for a separate rulemaking.

The cost side is compliance risk: FAQ guidance is easier to change than a rule, so firms building operations around it are relying on staff interpretation rather than a Commission-adopted regulation.

“I’m pleased to see staff update these frequently asked questions consistent with the agency’s ongoing efforts to provide regulatory clarity for the crypto industry.”

Michael S. Selig, CFTC Chairman, in the release

The CCS read. This is the CFTC widening the runway for tokenized Treasuries and blockchain-based books and records inside registrant operations, without a formal rulemaking. FAQs and no-action letters are staff positions, not binding rules, so firms leaning on this guidance still lack the durability a Commission vote would provide.

The release sets no deadline or hearing date; the open question is whether Chairman Selig’s Commission will convert this FAQ guidance, and the underlying letters 25-39 and 26-05, into a formal rulemaking, something the release does not address.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

CFTC flags mention contracts as manipulation risks in prediction markets
Equities

CFTC flags mention contracts as manipulation risks in prediction markets

, , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 24, 2026·3 min read

The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight issued a staff advisory on September 22 warning that prediction-market contracts settling on whether a person says, mentions or does something carry heightened manipulation risk. For institutional investors weighing exposure to event-contract platforms, the guidance signals that regulators are drawing a firmer compliance line around novelty products before, not after, they attract volume.

  • The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight issued the advisory on September 22, targeting so-called “mention markets.”
  • The agency says settlement risk rises when a contract’s outcome depends on conduct that is not independently generated or externally verifiable.
  • The advisory is staff guidance tied to existing Commodity Exchange Act obligations, not a new federal statute.
  • Sept 22 date the CFTC advisory was issued
  • Zero new statutes created; the guidance rests on existing Commodity Exchange Act authority

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission is narrowing the space for one of prediction markets’ odder product lines. Contracts that pay out based on whether an identifiable person says a specific word, shows up at an event, or interacts with someone else now face explicit staff scrutiny, according to its report on the advisory. The Division of Market Oversight’s September 22 notice arrives as event-contract platforms keep expanding well past elections and scheduled economic releases into far more granular territory.

Division of Market Oversight Separates Mention Contracts From Price-Based Derivatives

Traditional derivatives settle against prices, rates or measurable external data. Mention markets settle against human behavior that the subject of the bet can often influence directly.

That distinction is the core of the CFTC’s concern. If a contract’s payout hinges on whether a named person utters a phrase or attends a specific event, that person sits at the center of a market they can personally sway, a structural feature the agency says is absent from conventional futures products tied to external, verifiable data.

Advisory Cites Commodity Exchange Act, Not New Law

The advisory does not create fresh federal authority. It points designated contract markets back to obligations they already carry under the Commodity Exchange Act and existing Commission rules, and lays out factors exchanges should weigh before listing a mention-style contract.

The agency is not banning the category outright. It is telling exchanges they must demonstrate, contract by contract, why a given mention market is not readily susceptible to manipulation.

Exchanges Face Higher Bar Before Listing New Mention Contracts

For prediction-market operators, the practical effect is a heavier compliance workload around any contract built on personal conduct rather than external data. Exchanges now have clearer notice that regulators will ask whether the subject of a contract can influence the settlement event and whether that event can be independently verified.

That pressure pushes platform product teams toward stronger source-of-truth standards, a problem not unlike the verification questions raised in broader debates over how AI systems and data feeds can be trusted to deliver something that can’t be broken. As prediction markets compete on ever more specific questions, that trade-off between novelty and verifiability becomes harder for exchanges to sidestep.

The CCS read. Staff guidance without an enforcement action carries limited teeth on its own, but it puts exchanges on notice ahead of any contract-specific challenge. Institutional desks trading event contracts should treat mention markets as a category likely to draw individual product reviews rather than a blanket rule, meaning listing decisions on specific platforms are now the thing to track, not the advisory text itself.

The advisory leaves open which specific mention-style contracts currently listed on regulated venues will need to be revised or pulled, and the CFTC has not set a deadline for exchanges to complete the contract-specific manipulation analysis it now expects. The next signal will come from whichever designated contract market first submits, or withdraws, a mention-style product under the new scrutiny.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

SEC approves tokenized stock trading on permissionless blockchains for five years
Blockchain

SEC approves tokenized stock trading on permissionless blockchains for five years

, , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 23, 2026·3 min read

The SEC issued a five-year order permitting tokenized shares to trade on public, permissionless blockchains without the trading venue registering as an exchange. The order also exempts liquidity providers quoting into those pools from dealer registration, and Solana says the infrastructure it describes is already running on its network.

  • Tokens must carry the same dividends, votes and liquidation claims as the underlying share
  • Venue operators need a U.S. entity and must give 30 days’ public notice before launch
  • Solana says it hosted more than half of all tokenized equity trading volume in 2026
  • 5 years duration of the SEC’s new exemptive order
  • 30 days notice period required before a venue can launch
  • 17 months between the initial SEC proposal and the order

The Securities and Exchange Commission created a new venue category, called a Tokenized Securities Venue, that is exempt from the Exchange Act’s definition of “exchange” and therefore from Regulation NMS, according to a post by Solana Policy Institute’s Miller Whitehouse-Levine, the release. Trades settle onchain, pools run continuously, shares can be fractional and the paired asset can be a payment stablecoin. Investors hold the tokens themselves rather than through a broker.

What the order actually requires

Contracts run by these venues must be “auditable, public, and deployed on a public, permissionless distributed ledger,” per the release. Every participant must be permissioned, either at the pool or at the token level, and each token must match the real share’s dividend, voting and liquidation rights. Synthetic price-tracking tokens do not qualify.

Venue operators must disclose who can pause, upgrade or override their contracts.

Networks with a single sequencer or a company-picked validator set face what the release calls “a longer conversation with the staff.”

Forward Industries and 17 months of meetings

The release traces the order back to an April 2025 pitch to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force from the Solana Policy Institute, Superstate and Orca, proposing transfer-agent-recorded shares, token-level allowlists and non-custodial AMM trading.

Forward Industries’ tokenized common stock has traded on Orca since November 2025, with Superstate acting as transfer agent maintaining the allowlist via Solana’s token extensions.

The same design now defines what qualifies under the order.

Market makers, issuers and the CFTC’s same-day move

Liquidity providers quoting into permissioned pools are exempt from dealer registration, subject to disclosure and recordkeeping, the release states. Issuers can tokenize shares natively through a transfer agent with no waiting period; third parties tokenizing someone else’s stock need the issuer’s notice and the 30-day window.

The CFTC separately extended its no-action relief for Phantom to any self-custodial wallet that passively connects users to regulated derivatives markets, per the same release.

What the release doesn’t say

The document does not state the size of the volume caps it says are “real,” nor does it link to the SEC’s order text, a release number or a docket. It also does not say whether the exemption will be made permanent; the release notes only that “the SEC is asking whether to make it permanent.”

Worth flagging: this account is written by the founder of the Solana Policy Institute, the group that proposed the design, and published on Solana’s site.

“The tokens must be the real shares, with the same dividends and votes. Synthetic tokens are out of scope.”

Solana Foundation release

What changes for builders and traders

For Solana, the practical shift is legal cover for something already operating: Orca’s AMM pools, Superstate’s transfer-agent allowlists and Forward Industries’ listed token have run since November 2025 without this order.

What changes is that a market maker can now quote into those pools without a dealer license, and a new venue operator can launch by filing notice 30 days out instead of negotiating exchange registration.

Compared with the prior posture, where tokenized-equity trading sat in a gray zone tolerated rather than authorized, this order gives a five-year runway with defined conditions: permissioned access, matching shareholder rights, disclosed contract control.

Chains built for permissioned institutional pilots do not fit the “public, permissionless” test the order sets, which narrows who can compete for this flow.

The CCS read. An SEC order that legalizes what Orca and Superstate already built gives Solana a five-year head start most competing chains cannot match without redesigning around permissionless validator sets and public contract disclosure. The real fight now moves to whether the SEC keeps the caps and makes the exemption permanent.

Watch for the SEC’s decision on whether to convert the five-year exemptive order into permanent rulemaking, and for the first venue operators outside Orca to file the required 30-day public notice.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Kalshi Klear asks CFTC to permit margin on event contracts
Regulation & Policy

Kalshi Klear asks CFTC to permit margin on event contracts

, , , , , ,

Exchange NewsCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 22, 2026·3 min read

Kalshi has asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to let traders borrow money to open leveraged positions on its event contracts, a first for a regulated U.S. prediction market. The request, filed Tuesday (September 22) by Kalshi Klear, the exchange’s in-house clearinghouse, would extend Wall Street-style margin to a venue that currently requires full cash collateral on every trade.

  • Kalshi Klear submitted the filing on Tuesday, September 22, proposing a tiered margin system tied to a contract’s settlement date.
  • Kalshi’s annualized trading volume rose from $52 billion to $178 billion over the past six months, giving it more than 90% of U.S. prediction-market activity.
  • Margin would exclude sports contracts and “mention” markets, and would be limited to self-clearing members meeting set capital minimums.
  • 90%+ share of U.S. prediction-market volume Kalshi currently controls
  • $178B annualized trading volume, up from $52 billion six months earlier
  • $945M open interest tracked by DefiLlama across Kalshi’s markets

Right now, anyone holding a position on a regulated U.S. event-contract exchange must back it with cash covering the full trade value. Margin changes that math by letting a trader control a larger position than their own capital would otherwise allow, borrowing against it the way stock and derivatives traders routinely do.

Kalshi Klear Proposes Tiered Margin Tied to Settlement Dates

Kalshi’s pitch, laid out in the filing, is that the all-cash requirement keeps institutional money out of contracts that settle months out. The company argues borrowing capacity would make those longer-dated markets economically worthwhile for large trading firms.

The proposed structure requires leveraged traders to post more collateral as a contract nears its settlement date, tightening the buffer over time rather than fixing it upfront. Sports contracts and Kalshi’s “culture” and mention markets are excluded entirely, according to the company’s filing.

A company spokesperson said borrowing would be available only to self-clearing members that meet capital minimums through a direct relationship with Kalshi Klear.

Coindesk Analysis Finds Repeat-Sized Trades Behind Over Half of Crypto Perp Volume

Kalshi’s headline numbers look formidable on their surface. DefiLlama data puts open interest above $945 million and 30-day off-chain volume above $12.7 billion, on top of the jump from $52 billion to $178 billion in annualized activity.

But a Coindesk analysis of Kalshi’s public trade records found that a handful of repeating trade sizes drove more than half the value on its bitcoin and ether perpetual-futures markets.

Between September 17 and September 20, trades within $2 of $5,499 made up $7.7 million, or 57%, of sampled ether-perp volume, while recurring trades of roughly $2,500 and $5,000 accounted for 54% of sampled bitcoin activity.

The same analysis found recurring fixed-dollar clips in 43 of 46 one-hour samples dating back to June 19, a pattern consistent with automated programs firing predetermined amounts rather than organic institutional flow.

That concentration matters more once margin enters the picture, since leverage would amplify whatever is actually driving that volume, whether it is diversified trading interest or a small number of repeating bots.

Connecticut and Michigan Litigation Explains Why Sports Are Excluded

The margin filing lands amid an expansion that has already pushed Kalshi well beyond simple yes-or-no event bets. It offers leverage on perpetual futures that have done over $44 billion in notional volume since debuting in crypto in late May, and it cleared the CFTC this month to launch gold and silver perps, with filings pending for U.S. equities, copper and foreign currencies.

That buildout, alongside a new professional trading terminal, positions Kalshi as part of a broader push to route institutional capital into onchain and adjacent markets.

Sports contracts are conspicuously absent from the margin request, and the litigation explains why. Connecticut sued Kalshi in August over its labeling of sports contracts as federally protected derivatives rather than unlicensed betting, and a Michigan judge signed an order on September 1 threatening penalties of up to $500,000 a day if the exchange keeps offering sports markets in that state.

New Jersey has taken the jurisdictional question to the Supreme Court, seeking a final ruling on whether the CFTC or individual states govern these contracts.

Kalshi is not alone in courting institutional flow. Rival Polymarket moved in July to secure licenses it would need to eventually offer margin on U.S. event contracts, while Kalshi has expanded abroad through partnerships with Alpaca and Wealthsimple to reach users outside the U.S. and in Canada.

The CCS read. The margin filing matters less for what it grants traders than for what Kalshi is signaling about its own volume base. If a meaningful share of crypto-perp activity is repeating, fixed-size trades rather than diversified institutional flow, leverage would magnify that concentration risk before it attracts the deep-pocketed hedgers Kalshi says it wants.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Kalshi’s ether perpetual market shows wash trading signs with $5,500 identical trades dominating volume
Equities

Kalshi’s ether perpetual market shows wash trading signs with $5,500 identical trades dominating volume

, , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 21, 2026·3 min read

Kalshi faces accusations that thousands of identical $5,500 trades on its ether perpetual market represent wash trading designed to inflate volume metrics. The CFTC-regulated exchange denies the claims but the pattern raises questions about how US derivatives platforms police self-clearing members and volume-based rebate programs.

  • $5,500 trades made up 48%-58% of Kalshi’s ether perpetual volume on four separate days, according to analysis by former quantitative trader Beni.
  • $539 million in 24-hour ether perpetual volume stood against only $3.1 million in open interest, a ratio suggesting possible artificial activity.
  • Kalshi’s September 16 CFTC filing excludes rebate eligibility for trades under self-matching or wash-trading investigation, giving its chief regulatory officer enforcement discretion.
  • $5,500 identical trade size that dominated Kalshi’s ether perpetual tape across multiple days
  • 48%-58% of all ETH perpetual volume made up by the single order size on four separate trading days
  • September 16 date Kalshi filed updated crypto perpetual rebate terms with the CFTC

Kalshi, the CFTC-regulated exchange running prediction markets and crypto futures since June, now faces scrutiny over trading patterns that may indicate wash trading or collusive activity designed to artificially boost volume. A former quantitative trader first reported by BeInCrypto pulled public trade data from Kalshi’s ether perpetual market and found that a single $5,500 order size repeated obsessively across the tape, accounting for nearly half of all volume on certain days even as the dollar value of actual open positions remained minimal.

One order size dominated 48-58% of ether volume on multiple days

Beni, co-founder of research firm Stealth Neolab and a former quantitative trader, said he counted roughly $539 million in 24-hour volume against only $3.1 million in open interest on Kalshi’s ether perpetual market.

The gap between volume and open interest, which measures the value of positions still held, suggests that most trades were being closed quickly rather than building sustained positions.

“On ETH the exact same $5500 trade size keeps appearing over and over again… it literally made up 48%-58% of ALL ETH PERP volume on 4 separate days,” Beni said in a post on X.

Beni said he saved copies of the trade data before publishing because the records change by the second, making later reconstruction difficult. He added that lawyers are reviewing additional material he collected before he publishes further analysis.

Kalshi claims prediction markets and perpetual rebates were confused in the critique

Kalshi’s head of crypto, posting as IcoBeast, challenged the characterization of the activity, saying Beni had blurred two separate product lines: the platform’s prediction markets and its newer perpetual futures contracts. “All exchanges run rebate and incentive programs to help provide better liquidity on the exchange for traders. CME does it. So does Hyperliquid and Binance,” IcoBeast wrote, defending the rebate structure as standard industry practice.

Kalshi also denied hand-selecting which firms could self-clear trades, arguing that fair access is a regulatory requirement. The exchange filed updated perpetual rebate terms with the CFTC on September 16, setting rebates for self-clearing members at 0.003% of trade value for takers and equivalent maker credits. The same filing explicitly excludes rebate eligibility for trades under investigation for self-matching, wash trading or pre-arranged activity, giving Kalshi’s chief regulatory officer authority to revoke a firm’s rebate status.

CFTC warned in August that volume-based rewards drive artificial trading

CFTC staff flagged the systemic risk in August, warning that steep volume-based rewards can push participants to trade solely to reach targets.

No enforcement action has been announced against Kalshi over these claims. Wash trading, where one party buys and sells with itself to create the illusion of activity, violates US commodities law. In June, Kalshi’s bitcoin perpetual market cleared $1 billion in volume within days, a threshold its prediction markets took 40 months to achieve.

The CCS read. Rebate programs are standard in derivatives markets, but they work only if surveillance detects self-matching before it inflates the reported numbers that market participants and counterparties rely on. Kalshi’s filing suggests internal controls exist on paper; whether those controls are applied retrospectively or only when challenged externally remains the open question for institutional users evaluating counterparty risk.

Beni told followers that additional material reviewed by legal counsel may be published, meaning further specific trade evidence could surface. The CFTC has not announced an investigation, but the pattern and the platform’s own filing excluding rebate-eligible trades under investigation suggest the regulator may be examining whether Kalshi’s self-clearing members have gamed the rebate structure or whether Kalshi itself participated in or knowingly incentivized the activity.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Coinbase seeks CFTC approval for single-stock perpetual futures on Apple, Tesla and Nvidia
AI News

Coinbase seeks CFTC approval for single-stock perpetual futures on Apple, Tesla and Nvidia

, , , , , , , , ,

EquitiesCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 20, 2026·3 min read

Coinbase Financial Markets has filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to list single-stock perpetual futures on Apple, Tesla and Nvidia, a first attempt to bring a product long confined to offshore crypto exchanges into regulated U.S. markets. The filing starts a CFTC review process, not a launch, but it signals Coinbase’s intent to compete with unregulated perpetual venues on their own turf.

  • Coinbase Financial Markets submitted the product filing through the CFTC’s Part 40 certification process.
  • Initial contracts target three names: Apple, Tesla and Nvidia, with no live trading yet.
  • Coinbase’s Designated Contract Market status gives it a regulatory venue offshore perpetual exchanges never had.
  • 3 initial stocks named in the filing
  • Part 40 the CFTC certification route Coinbase used, distinct from seeking case-by-case approval
  • 2026-09-18 filing date stamped on the CFTC submission, ahead of any launch decision

Coinbase is making another run at a product category long associated with offshore platforms that has never had a legal home in the United States. According to a report from newsbtc.com, the company filed with the CFTC to list single-stock perpetual futures tied initially to Apple, Tesla and Nvidia. The submission went through the CFTC’s product-certification process under Part 40, a filing that appears on cftc.gov dated September 18, 2026.

That procedural detail matters more than the ticker list. Coinbase has filed the products with regulators; it has not switched them on.

Perpetual Futures Structure Moves From Bitcoin to Apple Shares

Perpetual futures became one of crypto’s defining products because they deliver futures-style leverage without a fixed expiry date, a structure that took hold on offshore exchanges trading Bitcoin and altcoins. Applying that same mechanism to individual equities creates something closer to continuously traded synthetic stock exposure than a conventional futures contract.

For traders, the appeal is straightforward: leveraged long or short positions on Apple, Tesla or Nvidia without holding the underlying shares. For the CFTC, the filing raises the questions that come with any derivatives product layered on top of listed equities, namely settlement mechanics, margin requirements, market integrity and how derivatives pricing tracks the underlying stock market.

Coinbase’s Contract Market Status Gives It a Path Offshore Venues Lacked

The filing extends a strategy Coinbase has pursued for months rather than a one-off product launch. Instead of replicating offshore perpetual products outside U.S. jurisdiction, the exchange has built regulated derivatives infrastructure domestically.

Coinbase’s status as a Designated Contract Market gives it a venue through which new products enter the CFTC framework, something offshore perpetual exchanges historically never had. That status does not guarantee approval or a trading date, but it puts Coinbase on a regulatory track its overseas competitors cannot access.

Approval Would Open the Door to a Wider Equity List

If the three initial contracts clear the CFTC process, the more consequential story may be what follows rather than Apple, Tesla or Nvidia specifically. A regulated single-stock perpetual market could expand well beyond three names once the framework is established.

That expansion would land amid a broader regulatory reset for U.S. digital-asset markets. For now, the CFTC’s review of the Part 40 filing comes before any launch, and no trading date has been set.

The CCS read. Approval here would hand Coinbase a wedge product against offshore perpetual venues that currently dominate leveraged equity-style trading with no U.S. oversight. If the CFTC clears Apple, Tesla and Nvidia, expect Coinbase to push fast for additional names, since the regulatory infrastructure, not the ticker list, is the asset being built.

The next milestone is procedural: whether the CFTC certifies the Part 40 filing without objection or requests changes, a decision that will determine if Apple, Tesla and Nvidia perpetuals reach U.S. traders before any expansion to additional equities is considered.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Load More