Daily News 19

Tag: SEC

  • Bitcoin Stability Remains Unshaken Despite Regulatory

    Bitcoin Stability Remains Unshaken Despite Regulatory

    Bitcoin Demonstrates Resilience Amid SEC and CFTC Regulatory Developments

    Bitcoin continues to showcase remarkable stability despite ongoing regulatory uncertainty in the cryptocurrency sector. According to crypto commentator @BitGo, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are moving to establish a regulatory framework “due to a lack of progress on Clarity.” The commentary emphasizes that Bitcoin itself does not require this regulatory clarity, as it has “consistently processed blocks on schedule since its inception.” This operational consistency suggests Bitcoin’s fundamental protocol rules remain firmly established regardless of external regulatory shifts.

    Market Overview: Mixed Signals with Bitcoin Stability

    The broader cryptocurrency market currently presents mixed signals, with Bitcoin maintaining a steady presence against the evolving regulatory backdrop. As the SEC and CFTC prepare to intervene, market participants are closely monitoring potential impacts on trading dynamics. Bitcoin’s robust performance through various challenges—including congressional hearings and legislative attempts—reinforces its foundational strength. The uninterrupted processing of blocks further highlights the network’s resilience.

    Key Takeaways

    • Bitcoin processes blocks consistently, demonstrating operational reliability.
    • SEC and CFTC involvement could reshape regulatory oversight of digital assets.
    • Bitcoin’s foundational protocol rules are well-established and unaffected by potential regulatory changes.
    • Current volatility in the broader crypto market contrasts sharply with Bitcoin’s stability.
    • Traders are observing how regulatory actions may influence Bitcoin’s market dynamics.

    Trading Data and Market Sentiment

    Recent Bitcoin trading volume has been relatively thin, yet price stability remains a focal point for many investors. With the SEC and CFTC stepping in, traders might anticipate fluctuations as new regulations are introduced. Observers note that while Bitcoin’s immediate trading data may appear subdued, its long-term prospects remain strong due to its established track record since 2009.

    Bitcoin operates as a decentralized digital currency enabling peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. The SEC and CFTC maintain jurisdiction over cryptocurrencies to ensure compliance with securities laws and protect investors, playing a crucial role in shaping the evolving regulatory landscape.

    What to Watch: Regulatory Evolution and Market Impact

    Market participants should monitor how the SEC and CFTC’s regulatory framework evolves and its potential impacts on Bitcoin’s trading dynamics. If new regulations are introduced, they could influence market sentiment and trading volumes. However, Bitcoin’s historical performance suggests it can weather regulatory changes, making it a focal point for long-term investment strategies.

    The information provided is for educational purposes and should not be considered financial advice.

  • SEC’s Atkins Backs Clarity Act, Vows to Advance Crypto Rules Without It

    SEC’s Atkins Backs Clarity Act, Vows to Advance Crypto Rules Without It

    SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce outlined a three-part regulatory framework for digital assets during recent remarks, emphasizing the need for clarity as markets evolve. The proposals target capital formation, transfer agent modernization, and crypto custody rules for investment advisers.

    Digital Asset Clarity Act Would Reduce Regulatory Guesswork

    The first pillar centers on advancing the Digital Asset Clarity Act. If adopted, the framework would give entrepreneurs greater certainty to raise capital in the U.S. using digital assets rather than having to “guess what the law is as they go.” The legislation aims to define when a digital asset qualifies as a security, providing a clearer path for compliant fundraising.

    Transfer Agent Rules Overdue for Blockchain Integration

    The second initiative calls for an overhaul of transfer agent rules to include blockchains for digital ownership ledgers. Peirce noted the rules have not been seriously updated in roughly four decades and were built for paper stock certificates. Transfer agents are already adapting to a market that increasingly incorporates tokenized assets, making regulatory modernization essential.

    Crypto Custody Proposal for Advisers and Regulated Funds

    Additionally, Peirce said she has asked SEC staff to develop a proposal clarifying crypto custody for investment advisers and regulated funds. That proposal would seek to allow advisers, under certain conditions, to custody crypto themselves and to use state trust companies as custodians. Self-custody may be necessary because qualified third-party custodians do not yet exist for some assets, while state trust companies already provide a pathway that “works in practice.”

    Unified Regulatory Architecture

    Peirce described the three initiatives together as “three pillars of a single, rational, and comprehensive regulatory architecture.” She emphasized the urgency of action, stating, “The SEC should not be the last institution to notice that the world actually has changed.”

    The push for the Clarity Act vote comes as the bill faces an uphill battle, with several key disputes still unresolved ahead of Tuesday’s procedural vote.

  • Why Nasdaq Surveillance Can’t Settle the Fight Over 24/7 Tokenized Markets

    Why Nasdaq Surveillance Can’t Settle the Fight Over 24/7 Tokenized Markets

    Nasdaq Invests $100 Million in Kraken Parent Payward as Always-On Markets Push Tests Regulatory Boundaries

    Nasdaq’s venture arm has agreed to invest $100 million in Payward, the parent company of crypto exchange Kraken, marking a significant convergence between traditional exchange infrastructure and digital-asset venues. Announced Sept. 10, the deal includes Payward’s adoption of Nasdaq surveillance technology across its portfolio of trading venues covering crypto, equities, tokenized equities, futures, and options.

    The investment arrives one day after Citadel Securities petitioned U.S. regulators to keep equity-linked products — including event contracts and perpetual derivatives tied to public companies — within the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory perimeter. Together, the two moves highlight the unresolved classification questions facing always-on markets that operate beyond traditional trading hours.

    Surveillance Deal Lacks Cross-Market Data Details

    While Nasdaq’s surveillance adoption spans a broad range of asset classes, the announcement provides limited implementation specifics. No deployment date was disclosed, and the companies did not clarify whether Payward’s system would integrate order and trade data from the underlying U.S. cash-equity market — a critical capability for detecting manipulation that spans venues.

    Citadel’s Sept. 9 comment letter argues that effective oversight requires regulators to surveil equity-linked products alongside activity in the underlying cash equity. The market maker describes scenarios where traders with material nonpublic information could profit through equity-linked derivatives before issuer announcements, or use derivatives in strategies involving the price of the underlying security.

    This cross-market surveillance requirement represents a test the Nasdaq-Payward announcement does not answer: whether multi-asset monitoring also means access to the securities data needed to spot insider trading and manipulation across markets.

    Classification Determines Market Access and Investor Protections

    Surveillance technology can strengthen a venue’s case for operating an orderly market, but it cannot determine whether an equity-linked instrument qualifies as a security, security-based swap, swap, or futures contract under federal law. That classification controls the regulatory route to market and the investor protections that apply.

    Under CFTC Regulation 40.2, a designated contract market may list a product without prior Commission approval after filing a written self-certification by the preceding business day. Regulation 40.3 provides a separate voluntary approval route. The SEC does not use a uniform track for every exchange filing, creating divergent paths for similar products.

    Divergent Filings Illustrate Regulatory Split

    Recent filings demonstrate the contrast. A July 10 Cboe notice described binary options tied to issuer key performance indicators as a proposed rule change under the SEC. An Aug. 24 MEMX notice similarly described proposed securities event contracts tied to financial metrics reported by issuers.

    Meanwhile, CFTC product filings show a different trajectory. A QCEX KPI Contract was certified on June 18, while another CFTC page for organization code COIN listed US500, Tech100, Defense10, China10, and AI10 index perpetual-style futures as certified. These certifications establish regulatory status but do not prove live commercial trading, broad availability, or significant volume.

    The official record supports a narrower conclusion than claims that equity perpetuals are already broadly trading in the United States: multiple equity-index products have been certified, but the cited pages do not confirm their live commercial status.

    Bitcoin Precedent Does Not Resolve Equity Questions

    On May 29, 2026, the CFTC approved KalshiEX’s bitcoin-referencing BTCPERP under Regulation 40.3, accompanied by a policy statement calling for case-by-case review of perpetuals tied to other asset classes. That bitcoin-specific approval did not settle how equity-linked perpetuals should be classified.

    Citadel’s filing argues the SEC perimeter brings substantial protections beyond an approval process: best execution and order handling rules, front-running prohibitions, execution-quality disclosure, fair access requirements, venue transparency, coordinated trading halts, market-access controls, and safeguards against automatic deleveraging during volatile periods.

    These practical stakes mean two contracts providing exposure to similar corporate outcomes can offer vastly different disclosure, execution, and surveillance arrangements. A faster listing route widens access but creates uncertainty over which protections apply and which regulator holds the data and authority to investigate misconduct spanning the derivative and the underlying stock.

    Tokenized Equities Pilot Advances on Separate Track

    On March 18, 2026, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s rule change for eligible securities to trade in tokenized form during a Depository Trust Company pilot. Under this model, a tokenized share must be fungible with its traditional counterpart, carry the same CUSIP and symbol, provide the same shareholder rights, and trade on the same order book with the same execution priority. Market surveillance for both forms would rely on the same underlying data available to Nasdaq and FINRA.

    The March 18 approval did not equal a launch. The framework becomes effective only after DTC establishes the required infrastructure and post-trade settlement services, followed by at least 30 calendar days’ notice to members before tokenized trading begins.

    Separately, Nasdaq expects its work with Payward on Nasdaq Equity Tokens (NETs) to launch in the second quarter of 2027 — a forward-looking target. The sources do not establish that the Payward rollout and the DTC-pilot model have identical operating conditions.

    SEC Roundtable Addresses 24-Hour Trading Infrastructure

    The SEC’s Sept. 17 roundtable will bring these questions closer together without resolving them. The published agenda covers exchange and broker readiness, overnight surveillance, closing-price processes, clearance and settlement, investor protection, system resiliency, market-data continuity, and expected liquidity.

    The event concerns preparations for 24-hour trading in conventional market infrastructure, with a later panel looking toward possible future expansion to 24×7 trading. It is a public discussion, not a rulemaking decision — a distinction that prevents the debate about longer U.S. equity sessions from collapsing into the separate question of tokenized equities and perpetual derivatives that may trade continuously.

    Venues Need Both Surveillance and Legal Clarity

    The regulatory test is not a choice between surveillance and law. Venues will need both. Nasdaq’s technology could help Payward demonstrate that always-on markets are observable across its own stack. Citadel’s argument is that equity-linked oversight must also reach the underlying securities market and fit the statutory boundary between the SEC and CFTC.

    Until those pieces align, the fastest token rail will not necessarily deliver the broadest U.S. access. The products that reach users with durable liquidity may be the ones that combine continuous monitoring, cross-market data, operational resilience, and a classification regulators can defend.

  • What Happens If the CLARITY Act Bill Doesn’t Pass?

    What Happens If the CLARITY Act Bill Doesn’t Pass?

    CLARITY Act Faces Critical Senate Vote as Industry Warns of Regulatory Vacuum

    With the Senate vote on the CLARITY Act just days away, Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone outlined the likely scenarios if the legislation fails to pass—and he isn’t sugarcoating the odds of a quick legislative fix.

    Don’t Expect a Lame-Duck Save

    Asked whether the bill could still advance during a lame-duck session or early in the next Congress, Carbone was blunt: “I think that is unlikely,” he said. If the bill cannot move forward in the coming weeks before the election, he expects a very different path to take shape.

    Regulators Move Fast

    Carbone said the most immediate response would come from regulators themselves. “You’re going to see the regulators moving fast and furious,” he said, pointing to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, who is already signaling they’ll implement CLARITY’s goals through guidance and rulemaking rather than waiting on Congress. He expects that to start with an innovation exemption from the SEC, arriving quickly if the bill stalls.

    A “Skinny” Version Could Emerge

    The second path Carbone outlined involves breaking the bill apart. He reminded stakeholders that CLARITY isn’t one clean piece of legislation—it’s an amalgamation of roughly 40 to 50 separate bills merged into one package. That structure, he said, opens the door to pulling out individual provisions and attaching them to must-pass legislation later this year, citing the National Defense Authorization Act—which has passed every year for six decades—as a likely vehicle.

    Carbone was cautious about the odds of that approach working. “I don’t know if the latter will be successful,” he said, but he was confident regulators stepping in independently is the more likely outcome. “That will be the regulatory framework implementation for the next two years. It’ll likely be primarily agency action.”

    If CLARITY fails to clear its September 15 hurdle, Carbone’s read is that Washington doesn’t get a clean do-over anytime soon. Instead, expect regulators to fill the gap through rulemaking, with a slim chance that individual provisions get revived by riding along on unrelated must-pass bills before year’s end.

  • SEC Proposes Rule 3a12-8 Amendment for European Union Debt Securities

    SEC Proposes Rule 3a12-8 Amendment for European Union Debt Securities

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed amending Rule 3a12-8 to add European Union debt obligations to the list of foreign government securities exempted from certain futures marketing and trading requirements.

    SEC Proposes Adding EU Debt Obligations

    The proposed change would expand the rule’s coverage to include debt obligations issued by the European Union, potentially affecting how these securities are treated in futures marketing and trading.

    Source: cryptonews.net

  • SEC Sues 38 Entities Over Fake Adviser Filings

    SEC Sues 38 Entities Over Fake Adviser Filings

    SEC Charges 38 Entities with Filing False Forms ADV to Pose as Legitimate Investment Advisers

    The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed 38 separate civil complaints on August 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that the defendants submitted fraudulent Forms ADV between 2025 and 2026 to present themselves as legitimate exempt reporting advisers (ERAs). The enforcement action targets entities the SEC says likely operated overseas and used official public filings to gain credibility with U.S. retail investors.

    Allegations of Systematic Filing Fraud

    The complaints identify repeated patterns across the fraudulent submissions. Defendants listed Colorado business addresses where they had no physical presence, supplied disconnected telephone numbers, or provided numbers belonging to unrelated businesses. Many filings contained identical or nearly identical information.

    According to one complaint, purported funds commonly reported either $78.96 million or $48.96 million in assets, 89 or 33 investors, and minimum investments of either $50,000 or $5,000. The entities also listed matching ownership structures attributing 10% ownership to the adviser or related parties, 90% to foreign investors, and 50% to funds of funds—categories that could overlap.

    Several filings claimed that private-fund financial statements had been reviewed by one of two independent accounting firms. SEC investigators could not find either auditor in federal or state accountancy registries.

    Exploiting the Exempt Reporting Adviser Process

    An exempt reporting adviser is not an SEC-registered investment adviser. ERAs generally advise only venture capital funds or private funds with less than $150 million under management in the United States. They must submit limited information through Form ADV, but the SEC does not approve their experience, qualifications, or business claims before publishing those filings.

    The complaints allege the defendants exploited this process because submissions became publicly searchable without prior approval. Some related websites displayed certificates falsely stating that the entities had received SEC RIA permission, according to the regulator’s alert. The certificates used genuine filing and registration numbers to appear authentic.

    Defendant Names Suggest Crypto and Tech Focus

    Several defendants adopted names referring to crypto, exchanges, emerging technology, or financial education. They include CryptoOrbit, Pinnacle Crypto Exchange, Web3 University, Axivon Exchange, and Future Finance Academy. However, the SEC did not characterize every defendant as a cryptocurrency business.

    Foreign IP Addresses and Unresponsive Defendants

    The SEC said IP addresses used to access its filing system were traced to foreign jurisdictions in several cases. The agency did not identify every country or allege that all 38 entities operated outside the U.S.

    Commission attorneys requested records supporting the firms’ reported assets, investors, employees, auditors, and fund operations. The defendants allegedly failed to provide the requested material.

    In the case against Abrdn Canada Limited, SEC staff mailed a records demand to its stated Denver address in April. The correspondence was returned as undeliverable. Calls reached a disconnected number, while a later email received no response. The complaint also alleges the entity claimed to operate as a commodity pool operator or trading adviser without a corresponding CFTC or National Futures Association registration.

    Legal Claims and Requested Remedies

    The SEC charged the defendants under Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act, provisions governing adviser records and false statements made in required filings. The agency seeks permanent injunctions, civil penalties, and orders preventing the entities from submitting future Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers. The amount of any penalty would be determined by the court.

    The SEC directed FINRA to remove the 38 filings from the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure database. The FBI assisted through Operation Level Up, an initiative that identifies and contacts potential victims of investment fraud.

    Investor Guidance and International Context

    The regulator advised investors not to treat a Form ADV appearance as proof of SEC registration. Users should verify a firm’s status independently and avoid transferring money, cryptocurrency, or personal information when an ERA approaches individual investors directly.

    Comparable impersonation tactics have also appeared outside the United States. In related coverage, fraudsters used regulator names and counterfeit documents to target crypto users during Europe’s MiCA transition.

    The allegations have not been proven in court. The SEC did not report how much investors transferred to the entities, identify confirmed victims, or disclose total losses.

  • Illegal influence on sec? In addition to XRP, Ethereum should also be classified as securities

    Illegal influence on sec? In addition to XRP, Ethereum should also be classified as securities



    • Coinbase reveals internal discussions of the SEC about the security status of XRP and New York’s advance for ETH classification.
    • The developing attitude of the SEC for crypto regulation in the middle of the XRP and ETH debates generate uncertainty.

    Coinbase has published more than 10,000 documents that disclose the internal communication of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with regard to the regulatory status of XRP and Ethereum (ETH). These documents received by inquiries about the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show the ongoing discussions about whether XRP should be classified as securities.

    They also revealed the pressure from the New York general prosecutor’s office to classify ETH as security. The disclosure throws a light on regulatory uncertainty in connection with digital assets in the United States.

    Internal SEC debate about the status of XRP

    One of the most important findings from the publication The Coinbase document is an internal SEC discussion about whether XRP can be classified as security. In 2021, the SEC officials examined whether XRP has the characteristics of a securities. An e-mail revealed an inquiry about possible risks for the XRP blockchain if Ripple, the company behind XRP, “went away or disappear.”

    This question arose as part of the ongoing legal dispute of the SEC with Ripple, which began in December 2020 when the SEC Ripple accused a non -registered securities offer.

    The documents show that the SEC has weighed the classification of XRP for years. The ongoing legal case that has attracted great attention in the crypto industry. These internal emails throw a light on the uncertainties with which the regulatory authorities are faced with the determination of the legal status of certain cryptocurrencies.

    New York Attorney General is committed to the classification of ETH as security

    The New York general prosecutor’s office has put pressure on the Sec as securities classifying ETH. This print came to light in a recently published document of Coinbase. In June 2023 demanded Shamiso maswawn, derHead of the investor Protection Bureau in the office of the New York General Prosecutor’s Attorney, the SEC to submit an Amicus letter in which he argues that ether is a securities. This application was part of the state’s procedure against Kucoin, which was accused of violating state securities and goods laws.

    Maswoswe said that the participation of the SEC in the case would have no direct influence on the result, but that a court ruling that ETH classifies as security would be a big cause for the efforts to protect investors. She wants this clarity.

    The SEC has not yet taken a fixed point of view on this matter. First of all, the authority indicated that ETH was probably a goods. Since then, however, she has not made any final statements.

    Further effects of the SEC approach for crypto regulation

    The authority has been trying to classify certain digital assets as securities for some time. But the crypto industry has opposed it and claims that these classifications are unclear and inconsistent. This has led to increased uncertainty in crypto regulation in the United States.

    As shown in our latest reporting, Gary Gensler pursued a more aggressive approach to crypto regulation during his term as a SEC chairman. However, the latest developments indicate a shift towards a more moderate and more flexible approach.

    This change is shown in the recent round table discussion of the SEC entitled “Between a Block and a Hard Place: Tailoring Regulation for Crypto Trading”, which took place in April 2025.

    In the meantime, the SEC recently dropped charges against large crypto companies such as Coinbase. This is followed by Ripple’s legal victory, which forced the Sec to rethink its unclear and inconsistent approach to crypto regulation.

    The Chief Legal Officer of Ripple, Stuart Alderoty, said that the SEC’s decision to drop the XRP case shows that the authority recognizes its failure to determine clear regulations. He believes that it is time for the SEC to go beyond the courtroom and work with the congress in order to create effective, permanent regulations.

    Ripple is progressing. The Hidden Roads takeover worth $ 1.25 billion has been completed and now focuses on the growth of the company and the cooperation with the regulatory authorities in order to create a clear regulatory framework for the industry.

  • Ripple’s banking ambitions can lead to a leading role as a global financial service provider

    Ripple’s banking ambitions can lead to a leading role as a global financial service provider



    • As a bank, Ripple would have direct access to central banks, the issue of stable coins and all services for digital assets.
    • XRP could develop into a central settlement level for tokenized assets and CBDCs if Ripple receives full banking status.

    Ripple strives to become a licensed financial institution, which represents a big change compared to his previous focus on cross -border transfers. According to analysts, the company’s striving for a banking license will enable him to work directly with central banks, to output stable coins under official supervision and to offer a wide range of custody and handling services.

    A banking license would enable ripple to act on regulated financial markets without relying on intermediaries. This would give the company the legal authority to keep assets, offer credit services and to handle Fiat crypto shops over a single licensed area.

    Such access could simplify the interaction between traditional institutions and emerging blockchain-based systems, including digital central bank currencies (CBDCs), tokenized securities and stable coins.

    Analysts note that Ripple with banking status could establish a direct connection to real-time gross billing systems of national central banks. According to the CNF report is this access Currently licensed banks reserved, which restricts the role that non-banking fintech companies can play in systemic financial processes.

    By eliminating this barrier, Ripple could enable regulated transactions via Fiat and digital networks and thus support financial markets that are increasingly relying on token-based instruments and distributed LEDGER technology.

    Strategic expansion through acquisitions and partnerships

    Ripple has already taken steps to support a transition to banking transactions. In 2023, Ripple Metaco acquired a platform for the custody of digital assets that are often used by banks and financial institutions. The purchase gave Ripple storage capacities of institutional quality, a key component of the infrastructure of every bank, which deals with tokenized assets or cryptocurrencies.

    It is also reported that Ripple has shown interest in taking over Circle, the issuer of the USDC stable. Although this is not confirmed, such a step Ripple would give a significant leverage in the StableCoin ecosystem.

    In addition to the acquisitions, Ripple participates in various pilot programs associated with the development of digital currencies. Bhutan, Palau and Montenegro work with the company to explore the possible uses for CBDC. These initiatives are an indication that Ripple is willing to support both public digital currencies and private token systems and to meet the changing regulations and the needs of the central banks.

    The regulatory positioning of Ripple has also changed according to the partial legal victory in the case of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Although the case has not yet been completed, the judgment has clarified the classification of XRP, which means that Ripple can act more confidently in regulated environments.

    The potential role of XRP as a global settlement bridge

    When Ripple becomes a licensed bank, XRP could be the liquidity medium that connects tokenized markets worldwide. Market analysts suspect that the reason is that neutral assets are necessary in every regulated financial system in order to transmit values ​​across borders and between blockchain networks. If the use of the assets by institutions and central banks as a bridge creates demand and not through speculation in retail, XRP could take on this role.

    However, XRP would define this as part of a larger financial infrastructure. It would no longer just be a crypto asset, but a necessary instrument in the paradigm of the future financial world. Real estate, stocks and public digital currencies, all token, need a processing mechanism that XRP could provide, supported by a handling infrastructure with the supervision of a fully licensed ledger of a bank.