After nearly three years of legal battle, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission officially dismissed its civil fraud claims against Tron founder Justin Sun, the Tron Foundation, and the BitTorrent Foundation on Thursday. The resolution, entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, comes with one notable condition: Rainberry Inc., the entity that developed the BitTorrent protocol and the BTT cryptocurrency token under Sun's direction, agreed to pay a $10 million civil penalty to the agency.

 

The final judgment still requires approval from a federal judge, but the terms represent a clean exit from what had been one of the higher-profile enforcement actions of the Gensler-era SEC. Rainberry, previously known as BitTorrent Inc. and acquired by Sun in June 2018, will also be permanently barred from engaging in deceptive market practices for securities, though it did not admit guilt as part of the agreement. Critically, the dismissal against Sun himself and the two foundations was entered "with prejudice," meaning the SEC cannot refile the same allegations in this federal court.

 

 

A Case History

The commission first filed the lawsuit in March 2023, during former Chairman Gary Gensler's tenure. The charges were sweeping. The SEC accused Sun and his related entities of orchestrating the unregistered offer and sale of two crypto assets, Tronix (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT), which it classified as securities. Beyond that, regulators alleged Sun personally directed employees to execute hundreds of thousands of coordinated wash trades in TRX, generating roughly $31 million in artificial trading proceeds and inflating the appearance of legitimate market activity. The complaint also alleged Sun paid celebrity endorsers to promote his tokens without publicly disclosing those payments — a violation of securities laws that require such arrangements to be made transparent to investors.

 

The SEC argued that Sun had tight personal control over each of the entities involved, calling Tron Foundation, BitTorrent Foundation, and Rainberry his "alter egos" and noting that he had spent significant time on U.S. soil during the relevant period, including approximately 180 days in 2019 alone. The agency said a reasonable investor would have seen Sun as the unified face of the entire TRX and BTT ecosystem.

 

Sun's legal team did not take the charges quietly. In early 2024, Tron Foundation and Sun's lawyers moved to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the SEC had no authority over Sun as a foreign national residing abroad and that the agency had failed to prove Sun exercised meaningful control over the Tron and BitTorrent networks. Rainberry, incorporated in California, did not contest jurisdiction but sought dismissal on different grounds — primarily that the company had no fair notice that its activities could be subject to securities claims.

 

The SEC pushed back on those arguments aggressively in an amended complaint filed in April 2024, countering that Sun's physical presence in the United States over multiple years was extensive and well-documented, and that his dominance over each entity was impossible to dispute given his public profile and behavior at industry events.

 

By late 2024 and early 2025, the political climate had shifted dramatically. Donald Trump's return to the White House brought with it a sharp reversal in the SEC's posture toward crypto enforcement. Gary Gensler stepped down, and the commission came under the acting leadership of Commissioner Mark Uyeda before Paul Atkins, a Washington lawyer widely seen as supportive of the digital asset industry, was confirmed as chairman. In February 2025, the SEC and Sun's legal team jointly asked Judge Edgardo Ramos in Manhattan to put the case on hold while both sides explored a potential resolution, citing the interests of both parties and the public.

 

 

What Comes Next For Tron and Sun

The resolution closes a legal chapter, but Sun's year has not been without turbulence. The relationship with World Liberty Financial grew complicated in September 2025 when, days after WLFI tokens became publicly tradable, blockchain data revealed that Sun's wallet address holding roughly 595 million unlocked WLFI tokens was blacklisted by the project's smart contracts. WLFI had fallen sharply from its debut price, and on-chain data showed Sun had made several outbound transfers, including one worth approximately $9 million, to addresses associated with exchanges. The WLFI team cited concerns about suspicious activity. Sun denied any manipulation, publicly appealing to the team to restore his access and invoking the decentralization principles the project claimed to champion. As of late 2025, his tokens reportedly remained frozen and had declined significantly in value.

 

For the Tron and BitTorrent ecosystems themselves, the dismissal removes a substantial legal overhang. TRX and BTT holders had long operated under uncertainty about whether the tokens could ultimately be classified as securities in federal court. While the settlement does not resolve broader policy debates in Washington about how digital tokens should be classified, it does remove the specific threat of a federal court ruling in this case.

 

The $10 million Rainberry penalty is notable primarily for what it is not. Given the scale of what was alleged, including hundreds of millions of dollars in token distributions and deliberate wash trading to manipulate market prices, the fine is modest. Critics are likely to point to the figure as further evidence that the current SEC has little appetite for meaningful accountability in the crypto space, while supporters of the settlement structure will argue it brings resolution without years of additional litigation that may have yielded uncertain outcomes anyway.

 

For Sun, the outcome is a practical victory, even if the legal-ese technically routes the penalty through Rainberry rather than through him directly. He emerged without personal liability in a case where the SEC had once described him as the singular controlling force behind everything. Whether the political dynamics that contributed to that outcome constitute a coincidence or something more transactional is a question that Senate and House oversight committees appear intent on pressing in the months ahead

 

 

 

Washington's stablecoin standoff just got a whole lot more personal.

 

Patrick Witt, the executive director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, publicly fired back at JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on Tuesday, calling his arguments about stablecoin yields misleading and, in Witt's own word, a "deceit."

 

The exchange marks one of the sharpest moments yet in a months-long tug-of-war between Wall Street and the White House over the future of digital asset regulation in America.

 

Dimon Draws a Line in the Sand

It started Monday, when Dimon went on CNBC and didn't mince words. His position was simple, if uncompromising: any platform holding customer balances and paying interest on them is functionally a bank, and should be regulated like one.

 

"If you do that, the public will pay. It will get bad," Dimon warned, arguing that a two-tiered system where crypto firms operate with fewer restrictions than banks is unsustainable.

 

Dimon suggested a narrow compromise: platforms could offer rewards tied to transactions. But he drew a clear line at interest-like payments on idle balances, saying, "If you're going to be holding balances and paying interest, that's a bank."

 

The list of obligations Dimon believes should apply is long, FDIC insurance, capital and liquidity requirements, anti-money laundering controls, transparency standards, community lending mandates, and board governance requirements. "If they want to be a bank, so be it," he said.

 

For Dimon, it's fundamentally about fairness. JPMorgan uses blockchain in its own operations, and the CEO was careful to frame his argument not as anti-crypto but as pro-competition on equal terms. "We're in favor of competition. But it's got to be fair and balanced," he said.

 

 

The White House Fires Back

Witt wasn't going to let that stand. In a post on X late Tuesday, he went directly at Dimon's framing, calling it deliberately misleading.

 

"The deceit here is that it is not the paying of yield on a balance per se that necessitates bank-like regulations, but rather the lending out or rehypothecation of the dollars that make up the underlying balance," Witt wrote. "The GENIUS Act explicitly forbids stablecoin issuers from doing the latter."

 

The argument gets at something technically important. What makes a bank risky, and therefore subject to heavy regulation, isn't that it pays interest. It's that banks take deposits and lend them back out, creating credit and the systemic risk that comes with it. If too many people want their money back at once, that's a bank run. Stablecoin issuers operating under the GENIUS Act must maintain reserves at a 1:1 ratio. There is no fractional reserve lending, no rehypothecation, no credit creation.

 

In Witt's view, stablecoin balances aren't deposits, and treating them as such misrepresents what's actually happening. He closed with a pointed equation: "Stablecoins ≠ Deposits."

 

President Donald Trump didn't stay quiet either. On Tuesday, he took to Truth Social with a message that made his position unmistakably clear.

 

"The U.S. needs to get Market Structure done, ASAP. Americans should earn more money on their money. The Banks are hitting record profits, and we are not going to allow them to undermine our powerful Crypto Agenda that will end up going to China, and other Countries if we don't get the Clarity Act taken care of," Trump wrote.

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis quickly reposted Trump's message, adding her own call to action: "America can't afford to wait. Congress must move quickly to pass the Clarity Act."

 

The same day Trump posted, a Coinbase delegation led by CEO Brian Armstrong visited the White House for talks. The timing was not subtle.

 

The Real Stakes: The CLARITY Act

To understand why this debate matters so much right now, you need to understand the legislation being held hostage by it.

 

The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, established the first federal framework for payment stablecoins. The CLARITY Act is its sequel: a broader market structure bill that would assign clear regulatory jurisdiction to the SEC and CFTC over the crypto industry, and is widely seen as the piece of legislation needed to unlock large-scale institutional participation in digital assets.

 

The bill cleared the House comfortably but has been mired in Senate gridlock since January, when the Senate Banking Committee indefinitely postponed a planned markup vote. The trigger was Coinbase withdrawing support over a proposed amendment that would have restricted stablecoin rewards for users.

 

That withdrawal, announced by CEO Brian Armstrong in a post on X the night before the scheduled committee vote, split the crypto industry. a16z crypto's Chris Dixon publicly disagreed, posting "Now is the time to move the Clarity Act forward." Kraken's co-CEO Arjun Sethi also pushed back, writing that "walking away now would not preserve the status quo in practice" and warning it "would lock in uncertainty and leave American companies operating under ambiguity while the rest of the world moves forward."

 

The stakes for Coinbase are concrete. Stablecoins contribute nearly 20% of Coinbase's revenue, roughly $355 million in the third quarter of 2025 alone, and most of USDC's growth is occurring on Coinbase's platform. Coinbase currently offers 3.5% yield on USDC, a figure most traditional bank accounts can't come close to matching.

 

 

Banks Are Scared, and They Have the Numbers to Show It

The banking lobby's concern isn't hypothetical. Banking trade groups, led by the Bank Policy Institute, have warned that unrestricted stablecoin yield could trigger deposit outflows of up to $6.6 trillion, citing U.S. Treasury Department analysis. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan put a similar figure forward, reportedly suggesting as much as $6 trillion in deposits, representing roughly 30-35% of all U.S. commercial bank deposits, could be at risk.

 

Stablecoins registered $33 trillion in transaction volume in 2025, up 72% year-over-year. Bernstein projects total stablecoin supply will reach approximately $420 billion by the end of 2026, with longer-run forecasts from Citi putting the market at up to $4 trillion by 2030. Those aren't niche numbers anymore. At that scale, deposit competition becomes a serious macroeconomic question.

 

The American Bankers Association and 52 state bankers' associations explicitly urged Congress to extend the GENIUS Act's yield prohibitions to partners and affiliates of stablecoin issuers, warning of deposit disintermediation.

 

The Bottom Line

What's playing out right now is a genuine philosophical disagreement about what money is and how it should be regulated, wrapped inside a very consequential legislative fight, a prize fight with Banks in one corner and Crypto in the other.

 

Dimon's argument is not frivolous. Banks are regulated as heavily as they are because of what they do with deposited money, and a world where consumers move trillions into yield-bearing crypto instruments held at lightly regulated platforms carries real risks. The history of financial crises is largely a history of regulatory arbitrage gone wrong.

 

But Witt's counter is also not frivolous. The GENIUS Act was designed specifically to prevent stablecoin issuers from doing the things that make banks dangerous. A fully reserved, non-lending stablecoin issuer is structurally different from a fractional reserve bank, and applying the same regulatory framework to both risks conflating two fundamentally different business models.

 

What's harder to square is that the banking lobby's intervention in the CLARITY Act seems, to many in the crypto world, less about prudential regulation and more about protecting market share. President Trump has not been subtle about that read, accusing banks of holding the CLARITY Act hostage to protect incumbent interests against crypto competition.

 

With the legislative window narrowing, Armstrong back at the White House, and Trump openly calling out the banking lobby by name, this standoff has reached the kind of inflection point where someone is going to have to blink. The question is whether either side is willing to do it before time runs out entirely.

 

 

 

There’s been a lot of language coming out of Washington lately about stablecoins.

 

Words like "prudence", "guardrails", and "financial stability" get thrown around whenever the CLARITY Act comes up. Coinbase recently pulled their support amid stablecoin issues in the same bill. But if you take a step back, it’s hard not to feel like something else is driving the intensity of the debate. Big banks don’t usually fight this hard over niche policy details unless there’s something material at stake.

 

Browsing the web, trying to find my next article for all of you, I came across a recent report from Standard Chartered’s digital assets research team, led by Geoff Kendrick, and it may just help to explain the fight a bit better. 

 

A Forecast Banks Can’t Ignore

Kendrick’s research doesn’t treat stablecoins as a crypto sideshow. It treats them as a potential alternative home for real money, the kind of money that currently sits in checking and savings accounts. He actually estimated that $500 billion will move from bank deposits to stablecoins by 2028. The idea isn’t that everyone suddenly abandons banks. It’s subtler than that. Even a gradual shift of deposits into stablecoins changes the math for banks in ways they really don’t like. Funding becomes  more expensive, liquidity assumptions get weaker, margins get squeezed. Those aren’t ideological concerns. Those are spreadsheet concerns. And spreadsheet concerns really make banks want to fight the issue.

 

But to understand the real threat to banks, you first have to better understand the business itself. Banks don’t just hold your money. They use it. Under fractional reserve banking, they keep only a slice and lend the rest out to earn interest for themselves. Sure, they'll keep that small portion of your deposit, but the majority gets reinvested through loans and other activities. That’s how they earn money and why they can afford to even pay any interest to you at all, even if it’s usually minimal.

 

This system works because deposits are assumed to be sticky. People don’t move their money often, and when they do, it usually stays within the banking system. Moving from one bank to another.

 

Stablecoins challenge that assumption. They make dollars mobile in a way they haven’t been before.

 

The Shift Is Coming

Right now, most stablecoins feel like tools, not destinations. They’re useful for transfers, trading, and crypto-native activity, but they’re not where most people park idle cash. Yield changes that. The moment a stablecoin starts paying something meaningfully better than a traditional savings account, the comparison becomes unavoidable. A digital dollar that moves instantly, works around the clock, and earns yield starts to look less like a crypto product and more like a better bank balance. That’s when stablecoins stop being adjacent to banking and start competing with it.

 

But, we're still talking mostly about crypto-native people. The real shift happens when stablecoins stop feeling like crypto at all, when they live inside apps people already trust and use every day. When you easily pay for your groceries on your phone without writing down that seed phrase for crypto that sits on a separate wallet that may or may not be linked to payments.

 

PayPal is already experimenting here. Their Paypal USD (PYUSD) exists inside a platform with hundreds of millions of users, and it already lets people move dollars instantly between PayPal and Venmo for free. That’s everyday payment stuff. It’s not a niche oracles or decentralized exchange use case. It’s peer to peer transfers in apps people use for rent, splitting bills, or sending money to family.

 

Cash App has also signaled support for stablecoin payments and more flexible money movement options, even if Bitcoin hasn’t become everyday cash yet. The point is simple: If stablecoins actually become integrated into the way regular people pay for things, save for short-term goals, and move money around, they stop being a "crypto thing” and become an alternative store of value and payment rail to banks.

 

That’s exactly the scenario a bank CFO would find unsettling.

 

Why the CLARITY Act Matters So Much

This is why the fight over stablecoin yield inside the CLARITY Act feels so charged. It’s not really about whether stablecoins should exist. That battle is already over. It’s about whether they’re allowed to become a true alternative to bank deposits. If yield stays restricted, stablecoins grow slowly and remain mostly transactional. If yield is allowed under a clear regulatory framework, they start to compete directly with how banks fund themselves. That’s a much bigger shift.

 

The Bottom Line

If you take Kendrick’s projections seriously, and I know that I do. I have been in this blockchain industry for a decade now. I have seen the shift from Silk Road and from not even being a second thought in Washington to being a presidential election policy issue and talked about at the highest levels of government, from sea to shining sea.

 

But pushback from banks does make sense. It’s not panic. It’s defense. Stablecoins that are easy to use, deeply integrated into everyday payment apps, how people spend their money, and capable of earning yield... threaten something fundamental. They threaten the quiet bargain where banks get cheap access to capital and customers accept low returns in exchange for convenience. Seen through that lens, the resistance to stablecoin yield isn’t surprising at all. It’s exactly what you’d expect when a new form of money starts to look a little too good at doing the job banks have always relied on to make money.

 

I know where I stand on the issue and I'm interested to know what you think. Do banks evolve, embrace stablecoins as inevitability or do they hold on to the old ways for dear life?

 

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.

Coinbase Draws a Line in the Sand on Market Structure Bill

 

Coinbase is stepping back from Washington’s biggest crypto push yet.

Just days before a crucial vote in the Senate Banking Committee, the largest US crypto exchange says it will not support the Senate’s sweeping crypto market structure bill in its current form. The message from Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong, is blunt. Regulatory clarity matters, but not at any cost.

The move highlights a growing divide between lawmakers eager to lock in federal rules and an industry increasingly wary of legislation that could reshape its business in unintended ways.

 

A Bill Meant to End the Gray Area

The Senate bill, months in the making, is designed to finally spell out how digital assets are regulated in the United States. At its core, the proposal tries to answer long-standing questions about which crypto assets fall under securities law, which should be treated as commodities, and how oversight should be split between regulators.

For years, crypto companies have complained that the lack of clear rules has pushed innovation offshore and left firms vulnerable to enforcement actions after the fact. On paper, this bill is supposed to fix that.

But as the text has taken shape, it has also picked up provisions that some in the industry see as deal-breakers.

 

Stablecoin Rewards Become the Flashpoint

For Coinbase, the biggest problem sits with stablecoins.

The draft legislation includes language that could sharply limit or effectively eliminate rewards paid to users who hold stablecoins on platforms like Coinbase. These rewards are not technically interest paid by issuers, but incentives offered by exchanges and intermediaries. Still, critics argue they look and feel a lot like bank deposits, without bank-style regulation.

Traditional banking groups have pushed hard for tighter rules here. Their concern is straightforward. If consumers can earn yield on dollar-pegged crypto tokens outside the banking system, deposits could drain from insured banks, particularly smaller ones.

Coinbase sees it differently. Stablecoin rewards have become a meaningful part of how crypto platforms compete and how users engage with dollar-based crypto products. Cutting them off, the company argues, would harm consumers and hand an advantage back to traditional finance.

In private and public conversations, Coinbase executives have made it clear that they are unwilling to back a bill that undercuts what they view as a legitimate and already regulated product.

"After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48 hours, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written,” Armstrong said. "This version would be materially worse than the current status quo, we'd rather have no bill than a bad bill."

 

Why This Matters Beyond Coinbase

Coinbase’s stance carries weight. It is one of the most politically active crypto companies in Washington and often serves as a bellwether for broader industry sentiment.

If Coinbase is out, others may quietly follow.

That raises the risk that lawmakers end up with a bill that lacks meaningful industry buy-in, or worse, one that passes but leaves key players unhappy enough to challenge or work around it.

Some firms are already exploring alternatives, including banking charters or trust licenses, as a hedge against restrictive federal rules. Others may simply slow US expansion and look overseas.

 

A Narrow Path Forward in the Senate

The timing is not ideal.

The Senate Banking Committee is expected to vote on the bill imminently, but support remains fragile. Lawmakers are divided not just on stablecoins, but also on how to handle decentralized finance, custody rules, and even ethics provisions tied to political exposure to crypto.

Add in election-year politics, and the window for compromise looks tight.

If the bill stalls or fails in committee, there is a real chance it gets pushed into the next Congress. That would mean at least another year, and likely more, of regulatory uncertainty.

 

No Law vs a Bad Law

Behind the scenes, a familiar argument is playing out.

Some in Washington believe that imperfect legislation is better than none at all. The industry, scarred by years of enforcement-first regulation, is no longer convinced.

Coinbase’s decision reflects a growing view among crypto companies that a flawed law could do more long-term damage than continued ambiguity. Once rules are written into statute, they are far harder to undo.

For now, the standoff continues.

 

Whether lawmakers soften the bill to keep major players on board or push ahead regardless may determine not just the fate of this legislation, but the shape of US crypto regulation for years to come.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Coinbase has sued Connecticut, Michigan, and Illinois today, but it does not look like a typical regulatory skirmish. On the surface, it was about a few cease-and-desist orders targeting prediction market contracts. In practice, it put a much bigger question on the table. What exactly are prediction markets supposed to be?

Are they casinos in disguise, digital poker rooms with better UX, or a new kind of financial market that belongs under federal oversight?

The answer matters, because the wrong classification could freeze a fast-growing corner of finance in legal limbo.

 

Why Coinbase Is Taking States to Court

The states argue that Coinbase’s prediction markets amount to illegal gambling. Users put money down on outcomes. Some win, some lose. No state gambling license, no approval.

Coinbase sees it very differently. These contracts, the company argues, are event-based derivatives. They look like futures, trade like futures, and are already subject to federal commodities law. The Chief Legal Officer for Coinbase, Paul Grewal, stated in an X post on Friday that the company filed the lawsuits to "confirm what is clear" and that prediction market should fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

If states are allowed to regulate these markets anyway, the logic goes, national liquidity disappears. A market that works in one state but not another stops being a market at all. But, there are comparisons to existing gambling laws and we broke those down for you.

 

The Casino Comparison Only Goes So Far

State regulators tend to reach for the casino analogy first, and it is easy to see why. There is money at risk. Outcomes are uncertain. The optics are not subtle.

But structurally, prediction markets do not behave like casinos. Casinos set the odds. The house always wins over time. The product is entertainment.

Prediction markets do not work that way. Prices are set by participants. New information moves markets. There is no built-in house edge. The value comes from aggregating beliefs into a number that says something useful about the future.

Calling that gambling because it involves money is a shortcut, and not a very precise one.

 

Poker Explains the Skill Argument, and Its Limits

Poker is the comparison that usually comes next. Courts have spent years debating whether poker is mostly luck or mostly skill. Many have concluded that skill dominates over time, even if chance plays a role in the short run.

Yet poker is still regulated as gambling in most places. Not because it lacks skill, but because the law never quite figured out where else to put it.

That history matters. It shows how activities that clearly reward information and decision-making can still end up trapped in gaming frameworks that were built for something else entirely.

Prediction markets risk repeating that mistake. Like poker, they reward skill. Unlike poker, they are not games. They are continuous markets with prices, liquidity, and arbitrage. Treating them like a card room because money changes hands misses the point.

 

Why Prediction Markets Look Like Futures Markets

If you strip away the cultural baggage, prediction markets start to look familiar. They are standardized contracts tied to future outcomes. Prices reflect probability. Traders respond to data.

That is the same basic logic behind futures contracts tied to interest rates, inflation, or commodities. Those markets involve speculation, risk, and uncertainty too. They are regulated, but they are not treated as gambling.

This is where Coinbase’s argument lands. Congress already created a regulator for markets like this. The CFTC exists to oversee contracts that trade future outcomes, including event-based ones. The fact that an outcome is an election or a policy decision does not change the structure of the market.

 

What Changes If Coinbase Wins

If Coinbase wins, the impact goes well beyond these three states.

First, jurisdiction becomes clearer. States would no longer be able to regulate federally governed prediction markets simply by labeling them gambling. That alone would remove one of the biggest sources of uncertainty hanging over the industry.

Second, the casino argument loses legal weight. Courts would be acknowledging that uncertainty plus money does not automatically equal gambling, especially when prices are discovered through open trading rather than set by an operator.

Third, prediction markets would finally escape the poker problem. They would not sit in a gray zone where skill is recognized but regulation never quite fits. Instead, they would fall under a framework designed for markets, not games.

With that clarity, these markets could scale. Liquidity would deepen. Institutional participants could step in. Contracts tied to economic data, climate outcomes, and corporate milestones could expand without the constant risk of state-level shutdowns.

Over time, prediction markets could start to look less like a regulatory headache and more like infrastructure. Another tool, alongside surveys and models, for figuring out what the world might do next.

 

A Bigger Signal About Regulation

This case is not really about Coinbase. It is about whether U.S. regulation can adapt when finance starts to blur into something new, a question that has stifled digital asset growth for years.

Casinos deal in chance. Poker deals in skill inside a gaming framework. Futures markets deal in information. Prediction markets belong in the third category, even if they make people uncomfortable.

If courts agree, it would send a signal that regulation can still be about function rather than analogy. That is not a radical idea. It is how most financial markets came to exist in the first place. Prediction markets are here to stay. We've seen huge partnerships with major media news outlets and exchanges. The regulatory details need to be clearly defined for this emerging industry.

 

And if that happens, prediction markets may finally stop being debated as gambling, and start being treated as what they have been trying to become all along. Markets that trade in probabilities, under rules built for markets, not casinos.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

CFTC Eyes First Leveraged Spot Crypto Products by Next Month

 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is reportedly preparing to allow leveraged spot crypto asset products to launch as early as next month. These products would enable retail and institutional traders to buy and sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether on a spot basis with margin or leverage, similar to traditional commodity trading instruments.

This initiative marks a major shift in U.S. crypto regulation. For years, regulators treated spot crypto as largely unregulated or under-enforced. Now, the CFTC is using its existing authority under the Commodity Exchange Act to extend oversight to spot crypto trading, especially trades involving leverage, margin, or financing.

 

What the Proposal Means

Leveraged spot crypto products would work like this: A designated contract market (DCM) or registered futures exchange would list spot crypto contracts that are backed by actual delivery of crypto or tracked via underlying assets. Traders could engage in margin trades on the spot market rather than relying solely on futures or derivatives.

This means platforms regulated under the CFTC could list inventory of crypto assets, allow participants to borrow or finance positions, and require clearing, custody, and risk-management frameworks similar to those in commodities markets.

The CFTC recently launched a “listed spot crypto trading initiative,” inviting comment on how to list these products, including how to handle clearinghouses, custodian arrangements, and whether crypto assets are commodities or securities. That initiative referenced Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which specifically governs retail commodity transactions offered on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis.

The CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have also issued a joint staff statement affirming that current law does not prohibit regulated exchanges from listing certain spot crypto asset products, including those with leverage. Together, these regulatory moves signal a clear shift toward opening margin and leverage trading of spot crypto in the U.S.

 

Why It’s Significant for Crypto Markets

1. Regulatory clarity and scale
   For years, one of the key obstacles in the U.S. crypto market was uncertainty over how spot trading with leverage could function under existing law. By establishing a path for leveraged spot crypto trading under CFTC authority, the industry gains a bridge to larger-scale, regulated activity.

2. Margin and leverage could bring more liquidity
   Allowing spot crypto trading with margin may attract more participants, both retail and institutional, because they can use less capital to gain exposure. That could increase market depth and volatility.

3. Domestic competition with offshore exchanges
   Many existing leveraged crypto products are offered by overseas exchanges that lack full U.S. oversight. A regulated domestic pathway could shift volume from offshore platforms to U.S. venues, improving transparency and investor protection.

4. Integration with futures and derivatives markets
   Because these spot leveraged products could be listed on futures exchanges, the ecosystem of trading, hedging, and settlement may become more integrated. This could bring spot, futures, and options markets into closer alignment for crypto assets.

 

The Regulatory Mechanics and Timeline

The key regulatory anchor is Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which states that retail commodity transactions offered on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis must be conducted on a DCM or foreign board of trade (FBOT). Historically, this applied to futures and certain commodities. The CFTC is now interpreting this to apply to spot crypto if leverage or financing is involved.

On August 4, 2025, the CFTC launched its listed spot crypto trading initiative. Regulators invited public comments on how to implement listing spot crypto asset contracts on designated contract markets. Meanwhile, the CFTC’s acting chair has engaged with regulated exchanges and clearing organizations to prepare the framework.

Separately, the SEC-CFTC joint staff statement issued in early September affirmed that regulated U.S. exchanges may list spot crypto asset products and that margin and leverage are within scope, provided proper registration and oversight exist.

According to multiple reports, the CFTC is in active discussions with major exchanges, including futures venues such as CME, Cboe, and ICE, as well as crypto-native platforms, to list these leveraged spot products possibly by next month. That timeline positions the rollout sooner than many expected, though final approvals and exchange rule submissions remain necessary.

 

Potential Risks and Industry Implications

While this development could scale regulated crypto markets, several risks remain:

• Clearing and custody risk: Spot leveraged contracts require robust clearinghouses and custodians. Any weakness in settlement or collateral arrangements could create systemic stress.

• Market risk: Leverage amplifies both gains and losses. If leveraged retail positions grow without sufficient risk controls, it could increase volatility or trigger sharp liquidations.

• Regulatory arbitrage: As U.S. venues expand these offerings, overseas platforms may still offer different terms. Fragmentation could persist unless the domestic offering is competitive on cost and efficiency.

• Securities law overlap: The CFTC’s effort applies to “commodity” crypto assets. If tokens are deemed securities, the SEC retains oversight. Platforms must ensure proper asset classification and compliance.

 

What to Watch Next

• Exchange rule filings: Watch for futures exchanges or DCMs submitting rule changes or product proposals for leveraged spot crypto contracts.

• Clearinghouse partnerships: Expect new collaborations between clearing organizations and crypto custodians, which are essential for safe margin and settlement operations.

• Public feedback: The CFTC’s open comment process will reveal where industry stakeholders align or disagree on the proposal’s structure.

• Asset inclusion: Bitcoin and Ether are expected to be first, but whether other tokens join early will indicate how broad the regulatory green light truly is.

• Margin parameters: The permitted leverage levels, such as 2x, 5x, or 10x, will determine the potential scale of new trading activity.

 

Final Thoughts

The CFTC’s push to approve leveraged spot crypto products marks a pivotal moment in U.S. digital asset regulation. It moves the market closer to a structure where spot trading of crypto under margin and leverage is not only possible but also regulated in line with traditional commodities.

For the crypto industry, this means deeper liquidity, greater institutional involvement, and a more secure trading environment. Yet it also raises the stakes. Leverage and margin create opportunity but also amplify risk. The success of this initiative will depend on how carefully exchanges, clearinghouses, and regulators manage execution and oversight.

 

If the launch proceeds as early as next month, it could accelerate crypto’s integration into mainstream financial markets and bring a new era of regulated spot trading to the U.S. The next few weeks may determine whether leveraged spot crypto becomes a lasting cornerstone of the industry or remains a tightly controlled experiment.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.