Tag: CFTC

  • Crypto oversight in US tightens as CFTC and FDIC leadership near confirmation

    Crypto oversight in US tightens as CFTC and FDIC leadership near confirmation

    Crypto oversight in the US tightens focus as CFTC and FDIC leadership nears confirmation

    • Mike Selig is positioned to replace Acting Chair Caroline Pham at the CFTC if confirmed.
    • The CFTC has already expanded crypto oversight through collateral approvals and spot trading permissions.
    • Travis Hill’s confirmation would formalise his interim role at the FDIC and continue crypto-friendly banking policies.

    Crypto regulation in the United States is entering a more defined phase as Senate procedures bring key financial watchdog appointments closer to completion.

    Two agencies with direct influence over digital assets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., are on the verge of formal leadership changes, as per a CoinDesk report.

    President Donald Trump’s nominees to chair both regulators have advanced through the Senate confirmation process, signalling a potential shift in how crypto markets and crypto-linked banking are supervised.

    While the final votes have not yet taken place, recent developments suggest that decisions are approaching, narrowing uncertainty around regulatory direction.

    Senate clears path for final votes

    The Senate moved the process forward on Thursday by approving a resolution that clears the way for final confirmation votes.

    The measure passed by a 52–47 margin and applies to a large group of nominees being considered together, reports CoinDesk.

    Mike Selig, nominated to lead the CFTC, and Travis Hill, nominated to become chairman of the FDIC, are among the names included.

    A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso said on X that the final vote is likely early next week, though the chamber remains days away from formally confirming the candidates.

    Republicans in the Senate have adopted a strategy of voting on dozens of nominations in batches rather than individually. In this round, lawmakers are deciding on 97 confirmation questions at the same time.

    Selig and Hill represent only two of those positions, but both roles carry outsized importance for the crypto sector.

    The approach has helped accelerate confirmations but has also compressed scrutiny of individual nominees.

    CFTC positions itself as crypto regulator

    Selig currently serves as a senior official at the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he has been working on crypto-related issues.

    If confirmed, he would replace Acting Chair Caroline Pham, who has guided the CFTC through a series of initiatives seen as supportive of digital asset markets.

    Under Pham’s leadership, the CFTC has positioned itself as an active player in crypto supervision, even as Congress continues to debate broader market structure legislation.

    The agency is widely expected to take a leading role in crypto oversight if lawmakers eventually pass a bill that formally assigns authority.

    Even without new legislation, the CFTC has already expanded its reach.

    It has created a CEO council to advise on policy matters, approved the use of Bitcoin BTC $92,157.53, Ether ETH $3,237.28, and USDC, along with other payment stablecoins as collateral, and allowed registered firms to offer spot crypto trading services.

    These steps have embedded crypto more deeply into regulated financial activity.

    FDIC banking stance comes into focus

    At the FDIC, Hill has already been serving as interim chief, meaning his confirmation would formalise an existing role rather than introduce new leadership, notes CoinDesk.

    During his interim tenure, Hill has pursued policies that indicate a more accommodating stance toward crypto banking.

    This includes engagement with banks that provide services to digital asset firms, an area that has previously faced uncertainty due to regulatory caution.

    Oversight framework begins to align

    Together, the pending confirmations point toward a more coordinated regulatory environment for crypto in the US.

    With leadership at both the CFTC and FDIC close to being finalised, oversight of crypto markets and crypto-related banking may soon operate under clearer and more consistent supervision.

    Source link

  • US SEC, CFTC clear path for registered firms to trade spot crypto

    US SEC, CFTC clear path for registered firms to trade spot crypto

    US SEC, CFTC clear path for registered firms to trade spot crypto

    • Top US regulators have jointly cleared a path for spot crypto trading.
    • The move is a stark reversal from the previous, more skeptical administration.
    • Registered exchanges are now invited to engage with the SEC and CFTC.

    The floodgates to the heart of the American financial system have been thrown open.

    In a landmark and coordinated move, the nation’s top markets watchdogs have given their official blessing for registered trading platforms to deal in spot crypto assets, a stark and powerful reversal that signals a new, pro-innovation era for the digital asset industry.

    The joint statement from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Tuesday is the clearest sign yet of the tectonic shift in Washington’s approach to cryptocurrency.

    Under the previous administration, the industry was met with hesitation and skepticism.

    Now, under regulators appointed by the avowedly pro-crypto President Donald Trump, a wide and clear path is being paved for digital assets to integrate into the existing financial system.

    A coordinated push from the top

    This is not a tentative step, but a coordinated sprint.

    The agencies revealed that under the SEC’s “Project Crypto” and the CFTC’s ongoing “crypto sprint,” their leaders are actively pushing to fulfill President Trump’s mandate to establish the US as the world’s preeminent crypto hub.

    The regulators declared their unified view that existing, regulated exchanges “are not prohibited from facilitating the trading of certain spot crypto asset products.”

    This includes CFTC-registered designated contract markets (DCMs) and SEC-registered national securities exchanges (NSEs).

    In a clear invitation to Wall Street, the agencies are now encouraging such entities to contact their staff to figure out how to move forward.

    The philosophy behind the move was articulated by the leaders themselves.

    “Market participants should have the freedom to choose where they trade spot crypto assets,” said SEC Chairman Paul Atkins in a statement.

    His counterpart at the CFTC, Acting Chairman Caroline Pham, echoed this sentiment, calling the joint statement “the latest demonstration of our mutual objective of supporting growth and development in these markets, but it will not be the last.”

    Clearing the path as Congress deliberates

    While the statement did not detail which specific cryptocurrencies would be covered, referring only to “certain spot crypto asset products,” its intent is unmistakable.

    The regulators are acting decisively, using their existing authorities to open the financial system to crypto now, even as Congress continues its slow and deliberate work on a more sweeping set of market rules.

    This move also directly addresses one of the most persistent and problematic holes in US crypto oversight: the CFTC’s historical lack of clear authority to fully regulate the spot market, where the actual assets are changing hands.

    By inviting registered firms to engage, the agencies are effectively building a regulatory bridge while the legislative foundation is still being laid.

    The message to the financial world is clear: the era of waiting is over, and the time to build is now.

    Source link

  • CFTC wins a record $3.4B penalty payment in a Bitcoin-related fraud case

    CFTC wins a record $3.4B penalty payment in a Bitcoin-related fraud case

    • This is the largest fraud case involving Bitcoin that CFTC has cracked so far.
    • The case involved the CEO of Mirror Trading International Proprietary Limited (MTI).
    • Half of the $3.4B will go toward providing restitution to victims of MTI’s fraudulent activities.

    A Texas court has ordered Johannes Steynberg, the CEO of Mirror Trading International Proprietary Limited (MTI) to pay a $3.4 billion penalty in connection with a large-scale fraud case involving Bitcoin.

    According to the CFTC allegations, Steynberg engaged in an international fraudulent multilevel marketing scheme (MLM) to ask for bitcoins from the public for an unregistered commodity pool operated by the South Africa-based company MTI.

    Steynberg who was controlling MTI and the company falsely claimed to trade off-exchange retail forex through a proprietary “bot” or software program between May 2018 and approximately March 2021.

    The final judgment read:

    “Either directly or indirectly, the defendants misappropriated all of the Bitcoin they accepted from pool participants.”

    According to the CFTC Steynberg, individually and as the principal and agent of MTI, accepted at least 29,421 bitcoins, valued at over $1.7 billion at the time. The bitcoin was obtained from at least 23,000 individuals in the US and other countries around the world. The individuals were tricked to participate in the commodity pool although MTI was not registered as a commodity pool operator (CPO), as required by the law.

    Steynberg arrest

    Steynberg was arrested in December 2021 and has been held in Brazil on an Interpol arrest warrant since then.

    Besides the recent charges against him by the CFTC, Steynberg is also permanently banned from registering with the CFTC or trading in any CFTC-regulated markets.

    Restituting MTI’s victims

    Half of the $3.4 billion penalty will go towards providing restitution to the victims of MTI’s fraudulent activities. The other half is a civil penalty, which is the highest civil penalty to be ordered in any CFTC case.

    The CFTC has however conceded that “orders requiring payment of funds to victims may not result in the recovery of any money lost because wrongdoers may not have sufficient funds or assets.”

    Source link