Bitnomial, the Chicago based cryptocurrency exchange, has launched the first Injective (INJ) futures contracts in the United States, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

 

Although access is currently limited to institutional clients, with retail traders expected to gain access in the future, the newly launched INJ futures contracts allow users to gain exposure to the Injective Protocol underlying INJ token without directly holding it.

 

 

The futures contracts settle in INJ with monthly expiries. This means that while the INJ futures contracts are tradable on the Bitnomial exchange, each contract has an expiry date. When this date is reached each month, the contract expires and settles.

 

The INJ futures contracts can also be margined in crypto or United States dollars, which means traders can choose to deposit either United States dollars or other supported cryptocurrencies as collateral when they open and maintain leveraged positions on the Bitnomial platform.

 

The launch of the Injective INJ futures contracts is one of several futures contract launches by Bitnomial this year, with the exchange having launched XRP futures contracts last month and Tezos and Aptos futures contracts earlier in the year.

 

What the Injective Protocol is

The Injective protocol is a high performance layer 1 blockchain built for decentralized finance DeFi and other advanced financial applications. The Injective chain was built to support complex blockchain infrastructures such as decentralized exchanges DEXs, derivatives trading, perpetual futures, spot markets, prediction markets, lending, and real world assets RWAs.

 

Since its launch, several blockchain protocols have been built on the Injective chain, including Helix, a decentralized exchange, DojoSwap, an automated market maker, and Astroport.

 

Kraken in Deal to Acquire Bitnomial

In its latest acquisition move, Payward, the parent company of cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, has agreed to acquire Bitnomial for 550 million dollars in a deal expected to close before the end of the quarter.

 

 

Through this acquisition, Kraken aims to establish a fully vertically integrated United States crypto derivatives platform under full Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulation. The acquisition is intended to help Kraken accelerate the development of its derivatives business in the United States.

 

Bitnomial’s strong regulatory framework and compliance structure are among the factors influencing the deal. The company operates a Designated Contract Market, a Derivatives Clearing Organization, and a Futures Commission Merchant that supports its brokerage services.

 

Since Bitnomial already has these infrastructures in place, its acquisition is expected to be pivotal for Kraken in advancing its derivatives exchange objectives.

 

 

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the world’s largest financial derivatives marketplace, has announced plans to launch Avalanche (AVAX) and Sui (SUI) futures contracts on May 4, pending regulatory review by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

 

The launch of these contracts, the company says, will allow market participants and traders the option to choose between micro-sized and larger-sized futures contracts, including AVAX futures sized at 5,000 AVAX and micro AVAX futures sized at 500 AVAX, as well as SUI futures contracts sized at 50,000 SUI and micro SUI futures contracts sized at 5,000 SUI.

 

According to Giovanni Vicioso, CME Group Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products, the launch of this new set of futures contracts is aimed at providing clients and market participants with greater flexibility and more market options, as well as improved capital efficiency across the deeply liquid CME derivatives market.

 

"We continue to see strong volumes as market participants turn to our markets to manage risk and pursue opportunities, with March average daily volume up 19 percent year over year and nearly $8 billion in average notional value traded daily,” Vicioso said.

 

The nearly $8 billion in average notional value traded is not insignificant, as CME is one of the most liquid derivatives exchanges. According to a February trading report, the CME derivatives trading platform recorded an all-time daily trading peak of 29.6 million futures contracts in January of this year, a 15 percent year over year increase compared with January of the previous year.

 

The launch of the Avalanche and Sui contracts comes shortly after CME Group launched Cardano (ADA) futures, Chainlink (LINK) futures, and Stellar (XLM) futures contracts on February 9 of this year, as part of the firm’s ongoing strategy of providing trusted, regulated crypto products to all kinds of market participants.

 

Crypto Derivatives Market Continues to Boom

The crypto derivatives trading market, primarily the futures and options market, has continued to boom. In the first quarter of this year, crypto derivatives trading accounted for almost 90 percent of the total $20.57 trillion traded in that period, reaching $18.63 trillion, while spot trading accounted for $1.94 trillion.

 

There has also been an increase in the number of large institutions in recent times, including traditional finance institutions that have moved to tap into this vast section of the crypto market.

 

In October 2025, the global investment bank Goldman Sachs, in collaboration with DBS Bank, launched the first-ever over-the-counter interbank cryptocurrency options trade. In December last year, JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank, also began exploring the launch of crypto spot and derivatives trading services for its institutional clients.

 

 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have filed parallel federal lawsuits against the states of Illinois, Connecticut, and Arizona, as well as their gaming regulators, over the federal government’s right to regulate prediction markets.

 

The filings, which were made on Thursday, aim to prevent these states from restricting prediction market companies and enforcing state-level rules on them. The CFTC claims that it possesses exclusive regulatory authority over prediction markets and says it will defend participants from what it describes as overzealous state regulators.

 

With this move, the CFTC seeks to halt strict regulatory actions taken by these states’ authorities, including several cease-and-desist letters issued to prediction market companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

 

What These States Did

Earlier this year, the Arizona Attorney General filed criminal charges against KalshiEx LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC, accusing them of operating an illegal gambling business without a state license and violating state election wagering laws.

 

In December 2025, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) issued cease-and-desist orders to multiple prediction market platforms, including Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood, accusing them of offering illegal sports event contracts and operating unlicensed online gambling operations within the state.

 

In April 2025, the Illinois Gaming Board (IGB) issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com, asserting that the sports event contracts offered by these platforms constituted illegal wagering under Illinois gambling law.

 

In the court filing against Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and the Illinois Gaming Board, the U.S. commodities regulator argues that event contracts traded on approved exchanges qualify as “swaps” under federal law, not gambling. The regulator also contends that Congress granted it exclusive jurisdiction and that Illinois’s insistence on licensing requirements amounts to an attempt to block federally regulated exchanges from operating.

 

Image credit: courtlistener

 

CFTC Acting Chair Michael Selig reiterated in a post on X that the CFTC has exclusive authority to regulate prediction market activity in the United States, and confirmed that the lawsuit was jointly filed by his agency and the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

 

Crackdown on Prediction Market Intensifies

Prediction market companies have faced intense crackdowns and regulatory restrictions in the U.S. in recent times. There are currently over 20 nationwide lawsuits filed against prediction market companies by regulators from several states, including New York, Washington, Nevada, and Massachusetts.

 

Outside the U.S., there have also been several strict regulatory actions by authorities in multiple countries, with many regulators accusing prediction market companies, especially Polymarket and Kalshi, of operating unregistered gambling activities and offering illegal sports event contracts in their jurisdictions.

 

 

Peken Global Limited, the parent company of cryptocurrency exchange KuCoin, has agreed to pay $500,000 in a settlement in a case brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which alleged that the company operated an unregistered trading platform for U.S. users.

 

In a Monday press release, the CFTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had entered a consent order with Peken Global Limited to resolve the case with the U.S. commodities regulator. As part of the agreement, Peken is permanently restrained from future violations.

 

According to the CFTC, the settlement was reached as a result of Peken’s cooperation during the investigation and related proceedings. The agency also stated that neither it nor the court would be seeking or imposing disgorgement of profits from Peken.

 

The CFTC Case With Kucoin

The CFTC case involving crypto exchange KuCoin officially began on March 26, 2024, when the U.S. commodity regulator filed a civil lawsuit against KuCoin and its related entities, including Peken Global Limited, Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited.

 

The CFTC accused KuCoin and its affiliates of violating several U.S. financial laws, including operating an unregistered trading platform, offering high-risk and unregistered crypto products, failing to properly verify users, and violating U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements.

 

KuCoin agreed to settle the charges, paying penalties totaling nearly $300 million and committing to exit the U.S. market for at least three years.

 

This is not the first time KuCoin has faced regulatory challenges in the United States. In 2023, the New York Attorney General accused the exchange of operating in the state without proper registration, resulting in a $22 million settlement and an order to cease operations in New York.

 

KuCoin has also faced regulatory actions outside the U.S. 

 

In 2022, the Ontario Securities Commission in Canada identified it as an unregistered crypto exchange, resulting in a $2 million penalty. In 2025, Canada’s Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) imposed a $19.5 million fine on the exchange for allegedly violating anti-money laundering laws. More recently, Austria’s Financial Market Authority (FMA) restricted the exchange from registering new users until it complied with local AML regulations.

 

 

 

Something shifted in Washington on Friday, and the people who have been watching the CLARITY Act back and forth for months could feel it. Two key lawmakers, Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democrat Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, reached an agreement in principle on one of the most stubbornly contested provisions in the bill: stablecoin yield. It is the kind of deal that, when the details finally shake out, may well be remembered as the moment the United States stopped kicking the crypto regulatory can down the road.

 

The news broke late Friday and was first reported by Politico. Senator Alsobrooks confirmed it plainly. "Sen. Tillis and I do have an agreement in principle," she said. "We've come a long way. And I think what it will do is to allow us to protect innovation, but also gives us the opportunity to prevent widespread deposit flight." The White House's crypto executive director, Patrick Witt, called it a "major milestone" and added that more work remains, but that progress toward passing the CLARITY Act was now real and tangible.

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee's crypto subcommittee and has been one of the most tireless advocates for this legislation, marked the occasion in her own way. She posted a photo on X of a "yield" sign. No caption needed.

 

 

The Stablecoin Yield Standoff, Explained

For months, the stablecoin yield question was the immovable object blocking the CLARITY Act from getting its Senate Banking Committee hearing. 

 

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders. The intent was to prevent stablecoins from functioning as de facto bank deposit accounts, which would put them in direct competition with traditional savings products and, as the American Bankers Association argued loudly, threaten deposit flows into community banks. The concern: if Coinbase or another platform could offer users 4% on their dollar-pegged tokens simply for holding them, why would anyone keep money in a checking account?

 

The problem is that the GENIUS Act only covered issuers. It left a gap for third-party platforms that might offer rewards to customers who hold stablecoins on their systems. The ABA saw this as a loophole and spent months in Washington lobbying to close it. Crypto companies, for their part, said those rewards programs were fundamentally different from deposit interest and should be allowed.

 

Section 404 of the Senate Banking Committee's draft tried to thread this needle. It prohibits digital asset service providers from paying interest or yield "solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin," while explicitly allowing "activity-based" rewards tied to transactions, payments, platform use, loyalty programs, liquidity provision, and other behaviors. The distinction is real: a reward for moving money through a system is not the same thing as interest paid for parking money in one.

 

Senator Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican on the Banking Committee, captured the nuance at an ABA summit earlier this month: rewards cannot be simply about how much money sits in an account, but they might reasonably be tied to how active that account is. "We're trying to reflect that in the discussions," he said.

 

Lummis had suggested the final compromise would disallow anything that "sounds like banking product terminology" and bar rewards tied to the size of a user's balance. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, whose withdrawal of support in January helped torpedo a scheduled markup hearing, has been described by Lummis as "really pretty good about being willing to give on this issue."

 

 

From 99% to Done

The past week has been a rapid acceleration. As recently as Thursday, sources familiar with the situation described the stablecoin yield issue as being on the verge of resolution. A closed Senate Republican meeting on Wednesday, attended by White House crypto council director Patrick Witt, produced what Lummis told reporters afterward were significant breakthroughs, with "major light bulbs" switched on among the participants.

 

FinTech Weekly, which has closely tracked the legislative calendar, reported that stablecoin yield negotiations were "99% of the way to resolution" coming out of that meeting. The digital asset provisions of the bill more broadly were described as being in a "good place." The remaining friction, sources said, was not technical but political, specifically around whether community bank deregulation provisions might be attached to the CLARITY Act as part of a broader legislative trade.

 

Then came Friday's agreement. "We've come a long way," Alsobrooks told Politico, with a formality that understated just how much ground has been covered since January, when the scheduled markup hearing collapsed under the weight of over 100 proposed amendments and an industry revolt over the yield language.

 

 

What Comes Next and Why the Timeline Matters

An agreement on yield does not mean the CLARITY Act is done. Several other issues need resolution, decentralized finance remains a live debate, and the bill still needs to clear the Senate Banking Committee before it can go to a full Senate vote. After that, it must be reconciled with the version that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee in January. And before the President can sign it, that combined Senate text has to be reconciled with the House-passed version from July 2025. 

 

But the clock is ticking here. Senate Majority Leader John Thune controls the floor calendar, and it is crowded. Unrelated fights, including the Republican voter-ID bill and ongoing debate over the situation in Iran, are competing for limited floor time. Haun Ventures CEO Katie Haun, in a CNBC interview Friday, put it directly: "The big question on the Clarity Act is, is Congress going to get a bill to the floor on time to vote?"

 

Lummis has said she expects a Banking Committee hearing in the latter half of April, after the Easter recess. Advocates have been hoping for a May resolution. Prediction markets are currently pricing the odds of the CLARITY Act being signed in 2026 at around 72%, according to FinTech Weekly. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described passage as a spring 2026 target. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has put the odds at 80 to 90%.

 

JPMorgan analysts have described CLARITY Act passage by midyear as a positive catalyst for digital assets, pointing to regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth as the key drivers. The crypto industry committed nearly $150 million to the Fairshake political action committee in the current cycle and announced a $193 million war chest around the Agriculture Committee markup in January. The companies behind that spending are waiting.

 

 

What This All Means

The stakes of the CLARITY Act extend well beyond Senate procedure. Markets are waiting. Institutions that have been slowly building out crypto infrastructure, custody solutions, tokenized asset offerings, trading desks, need to know what the rules are before they can fully commit capital and resources. The SEC's interpretation helps, but as Atkins himself acknowledged, it is not a substitute for law.

 

The CLARITY Act, if signed, would give the CFTC clear jurisdiction over most digital asset spot markets, create a path to register exchanges and brokers, establish consumer protections with real enforcement teeth, and provide the kind of statutory framework that companies can build businesses around. It would, in the language of its Senate Banking Committee sponsors, establish the United States as the crypto capital of the world, not just by rhetoric but by law.

 

If the bill fails this year, the status quo continues. Crypto companies operate under regulatory uncertainty. The SEC retains broad discretion to treat digital assets as securities. Institutional adoption continues but without a clear statutory framework. And the crypto lobby, which has made clear it will treat failure as a political liability, turns its $193 million war chest into something that looks a lot more like electoral pressure.

 

Friday's agreement does not guarantee passage. It does something important though. It removes the single biggest substantive obstacle to moving forward. The stablecoin yield question, which derailed a January markup hearing and has consumed months of negotiations, now has a resolution in principle. The path ahead still has obstacles, but for the first time in a while, it looks like an actual path.

 

Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks just handed the crypto industry something it has been asking for since the last bull market: a credible signal that Washington is finally going to do its job. The deal is in principle, the details are not yet public, and there is still legislative work ahead. But after years of false starts, shelved bills, collapsed markup hearings, and agency standoffs, this is the moment the trajectory changed.

 

 

Gemini Space Station (NASDAQ: GEMI) got a real boost from Wall Street on Thursday evening. Shares jumped roughly 7% in after-hours trading, climbing to $6.45 after the company reported its fourth-quarter results and laid out a vision for where it is headed next. For a stock that has been taking a real beating the last few months, this feels like it could be a turning point, or at least the beginning of one.

 

The company went public on the Nasdaq in September 2025, raising around $425 million and generating a lot of excitement. The stock has since pulled back significantly, but Thursday's earnings report finally gave investors something that they can feel good about again.

 

 

Gemini Is Moving Beyond Being Just A Crypto Exchange

The headline from the results was not actually about trading at all. For the first time ever, revenue from Gemini's services and interest-based products surpassed what it made from trading fees. Services revenue rose 33% compared to the prior quarter, hitting $26.5 million. That might sound like dry accounting detail, but it matters a lot. It means Gemini is no longer entirely dependent on whether people are actively buying and selling crypto on any given day. That is a big deal for a business trying to grow steadily rather than just riding the waves of a notoriously volatile market.

 

A lot of that services growth came from Gemini's credit card, which functions like a rewards card but pays cashback in cryptocurrency instead of airline miles or cash. That product processed over $1.2 billion in transactions throughout 2025. Total revenue for the full year came in at $179.6 million, up 26% from the year before, and services revenue more than doubled over the same period. The company is building something that looks less like a pure-play crypto exchange and more like a broader financial platform, one that works even when the crypto market is quiet.

 

Beyond the credit card, the move that has really captured investors' imaginations is Gemini's push into prediction markets.

 

Gemini launched its prediction markets product, called Gemini Predictions, in December 2025 after its affiliate Gemini Titan received official approval from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This approval was five years in the making; the company first applied for the license back in March 2020. Receiving it placed Gemini in a very small club of fully regulated prediction market operators in the United States.

 

The early traction is genuinely encouraging. More than 15,000 users have already traded contracts covering categories from crypto prices to politics to sports. In the shareholder letter published Thursday, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss made a bold pitch for why they believe this could be one of the most significant financial products in a generation. They argue that prediction markets forecast the future more accurately and more quickly than traditional experts, pollsters, or media organizations, and that Gemini is positioned at the center of that shift. It is an ambitious claim, but the regulatory foundation they have built gives them a real head start over most competitors.

 

When the CFTC approval was announced back in December, GEMI shares surged nearly 32% in a single session. The market clearly sees the prediction markets business as a meaningful growth engine, and Thursday's results confirmed that the product is gaining real users not just the new, shiny thing with a fancy launch.

 

 

Focusing On What Works

One of the things investors responded well to on Thursday was evidence that management is making tough decisions to streamline the business. In February, Gemini announced it would be cutting roughly 25% of its global workforce and closing its exchange operations in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia. It is closing those regional operations and partnering with eToro, another regulated trading platform, to help affected customers transfer their assets.

 

The Winklevoss brothers described the move plainly: those international markets were hard to compete in, and trying to win them was stretching the company too thin. By pulling back to focus on the U.S., where Gemini has the strongest regulatory footing and the largest user base, management believes it can move faster and reach profitability sooner. The restructuring costs around $11 million, most of it in the first quarter of 2026, but the expected savings over time are significantly larger. 

 

The company's full-year 2025 revenue of $179.6 million came in at the top end of its own preliminary estimates, a small but positive sign that the business is not deteriorating further. Operating expenses were higher than many investors would have liked, but the direction of travel looks more controlled heading into 2026 with the restructuring largely complete.

 

 

What's Next?

Gemini is not without its challenges. The company is dealing with several class action lawsuits filed by shareholders who believe the IPO documents did not fully reflect the scale of the restructuring that was coming. A management conference call is scheduled for Friday morning, and investors will want straight answers on the legal strategy, a timeline for replacing several senior executives who departed in February, and more detail on how fast the prediction markets business is actually growing.

 

Still, the picture Thursday evening was meaningfully better than it has been for most of the past six months. The company is generating real growth in non-trading revenue, it has a licensed and operational prediction markets platform at a time when that category is attracting serious investor and user interest, and management is finally showing a willingness to make hard cuts rather than try to compete on every front at once.

 

Prediction markets as a category have grown explosively over the past couple of years. Platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket have demonstrated real user demand, and regulators under the current administration have signaled a permissive approach to the space. Gemini's CFTC license gives it a compliance advantage that most rivals cannot replicate quickly, and its existing crypto user base is a ready-made pool of customers who already understand event-based trading.

 

Whether Gemini can fully execute on the vision Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss have laid out is still an open question. But for the first time in a while, Thursday's report gave investors something to point to beyond the headline loss number, and the after-hours market seemed to appreciate that. The stock sits more than 75% below its IPO price, so there is a lot of ground to recover. A rerating like that does not happen overnight. What Thursday showed, at least, is that the foundation for one might finally be taking shape.

 

A federal court in Ohio has denied a motion filed by prediction market company Kalshi to stop state regulators from overseeing sports contracts on its platform.

 

On Monday, Chief Judge Sarah Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio rejected Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the Ohio Casino Control Commission and the state attorney general from regulating the sports betting contracts offered by Kalshi.

 

Image credit: CourtListener

 

 

The judge ruled that Kalshi failed to prove its sports event contracts were exclusively supervised by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

 

“Even if this court were to find that sports event contracts are swaps subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, Kalshi has not shown that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) would necessarily preempt Ohio’s sports gambling laws,” the opinion and order stated.

 

“Kalshi argues that Ohio’s sports gambling laws are field- and conflict-preempted by the CEA when it comes to sports event contracts traded on its exchange [...] Kalshi fails to establish that Congress intended the CEA to preempt state laws on sports gambling,” the opinion and order added.

 

Image credit: Court Listener

 

For clarity, here's a breakdown of what's going on:

• Kalshi asked an Ohio court to block the Ohio Casino Control Commission and the state’s attorney general from regulating its sports contracts, arguing that the contracts were already under the oversight of the CFTC, a federal regulator.
• The court denied the request, stating that Kalshi had not proven that the sports contracts on its platform were actually being regulated by the CFTC.
• The court further noted that although the CFTC had not taken action against the contracts, that does not make them legal under federal law.

 

 

Kalshi's Back-and-Forth Battle With Regulation

Despite CFTC Chair Michael Selig stating in February that federal regulators have exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets, Kalshi and other prediction market companies continue to face challenges from state regulators seeking oversight.

 

In March 2025, the Nevada Gaming Control Board issued a cease-and-desist order against Kalshi, ruling that its sports event contracts constituted illegal sports wagers. Kalshi responded by filing a federal lawsuit, which resulted in a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, allowing the company to continue operating in the state.

 

However, a federal judge in Nevada later lifted the preliminary injunction, ruling that Kalshi must comply with the state’s gaming regulations.

 

Earlier this year, the Tennessee Sports Wagering Council sent cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi and other prediction market companies, stating that offering contracts on sports events was illegal in the state and constituted unlawful sports betting.

 

In response, Kalshi filed a lawsuit against state regulators in federal court and obtained a temporary restraining order preventing Tennessee authorities from enforcing the cease-and-desist order.

 

• Hayden Adams, CEO, Uniswap Labs
• Brian Armstrong, CEO, Coinbase
• Shayne Coplan, CEO, Polymarket
• Brad Garlinghouse, CEO, Ripple
• Luke Hoersten, CEO, Bitnomial
• Tarek Mansour, CEO, Kalshi
• Kris Marszalek, CEO, Crypto.com
• Nathan McCauley, CEO, Anchorage Digital
• Peter Mintzberg, CEO, Grayscale
• Sergey Nazarov, CEO, Chainlink Labs
• Arjun Sethi, Co CEO, Kraken
• Peter Smith, CEO, Blockchain.com
• Tyler Winklevoss, CEO, Gemini
• Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO, Solana Labs
• Andrej Bolkovic, CEO, Options Clearing Corporation
• Thomas Chippas, CEO, Rothera Markets
• Professor Harry Crane, Representative
• Chris Dixon, General Partner, a16z Crypto
• Craig Donohue, CEO, Cboe Global Markets
• Terry Duffy, Chair and CEO, CME Group
• Tom Farley, CEO, Bullish
• Adena Friedman, Chair and CEO, Nasdaq
• Christian Genetski, President, FanDuel
• Frank LaSalla, President and CEO, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
• Walt Lukken, CEO, FIA
• Scott D. O’Malia, CEO, ISDA
• Alana Palmedo, Managing Partner, Paradigm
• Vivek Raman, CEO, Etherealize
• Professor Carla Reyes, Representative
• Jason Robins, CEO, DraftKings
• David Schwimmer, CEO, LSEG
• Vance Spencer, Co founder, Framework Ventures
• Jeff Sprecher, CEO, Intercontinental Exchange
• Vlad Tenev, CEO, Robinhood
• Don Wilson, CEO, DRW

 

 

Polymarket has gone on the offensive.

 

The crypto-powered prediction market has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts, arguing that state regulators are overstepping their authority as they move to block sports-related prediction markets. The case puts Polymarket on a collision course with state gambling laws and could determine how far U.S. states can go in policing a fast-growing corner of crypto-finance.

 

At stake is a much bigger question than one company’s business model. The lawsuit tests whether prediction markets should be treated as federally regulated financial instruments or as another form of sports betting that states can license, restrict, or ban outright.

 

 

A Growing Clash Between States and Prediction Markets

Prediction markets allow users to trade on the probability of future events. Elections, economic data releases, interest rate decisions, and increasingly, sports outcomes. Traders buy and sell contracts that pay out based on what actually happens, with prices shifting in real time as sentiment changes.

 

Supporters argue these markets are closer to financial derivatives than gambling. Critics, especially state regulators, say sports-based contracts look and feel like wagers, regardless of how they are structured.

 

That tension has been simmering for years, but it boiled over recently when Massachusetts moved to shut down Kalshi’s sports-related markets. Kalshi operates as a federally regulated exchange under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, yet a Massachusetts court sided with the state, granting regulators the power to block those contracts locally.

 

For Polymarket, that ruling was a warning shot.

 

 

Why Massachusetts Matters

Massachusetts has become ground zero for the state-level pushback. The state’s attorney general has argued that sports prediction contracts violate local gambling laws and should not be allowed without a state-issued license. Courts have so far been receptive to that argument, at least on an interim basis.

 

The implications extend far beyond one state. Regulators in Nevada and other jurisdictions have cited the Massachusetts case as justification for their own enforcement actions. If one state can successfully reclassify prediction markets as gambling, others are likely to follow.

 

Polymarket’s lawsuit is designed to stop that domino effect.

 

 

Polymarket’s Core Argument

Polymarket’s legal case is straightforward and ambitious.

 

The company argues that event-based contracts fall squarely under federal commodities law and that the CFTC has exclusive authority to regulate them. If that view holds, states would be barred from using gambling statutes to restrict or ban prediction markets, even when those markets involve sports.

 

In other words, Polymarket is asking the court to draw a hard line between federally regulated markets and state gambling oversight.

 

The lawsuit also reflects a strategic shift. Rather than waiting for a cease-and-desist or injunction, Polymarket is preemptively seeking judicial clarity before Massachusetts or other states can formally block its offerings.

 

 

Sports Markets Are the Flashpoint

Sports contracts sit at the center of the controversy for a reason. Unlike political or economic forecasts, sports betting is already heavily regulated at the state level, with billions in tax revenue flowing through licensed sportsbooks.

 

State officials argue that prediction markets offering contracts on game outcomes undermine that system and create an unlicensed alternative to traditional betting.

 

Prediction market operators counter that their products are fundamentally different. Prices are set by traders, not oddsmakers. Positions can be bought and sold before outcomes are known. Risk is distributed across a market, not absorbed by a house.

 

Courts have not yet settled which interpretation carries more weight.

 

 

The Broader Stakes for Crypto and Finance

The outcome of Polymarket’s lawsuit could shape the future of prediction markets in the U.S. If states prevail, platforms may be forced to geo-block large portions of the country or abandon sports contracts entirely. That would likely slow growth and limit mainstream adoption.

 

If Polymarket wins, it could establish a powerful precedent. Federal preemption would give prediction markets a clearer regulatory runway and could encourage more institutional participation in event-based trading.

 

There is also a competitive angle. Traditional sportsbooks operate under state licenses and strict compliance regimes. Prediction markets that fall outside those systems could disrupt the sports betting industry, which has expanded rapidly since the repeal of PASPA.

 

 

The Bottom Line

The case is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear. Prediction markets are no longer operating in a gray area that regulators are willing to ignore.

 

As states push back and platforms respond with federal lawsuits, the U.S. is heading toward a defining legal moment for event-based markets. Whether they end up regulated like derivatives or treated like gambling will determine not just where these platforms can operate, but what kind of products they can offer at all.

 

For now, Polymarket has drawn its line. The courts will decide how far states can go in crossing it.

 

The White House is preparing to bring crypto executives and banking leaders into the same room again, a sign that Washington’s long running fight over how to regulate digital assets has reached another pressure point.

 

According to reporting citing Reuters, senior figures from the crypto industry and the banking sector are expected to meet with White House officials in early February to discuss a market structure bill that has recently hit a wall in Congress. The meeting comes at a moment when lawmakers have already locked in a stablecoin framework, but cannot seem to agree on the bigger question of who regulates crypto markets and how.

 

Market structure may sound abstract, but it is the foundation of everything else. It determines which agency has authority, how tokens are classified, how exchanges register, and whether new products are built in the United States or somewhere else.

 

The fact that the White House is stepping in suggests the administration believes the debate has moved beyond talking points and into the phase where compromises need to be made, especially between banks and crypto firms that see the future very differently.

 

Why this meeting matters now

When the White House convenes both sides of a financial policy fight, it usually means the normal legislative process is struggling. That is exactly what is happening with crypto market structure.

 

Congress made real progress last year by passing a federal stablecoin law. That victory raised expectations across the industry that broader rules for exchanges, tokens, and decentralized finance would be next. Instead, lawmakers have found themselves bogged down in disagreements that are harder to paper over.

 

At a high level, everyone says they want clarity. In practice, clarity means deciding winners and losers.

 

Banks want to make sure crypto products do not look or behave like deposits without being regulated like deposits. Crypto firms want rules that let them list assets, offer yield, and build new protocols without constant fear of enforcement actions. Regulators want authority that actually matches how the market works.

 

Those goals collide most directly in market structure legislation, which is why it has become the most contentious piece of crypto policy in Washington.

 

 

Where the bill stands today

The House has moved, the Senate is stuck

 

The House of Representatives has already passed a sweeping market structure bill that lays out a framework for classifying digital assets and dividing oversight between the SEC and the CFTC. The basic idea is simple. Tokens that function like securities fall under the SEC. Tokens that operate more like commodities fall under the CFTC, including spot market oversight.

 

That approach has strong support in the crypto industry because it offers a path to compliance that does not rely on years of litigation.

 

The Senate, however, is a different story. Jurisdiction is split between the Banking Committee and the Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC. Each committee has released its own drafts, and neither side has a clear path to unifying them.

 

Markups have been delayed. Amendments are piling up. And the clock is ticking as lawmakers turn their attention to other priorities.

 

Stablecoin rewards have become the flashpoint

One of the biggest reasons the bill is stalled is stablecoin yield.

 

Even though stablecoins already have their own law, they still sit at the center of the market structure debate because they touch the banking system directly. The most controversial issue is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer rewards simply for being held.

 

From the banking perspective, yield bearing stablecoins look uncomfortably close to deposits. Banks argue that if a token offers a return and can be redeemed at par, it competes with insured deposits without being subject to the same rules.

 

From the crypto side, rewards are seen as a feature, not a loophole. Many firms argue that stablecoins backed by cash and short term Treasurys are fundamentally different from bank liabilities, and that banning rewards would freeze innovation and entrench incumbents.

 

Some Senate drafts have tried to split the difference by restricting passive yield while allowing activity based incentives. That compromise has not satisfied everyone, which is why the issue keeps resurfacing.

 

This is also where a White House meeting could make a difference. Any bill that passes will need language banks can accept and crypto firms can actually use.

 

 

DeFi is the second unresolved battle

Decentralized finance is the other major fault line.

 

Lawmakers and regulators agree that DeFi cannot exist entirely outside the law. They disagree on how to draw the boundary. Some Senate proposals push Treasury to define compliance obligations for DeFi platforms, including disclosures and recordkeeping requirements.

 

The challenge is obvious. If the rules treat software like a traditional intermediary, developers will leave or go dark. If the rules are too permissive, lawmakers worry about money laundering, sanctions evasion, and consumer harm.

 

So far, no draft has solved this cleanly. The result is cautious, sometimes vague language that satisfies no one and invites future fights.

 

 

The SEC versus CFTC question is still unresolved

At its core, market structure is about classification.

 

Is a token a security, a commodity, something else, or some hybrid category that does not fit neatly into existing law? That answer determines which regulator takes the lead and how companies design their products.

 

Some Senate drafts introduce concepts like network tokens or ancillary assets to bridge the gap between traditional securities and decentralized systems. These ideas are meant to reduce uncertainty, but they also raise new questions about enforcement and interpretation.

 

For exchanges, custodians, and issuers, this is not academic. Classification determines what can be listed, how staking works, and whether certain products are viable in the US at all.

 

 

The Bottom Line

I am generally positive on the White House holding this meeting. At a minimum, it acknowledges what everyone in the industry already knows, which is that market structure is stuck and normal committee process is not getting it unstuck.

 

Getting banks and crypto firms in the same room matters, even if no one walks out with a breakthrough headline. These conversations tend to shape the edges of legislation more than the core, but in a bill this complex, the edges are often where everything breaks.

 

That said, expectations should stay grounded. A single meeting is not going to magically resolve the stablecoin yield debate, redraw the DeFi compliance perimeter, or settle the SEC versus CFTC turf war. Those fights are structural and political, and they will take time.

 

If anything meaningful comes out of this, it will likely show up quietly in revised draft language weeks from now, not in a press release the next day.

 

Still, the fact that the White House is leaning in is a good sign. It suggests there is real pressure to get something done, and an understanding that half measures or endless delay are no longer acceptable. For an industry that has spent years asking Washington to engage seriously, that alone is progress, even if the final outcome remains very much in flux.

 

Washington’s long-running effort to write clear rules for crypto is moving forward, but not cleanly.

 

The U.S. Senate has released updated language for a long-anticipated crypto market structure bill, yet deep disagreements remain between lawmakers, committees, and the industry itself. Two separate Senate committees are now pushing different versions of the legislation, and the gaps between them are proving harder to close than many expected.

 

At stake is nothing less than who regulates crypto in the United States, how stablecoins are allowed to operate, and whether decentralized finance can exist without being squeezed into a framework built for Wall Street.

 

A Bill That Is Really Two Bills

The market structure effort is split between the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, each advancing its own vision of how digital assets should be governed.

 

The Agriculture Committee’s draft leans heavily toward expanding the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under this approach, most major cryptocurrencies would be treated as digital commodities, placing them largely outside the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reach.

 

The Banking Committee’s version, often referred to as the CLARITY Act, takes a more cautious and detailed approach. It attempts to draw clearer legal lines between what counts as a security and what does not, while preserving a significant role for the SEC in overseeing parts of the crypto market.

 

Both sides say they want regulatory certainty. The problem is they disagree on what that certainty should look like.

 

The CFTC Versus SEC Fight Is Still the Core Issue

At the heart of the debate is a familiar Washington turf war.

 

Supporters of the Agriculture Committee draft argue that the CFTC is better suited to oversee crypto markets, particularly spot trading for assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. They point to the agency’s lighter touch, its experience with commodities, and its closer alignment with how crypto markets actually function.

 

The Banking Committee sees things differently. Its members are more focused on investor protection and worry that shifting too much power to the CFTC could weaken oversight. Their draft tries to preserve the SEC’s role, especially when tokens are issued in ways that resemble traditional securities offerings.

 

Neither side appears ready to fully back down, which is why the Senate still has not settled on a single unified bill.

 

Stablecoins Become a Flashpoint

Stablecoins, once seen as the least controversial corner of crypto, are now one of the most contentious parts of the bill.

 

One major sticking point is a proposed restriction on stablecoin rewards or yield. Under the Banking Committee’s draft, issuers would face limits on paying users simply for holding stablecoins.

 

Crypto companies argue this would kneecap a core feature of digital dollars and make them less competitive with traditional financial products. Some in the industry say the provision feels less like consumer protection and more like an attempt to shield banks from competition.

 

Lawmakers defending the restriction say they are trying to prevent stablecoins from morphing into unregulated interest-bearing products that could pose risks to consumers and the broader financial system.

 

The disagreement has become symbolic of a larger divide over how much freedom crypto should have to innovate inside a regulated framework.

 

DeFi Still Does Not Fit Neatly Anywhere

Decentralized finance remains one of the hardest issues for lawmakers to solve.

 

Both Senate drafts struggle with how to treat protocols that do not have a central company, executive team, or traditional governance structure. Some lawmakers want stronger rules to prevent DeFi platforms from being used for illicit activity. Others worry that applying centralized compliance models to decentralized systems will effectively ban them.

 

For now, DeFi remains an unresolved problem in the bill, with language that critics say is either too vague or too aggressive, depending on who you ask.

 

Coinbase Draws a Line in the Sand

Industry frustration boiled over when Coinbase publicly withdrew its support for the Banking Committee’s draft.

 

The exchange called the proposal worse than the status quo, pointing to its treatment of DeFi, stablecoin yield restrictions, and limits on tokenized equities. Coinbase’s criticism carried weight in Washington and contributed to the Banking Committee delaying its planned markup hearing.

 

That delay rippled through the market, briefly weighing on crypto prices before sentiment stabilized.

 

Timing Gets Complicated

The Agriculture Committee is moving ahead more quickly, scheduling a markup hearing to debate amendments and advance its version of the bill.

 

The Banking Committee, meanwhile, has pushed its timeline back as lawmakers juggle other priorities, including housing legislation. That has pushed any meaningful progress into late winter or early spring at the earliest.

 

The longer the process drags on, the more uncertain the path becomes. Election season is approaching, and legislative calendars tend to tighten as political pressure increases.

 

A Broader Regulatory Backdrop Is Already in Place

The market structure debate is happening against a backdrop of recent regulatory action.

 

Congress has already passed stablecoin legislation that sets rules around reserves, disclosures, and audits. Earlier House efforts, including last year’s market structure bill, also laid groundwork by outlining how digital assets might be classified under federal law.

 

What the Senate is trying to do now is connect those pieces into a comprehensive framework. That has proven easier said than done.

 

The Next Test

The next major test will be whether the Agriculture and Banking Committees can reconcile their differences or whether one version gains enough momentum to dominate the process.

 

Expect heavy lobbying from crypto companies, financial institutions, and trade groups, particularly around stablecoin yield, DeFi protections, and agency jurisdiction.

 

For now, the Senate’s crypto market structure bill remains a work in progress, ambitious in scope, politically fragile, and still very much unsettled.

 

One thing is clear. The era of regulatory ambiguity is ending, even if the final shape of crypto regulation in the U.S. is still being fought over line by line.

 

When Michael Selig stepped into the role of CFTC chair late last year, the crypto industry was already expecting a change in tone. This week, it got confirmation.

 

On January 20, Selig announced the launch of the CFTC’s new “Future-Proof” initiative, a program designed to rethink how U.S. markets regulate crypto, digital assets, and other fast-moving financial technologies. The message was clear. The old approach is no longer enough.

 

Rather than relying on enforcement actions and retroactive interpretations of decades-old rules, the CFTC wants to build regulatory frameworks that actually reflect how these markets function today.

 

For an industry that has spent years navigating uncertainty, that alone is a notable shift.

 

A Chair With Deep Crypto Roots

Selig is not new to crypto regulation. Before taking the top job at the CFTC, he worked closely with digital asset policy at the SEC and spent time in private practice advising both traditional financial firms and crypto companies. He also previously clerked at the CFTC, giving him an unusually well-rounded view of how regulators and markets interact.

 

That background shows up in his public comments. Since taking office, Selig has repeatedly emphasized predictability, clarity, and rules that market participants can actually follow without guessing how an agency might interpret them years later.

 

The Future-Proof initiative is the clearest expression of that philosophy so far.

 

What “Future-Proof” Really Means

At its core, Future-Proof is about moving away from improvisation. The CFTC wants to stop forcing novel digital products into regulatory boxes built for traditional derivatives and commodities.

 

Instead, the agency plans to pursue purpose-built rules through formal notice-and-comment processes. That means more upfront guidance and fewer surprises delivered through enforcement actions.

 

Selig has described the goal as applying the minimum effective level of regulation. Enough oversight to protect markets and participants, but not so much that innovation is choked off before it has a chance to mature.

 

For crypto firms, that approach could offer something they have long asked for but rarely received, which is regulatory certainty.

 

Why the Industry Is Paying Attention

The timing matters. Crypto markets are more institutional than they were even a few years ago. Large asset managers, trading firms, and infrastructure providers want clearer rules before committing serious capital. Uncertainty around jurisdiction and compliance has been one of the biggest obstacles.

 

If the CFTC follows through, Future-Proof could help define how derivatives, spot markets, and emerging products like prediction markets are treated under U.S. law. That would make it easier for firms to build, invest, and operate without constantly second-guessing regulators.

 

At the same time, clarity cuts both ways. More defined rules could also raise the bar for compliance, especially for smaller startups and decentralized platforms that have operated in legal gray zones.

 

 

Tennessee Attempts to Block Prediction Markets

 

 

A Broader Political Shift

Selig’s initiative does not exist in isolation. It comes as lawmakers in Washington continue debating how to split crypto oversight between the CFTC and the SEC. Several proposed bills aim to draw clearer lines around digital commodities and spot market regulation, potentially expanding the CFTC’s role.

 

Future-Proof appears designed to fit neatly into that broader push. If Congress hands the agency more authority, the CFTC wants to be ready with frameworks that can scale.

 

Still, challenges remain. The commission currently lacks a full slate of confirmed commissioners, raising questions about how durable these policy shifts will be. Coordination with the SEC is another open issue, especially where token classifications blur the line between securities and commodities.

 

What Does The Future Hold?

For now, Future-Proof is more direction than destination. The real test will be how quickly the CFTC turns principles into actual rules, and whether those rules survive political change and legal scrutiny.

 

But the tone alone represents a meaningful break from the past. After years of regulation by enforcement and ambiguity, the agency is signaling that crypto markets are not a temporary problem to be contained, but a permanent part of the financial system that deserves thoughtful governance.

 

Whether that vision becomes reality will shape the next phase of U.S. crypto regulation, and potentially determine whether innovation stays onshore or continues looking elsewhere.