What the CFTC’s Proposed Rules Could Unlock for Crypto Traders

Transcript

There was a clear goal to make the United States the crypto capital of the world and I believe that we've succeeded in that endeavor. >> I'm in the strictest financial prison that exists in the entire world, which is New York. >> We've proposed first round of crypto exchange regulations to bring market-based regulation to the crypto asset exchanges. >> If this proposed rule making is accepted and made into a rule, individual spot retail people like me get margin, get leverage.

>> People come to the United States and say, "Why can't we trade on margin?" So, we're creating the rules to allow this to happen. >> How optimistic are you about the durability of these rules without any sort of legislation? >> We do have a ton of authorities in agency and we're going to use it. My goal here is to put in place something that is future-proof, something [music] that is bipartisan and has the support of both sides of the aisle. And I think if we get that right, there's no chance that a a future administration's [music] going to withdraw of that. And they'd be taking a huge risk. >> [music] >> We got CFTC Chairman Mike Seelix back on the podcast. Mike, welcome back.

>> Thanks for having me. >> Chairman Seelix, you were nominated by President Trump on October 27th, 2025. [music] That is just about 1 year ago. 1 year of being the CFTC Chair. How has the year been? Give yourself a grade, Mike, if you will. >> Well, look, when I came into this position, there was a clear goal to make the United States the crypto capital of the world and I believe that we've succeeded in that endeavor. Today, we've got Bitcoin and all sorts of crypto asset perps trading in our markets. That was once a purely offshore endeavor. Now, we've got it here in the United States.

We've proposed, as I'm sure we'll discuss today, our first round of crypto exchange regulations to bring market-based regulation to the crypto asset exchanges, which until today, it's really all been about these state level payment space regimes. We want market protections for traders in our markets, and we're doing exactly that. Uh we've also brought on a number of new controls and regulations around prediction markets, which of course is a separate area, but there's a lot of synergy between prediction markets and crypto. A lot of these ideas actually came out of Vitalik Buterin's white paper so many years ago uh talking about blockchain-based prediction markets. And so we're looking, of course, at

prediction markets on chain, as well as other types of on-chain markets, and that's really been uh I think a great focus for this agency. Uh so I'd give us a a high mark when it comes to crypto and prediction markets. And then, of course, although I I'm sure less of interest to many of your viewers, we're doing a lot in the traditional markets as well. And I think there was a lot that was done in the wake of the financial crisis that made a ton of sense, and we're uh continuing to make sure we enforce those regulations and beef them up where needed. But there was a lot that really wasn't overreaction, what I refer to as an autoimmune response to uh a crisis, which of course, the time might have been warranted, but now it's really been a bit too much. So we're pairing some of

that back and deregulating as well. >> There is two There are two rules uh that the CFTC has proposed, and these two rules are going to be the entree of this podcast, kind of the main course. Um we're going to going to talk about regulation crypto asset transactions and regulation crypto asset markets, what these rules do, and how they also work together, cuz I think the the pairing of them is also very interesting. Before we get into them, I kind of want to just zoom out and talk about something that's in the DNA of the country as a whole, which is the debate, the tension between states versus federal regulation. Maybe we can just start at the very beginning.

Why is it important for financial markets to be regulated by the federal government in your opinion, rather than the states? Like what about the financial industry makes it more appropriate for federal regulators rather than state regulators? >> One of the first federal statutory schemes around our markets was actually the Grain Futures Act back in the '20s, which actually predated the securities laws, which came out in the '30s. But in the '30s, we saw with the Great Depression and the financial crisis of the time that markets need a federal regulatory scheme. Oftentimes, you have different state requirements state-by-state, and you also have a need

for uh uniformity across those state regimes. So, you need to surveil the markets, need to be able to police bad behavior. You want uniform disclosure. You know, when you're using, for example, whether it's a brokerage like a Robinhood or going directly to an exchange, whether it's in our markets or or in the security side, what you want is the same sort of standards and requirements and protections against fraud and manipulation, wash trading, and the like when you go from state A to state B. And that's exactly what the securities laws set out to do in the '30s. And then the commodities laws, which also developed, as I mentioned, in the '20s, but over almost 100 years now, they've been built

up and the CFTC was established in 1974 to to enforce a federal regulatory scheme for commodities derivatives markets. And then that's why it expanded over the years to include things like margin trading on spot. Um but but really what the the purpose of this regime is, whether it's on the security side or the commodity side, is to make sure that you have uniformity across the country when you have national markets. When you have, for example, a intrastate, so a single state market, you don't need, of course, this federal scheme that crosses state lines. But when you have a an exchange or a brokerage that's doing business across state lines, you really want the same standards across those state lines as well. You want the same protections. Um

you want things like for example, if you buy a security and there was bad disclosure or a lack of disclosure entirely, you want to be able to sue and understand the scheme whether you're in state A or state B and not have to basically be in the best state to you know to bring your case and not have that of that competition across state lines. So that's why we have these federal market schemes. We don't have it for every type of uh you know statutory scheme. Of course you've got various state laws that are purely intrastate. Um and and that typically looks at things like um you know certain types of brokers that are doing business in the state are regulated at the state level.

Um certain types of offerings that are purely in state regulate at the state level. You do have state commodity laws that govern certain types of uh commodity transactions within a state. But when you're crossing state lines, when you get into interstate commerce, that's when we want a uniform scheme across the country. And other countries of course don't have the same sort of consideration state by state. They do everything at a uniform level. But here in the United States, we have that balance between the states and the federal government. And you know we believe very much in the administration in states' rights and the importance of having really decentralized system uh in the United States. But there's certain areas where we do have federal regulation that's for efficiency and also protect investors and and

consumers. >> And we all know the United States is the capital center of the world. Uh we have the global reserve currency. A lot of countries do trade in that currency. That gives us this this centerpiece and a lot of uh investment from the rest of the world comes back into the United States capital market and it's a very privileged position to be in uh being the center of finance. And I suppose a lot of that would be simply downstream of this one single unified regulatory apparatus. If we had like a just a patchwork of state regulations, it would be much harder to hold on to being the center of capital of the whole entire globe. That's my intuition. Is that right?

>> Yeah, that's exactly right. So, the global commodity market, commodity derivatives market, are actually $1.2 quadrillion notional. It's a massive market. The United States has about 50% of that market. And that is because we have the Commodity Exchange Act, we have the CFTC, we've got the SEC as well that polices certain aspects of our derivatives markets when it comes to securities. So, we've got the best derivatives markets globally. We've also got the best capital markets. And that to me is a credit to our statutory scheme, the securities laws as well as the commodities laws, and the regulators that enforce those laws. And you know, there's a lot of talk, people will say, "Oh, you know, this agency's not doing that or or or not doing this." But at

the end of the day, our markets work efficiently every day because our agencies are working very hard to make sure that our rules are enforced, that products are listed in the proper manner, that each exchange, which is a self-regulatory organization, is doing its job to surveil its markets, and police bad behavior, and make sure that transactions settle as the users of these exchanges expect. Um so so it's of course a huge responsibility on us as regulators that we take very seriously, and we work every day to make sure that our markets are the best in the world. And we're bringing those same market-based protections to crypto through these new rulemakings.

>> I've been trading crypto for almost a decade, and I've used so many different wallets exchanges aggregators or front ends. And I'm basically always looking for the same thing, just one interface with a deep liquidity across a bunch of chains and assets where I can access markets like perps, earn yield, trade confidentially, and still control all of my funds. And I've never really found it, and I'm just always switching wallets, juggling gas fees, or getting eaten by slippage. But, near.com feels fundamentally different to me. I can do anything I want from any chain and keep all of my activity confidential. Crypto, tokenized assets, perps, payments, I can even earn yield confidentially. One account, over 30 chains, confidential by default. It's the way that crypto ought to work, and it's powered by Near, which has moved over $30 billion cross-chain,

uses post-quantum signatures, [music] and has run over 5 years on mainnet with zero downtime. near.com is the best way to be on chain and be in [music] control. Get 20% of your trading fees back on near.com using the Bankless link in the show notes. Not investment advice. Dollar stablecoins taught Latin America how to store value on chain. Rippio is taking that same idea and bringing it to the currencies people actually use every day. With wrapped fiat, Rippio is putting more than a decade of experience powering crypto infrastructure for leading companies across Latin America behind a suite of six local currency stablecoins covering Argentina Brazil Mexico Colombia Chile, and Peru. Each is pegged one-to-one to its local currency and fully backed by reserves held in regulated financial institutions with independent attestations [music]

published for each token. But, wrapped fiat is not just designed to sit there, it's built to move. The suite is live across 10 EVM chains with liquidity and integrations already spanning platforms like Morpho, Uniswap, and Chainlink. Users can move between local payment rails like Pix and Spei [music] and matching wrapped fiat one-to-one in real time with zero fees on both on-ramps and off-ramps and no FX [music] conversion. Local rails in, on chain in the middle. And for builders, Rippio offers APIs, webhooks, widgets, [music] and a sandbox just from day one. Start building with wrapped fiat today at platform.rippio.com.

Continuing on just this crash course, this these appetizers before we get to the main course, can you just inform me who regulates spot Bitcoin? Like this the USDC Bitcoin pair on Coinbase or on Kraken, who regulates that market? >> And I do think this history and kind of um structure in the United States is really important to double click on, so I'm glad you did. Right now, what we have effectively is this patchwork of state laws and regulations. So, in the wake of the Mt. Gox collapse, almost a probably over a decade ago now, I think back in in 2011, 2012, what we saw was a number of states like New York and others react quickly to make sure that there were certain

protections for users of crypto exchanges. So, Mt. Gox, for those who don't know, was an offshore exchange. Actually, it was originally a Magic the Gathering cards exchange. They converted over to a Bitcoin exchange and was really the the primary place to get Bitcoin and other types of crypto assets aside from LocalBitcoins, which was basically like a Craigslist for crypto. Um so, this is where a lot of the liquidity was concentrated. Most people weren't necessarily mining for Bitcoin or obtaining it offline. Uh so, they got it through this Mt. Gox platform. And there was a cyber attack, there was some bit of funds that was stolen. Um and I think the claims are still being resolved to this day or they were

resolved recently. But, that was a big fiasco at the time and it set the price of Bitcoin back quite a bit. Um and the states reacted and what they did was say, "These exchanges basically look like currency exchanges. So, you I'm sure have traveled uh throughout the world and you you go to the airport and you see these currency exchangers when you get off the plane. And what they do effectively is swap out dollars for francs or whatever currency you're swapping into or out of. Um and basically that is done uh at a fee, right? There's a fee taken by the broker who's doing the exchange. And that looks a lot different than a uh securities exchange or commodities exchange where you go to an order book and trade back and forth or even from a foreign

exchange uh FX exchange, right? So, these are are kind of currency swapper businesses uh also regulated under the same sort of framework are check cashers, like a Western Union, money remittance services that move funds across the country and and into foreign countries. And so these types of payments businesses, like PayPal or Venmo, as well, that's all regulated state by state under what's called money transmitter licensing regimes. And so these states, when they saw the collapse of Mt. Gox, said, "Hey, this is just another currency exchange or type business or payments business that lets people swap from Bitcoin to dollars or Bitcoin to euros or what have you, and move that currency around through a

custody wallet." And so they said, "Okay, we're going to call Bitcoin under our statutes or regulations a type of currency or money, and we're going to regulate it the same way as we regulate PayPal and others." And that's worked fairly well up until this point. But then we saw FTX, which sure we'll get to as well, but you know, with FTX and some of these other collapses, you know, you didn't have the market-based regulations that require, for example, segregation of customer funds. So Alameda actually was receiving customer funds into its own bank account, which was a affiliate of the FTX exchange, and then they were using those funds for various purposes.

Under a regulated market, right, you have a brokerage that's receiving the funds, and there's very strict controls on what the brokerage can do with those funds, how they have to segregate them. And then when you get into the actual order book, the the guts of the exchange where people are putting in bids and offers to trade, you have certain controls around those bids and offers. You have certain requirements around, for example, orderly trading and making sure that you don't have wash trading, where people are trading back and forth between their own accounts, manipulation in the market, fraud. These are all things that, of course, you have to do at a federal level across state lines. It's very hard to police that state by state, whereas it's easier when you're talking about just swapping someone's currency into one currency or another, you can look

at, you know, the the brokerage itself trading with the customer, uh or you can look at, for example, um fraud that's occurring within one state, uh or maybe involves multiple states. But, it gets very hard when you've got an order book with tons of trades matched across the book. Um and then also in our federal scheme, we usually require clearing. So, we separate the brokerage, the exchange, and the clearing house. Um and I don't want to get too in the weeds of our rules yet, cuz I know we're sort of teasing at that, but I think this context is important. So, we effectively for Bitcoin have these state-by-state regimes where you obtain a money transmitter license, you put up usually a surety bond with a state regulator, the same as uh you know, your local

7-Eleven. I think they have to do the same thing if they do uh cash back or or check cashing or that sort of thing. So, these are all payment businesses. There's thousands of these licensed in each state. Um and you know, the major exchanges have these licenses across the country. Some states like Monta- Montana don't actually even have a money transmitter licensing scheme. So, some states, you know, you're basically able to do whatever you want. Um but but other states like New York, for example, have taken their statute and created a purpose-fit uh bit license regime where they're licensing what they call virtual currency businesses. So, they've taken it a little bit further, but at its core each of these rules or statutes is effectively a money transmission payment services uh licensing regime, which

again, it's held very well through a lot of this. It didn't stop FTX, even though FTX had a number of these licenses. Of course, customers got harmed uh in those entities, as well as a number of the other collapses that we've seen with various exchanges. They hold these licenses. They work fairly well to make sure that um some some of the basic protections are there around anti-money laundering, know your customer, sanctions, requirements, but they don't necessarily prevent frauds and manipulations that are market-based.

>> So, your answer to the question who regulates the spot Bitcoin markets on Coinbase, your answer is like, well, it's a state-by-state basis the and each state has different sets of rules. Is it does the CFTC have any role in like spot Bitcoin? And like what about FinCEN? What about any of the federal agencies? What role do they play in regulating spot Bitcoin? Or is your answer is actually just completely in the states? >> No, so so the core piece is with the states, the licensing piece. >> Mhm. >> The secondary piece is is general anti-fraud and manipulation authority.

So, the CFTC has general anti-fraud and manipulation authority to police fraud and and manipulative trading in the market. So, we do exercise that. We've done so in many cases at the state level. And and so, that's a secondary piece, but it's more enforcement. We do and and we'll get to have other authorities to license these exchanges, but as it stands today, what we've done to date is in 2014, the CFTC declared Bitcoin to be a commodity. It later declared ether and other crypto assets to be commodities, which means that we police those markets for fraud and and abuse. And we did bring actions against, for example, FTX.

We brought actions against various exchanges, not myself personally under this administration, but in the past, we brought actions against Kraken and Coinbase and others um for various whether we think they're they're good cases or bad cases, the prior administration brought them using the same authority deeming various crypto assets to be commodities and and policing fraud and manipulation or or other abuses. And so, that authority holds. FinCEN is a separate piece of the Treasury Department. So, FinCEN is the financial crimes enforcement um unit. And and they basically are looking for anti-money laundering uh violations.

Of course, you also have OFAC, which looks at sanctions violations. So, they do have authority as well. These exchanges are licensed at the state level, but they do have to register typically as a money services business with FinCEN. There are some exceptions. For example, some exchanges have trust charters, and we don't need to get into all of that. But, generally speaking, you have this state regime that's a patchwork, and then you have very limited, narrow focus for federal agencies like FinCEN, OFAC, and the CFTC.

>> So, the the answer is like who regulates spot Bitcoin? Uh a lot a lot of it it comes down to licensing from the state, and that probably is what shows up when as a resident of New York, for example, there are a lot of products created by like Coinbase or Robinhood, for example, simply don't have access to. Like, I'm in the strictest financial prison that exists in the entire world, which is New York, uh because of the bit license. And so, like the the way that I get treated as a customer, I think is downstream of a lot of that state licensing, New York being some of the harshest. But, even like the state that I came from, Washington, also has some like inconsistencies with other

states as it relates to like the products that Coinbase or Robinhood or any other crypto exchange is allowed to give me. And that's because of the state-by-state licensing regime, correct? >> That's right. And they license the activities. So, I think that's an important caveat. So, Bitcoin itself as a commodity is not regulated in the same way as say the Securities Exchange Commission would regulate Nvidia stock and the offering of Nvidia stock. What these state regimes regulate are the platforms, the exchanges. And and that's important as well for DeFi because uh they don't necessarily have the same hook into DeFi that they would have into a custodial exchange or custodial wallet because what they're looking for basically these state money

transmitter regimes came about in the early 1900s and they were designed to protect consumers that were giving their money to some third party to move that money or convert it into another type of money. Um and so the concerns there are very different for example then some decentralized exchange protocol where people are able to swap their assets or a a non-custodial wallet where someone's able to hold their funds in that wallet. That said, I do think some of the state agencies have tried to creep into to some of these activities even under these statutes that really were designed to to focus on money transmission actually accepting value for the purpose of transmitting that

value and if the network's the one that's moving the value and the person holding the value in their own wallet, I think there's an argument as to whether those statutes really apply. Uh that's also a separate uh topic from today's discussion, but I think it is important to note that these regimes often times are are trying to creep into areas where they're not designed to creep into um because we don't have uh to date we haven't had a federal option for a lot of these platforms and and protocols. >> All right, let's introduce the main entree here, the new CFTC proposed rules. Two proposed rules from the CFTC, regulation CTX, that's crypto asset transactions, and regulation CAM, crypto asset markets. What do each of these rules do respectively and then what do

they do together? >> Yeah, and before I get to those two rules, I do want to preface it actually with the Securities and Exchange Commissions Reg Crypto um as well as the joint interpretation that the CFTC and the SEC put out just before that. And I think these are important to understand going into the new rules. So, I like to refer to the three as the trilogy because it hearkens back to Star Wars and I love that the crypto industry sort of formed the Rebel Alliance and fought against the evil empire for so many years.

But but what we have to start is this joint interpretation and then that's kind of the prequel where we have categorized crypto assets into a number of buckets. So, we have digital commodities which are the network tokens, things like Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, Atom, the various tokens, Uni as well, associated with decentralized networks or decentralized applications or protocols where the value of the token is largely derived from network effects, from the value and of the network itself or the application and the community around that as opposed to a centralized issuer or company associated with that. We also have digital collectibles, things like meme

coins and NFTs that are effectively offered as they are, there's not really any underlying business or promises attached to it. It's meant to just be sort of a collectible and the value fluctuates based on the same sort of supply and demand dynamics as other types of collectibles. We have digital tools, things like liquid staking tokens and and other credentials that you use on chain that are really designed fit for purpose. They're not really deriving value from a network effect, but deriving value from their utility and in use on the network or on an application.

And then we have stablecoins and security digital securities. And so, digital securities of course are securities, things like tokenized video stock for example, digital commodities, digital tools, digital collectibles and most stablecoins are not securities. And so, that sets up this preamble, this preface effectively for our rule makings because the SEC now put out reg crypto, which was kind of episode one in the trilogy, and that allows for a will would allow for if if finalized, a regime for the offering and distribution of crypto assets as what, you know, we used to refer to as ICOs or

initial coin offerings effectively, right? It's a regime for fundraising where the team typically will promise to deliver and make certain disclosures around that offering, and of course the offering itself with those promises and commitments and and the funds coming in without performance on on the promises is a securities offering. It's no different than selling stock or or any other type of asset with those commitments and promises or what's called an investment contract, but the token itself, if that token's distributed along with this promise and commitment it's not itself a security, and there's a point at which that separates off from the offering itself,

from this investment contract, and can trade as a commodity. So, as long as it fits in one of the categories of a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, and and it's not part of you know, it's not a digital security itself or the one of the types of stable coins that might be deemed a security, it can go trade in these state regimes currently or within what we're now establishing under reg CTX and reg CAM. So, reg CTX deals with crypto asset transactions. And these crypto asset transactions are a specific type, right? So, when you have the state regimes, what you can offer effectively typical spot trading on an order book. So, you can buy and

sell Bitcoin. You can't really do a whole lot else because again, these regimes are based upon statutory authority for regulating uh you know money transmission and exchanging one currency for another. They're not designed for financial markets. What we have in the financial markets that's unique and that the CFTC has exclusive authority to regulate are uh the trading of commodities when you're able to offer to customers and and investors the ability to take out margin, leverage, or financing as a retail customer. So, for retail exchanges that want to say when someone goes to trade, they want to buy Bitcoin, they can check a box to do that on leverage or take out some financing

or or trade on margin. That sort of exchange platform is currently not available in the United States. It's popular offshore, but here in the United States the CFTC has not done the rulemaking work needed to allow for these markets to exist in the United States. The state regimes don't allow for it. Um the CFTC has authority there, exclusive authority. Um but we've only used that for enforcement to date. So, there are a number of exchanges. Um Kraken's one example where the prior administration weaponized this provision, went after the exchange. They also went after DeFi protocols like Uniswap uh claiming that they were offering uh effectively what are called retail commodity transactions. We're referring to them when it's crypto as as

CTXs um under these regimes, and they were not licensed. They did not have the approvals of the CFTC, and so they had to pay a fine. What we're doing now is laying out our interpretation, our definitions, and our guidance as to what these transactions are and how they can be carried out. Um we're going to permit, of course, a certain degree of of margin, leverage, and financing similar to what we allow for with perpetual contracts um in these spot transactions. Now, Reg CAM is a separate rule proposal that we're putting out that will allow for these exchanges to operate not just under our

current typical DCM framework, a designated contract market, which is a type of derivatives exchange, uh but as a crypto asset market, a new type of exchange. So, designated contract markets are uh futures exchanges, derivatives exchanges that are licensed with the CFTC. Virtually every major crypto exchange has one of these registrations with us. So, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, um also some of the new entrants in the prediction space like Kalshi that offer perpetuals, they've all obtained this license with us. And so, they would out of the box be able to offer these CCXs without having to deal much with Reg CAM. Um they would continue complying

with their existing requirements, and there may be some uh new requirements or or additional um rules related to these new transactions, but more or less they'd be able to just leverage their existing infrastructure to start offering this. Um but for new entrants that want to start up a new crypto exchange that just offers these CCXs and doesn't offer perps, swaps, other types of futures contracts, they would go and and might pursue this CTI or this uh CAM regime, crypto asset market regime, and that would be purpose fit for these platforms. So, it wouldn't require all of the same things. It would be a bit lighter touch than a typical DCM because

you're not offering perpetuals and other types of derivatives. So, I like to envision a ladder. Uh you have the states at the bottom of that ladder. The state regime allows you to do spot trading and all sorts of crypto assets, and we police for fraud and manipulation in those markets, but nothing else. Um then you get to the second rung of the ladder and you have the CAM regime. So, these are exchanges that can now offer the ability to trade spot on margin, leverage, or financing and you have the exclusive regulatory regime of the CFTC.

So, you don't need to obtain all these state licenses. And then at the top of that you have the DCM, which is also allowed to engage in perpetuals and other types of derivative instrument trading on its platform and that similarly has the exclusive regulation of the CFTC. >> So, prior, maybe we can just use Coinbase as an example here. Uh, Coinbase got started, it got its license in its first state, I believe Brian was in California at the time. So, maybe it got its first license in California. Doesn't matter if this is true or not, just using this as an example. And then as Coinbase wanted to expand to service other customers, it would have to go state by state by state to get license by license by license to expand its market to the entire 50 states.

Is Is that the step that is being removed by crypto asset markets, the new regulation CAM? By instead, you know, Coinbase in this world in this new world or any sort of future exchange uh is born, they get it they are in a state, they they register in a state to start, but then in order to go to access the whole rest of the United States, they can simply go to the CFTC and use regulation crypto asset markets to be homogeneous across the entire country rather than have of having to do the whole patchwork game. Is that it? So, we're eliminating that step? Is that the through line here?

>> Yes, we've created an option at the federal level. So, it's not a requirement that you go to the CFTC. If you do want to offer margin, leverage, or financing, of course you do have to come into the federal regime, but you don't have to come there if you don't want to and and you just don't offer those products. I also can analogize it to the banking model. So, if you're familiar with the banking model, there's state chartered banks and there's also federally chartered banks, and they can do different things. The states provide a list of permissible activities that they put in your charter, and you can go about and engage in those, and certain states have reciprocity with other states, so you can offer your banking services into those states that allow for that. Um at the federal level, you're able to offer

at a federal scale across the country, and you have other permissible activities that you can engage in. So, it's sort of a choose-your-own model. If you want to go state by state and pursue the licensing across the country, like Coinbase and others have, you can do that. The issue at the state level that's important to flag for a lot of these companies, and and they've dealt with it over the years, is some states say, "We don't like crypto." And so, the requirement for a surety bond or for capital is going to be so extraordinary that you have to over-collateralize every amount of crypto that you have in your custody. And so, it's impossible, effectively, to get the license. One of those states has been Hawaii. I think

Hawaii has maybe amended some of its policies over the years to allow for more crypto transactions in the state, but you have these states that can effectively dictate the the model across the country, or at least make it really challenging to operate and service customers in a state. So, some exchanges might say, "We're just not going to offer there." And New York's another good example. Bit licenses are not easy to come by. >> Notorious. Many years. And so, you know, virtually all of these crypto companies get threatened out of New York with this whole bit license regime, and it's not quite clear, there's a software developer carve out in there, but it's not ironclad, and so many of the firms even building layer

one protocols have been concerned about operating in the state. Also, firms that are just doing pure market making, they're not actually even taking customer funds or acting on behalf of a customer, they're they're acting as a principal. So, if they're trading on their own behalf, some of those firms had to go and get a bit license. So, some of these exchange requirements really intended to focus on again these these early currency exchangers have been applied so broadly that I think clarity is really important and that's why this Clarity Act, which I'm disappointed it didn't get to the president's desk, but but the Clarity Act would have actually required all of these exchanges register with the CFTC and and set a single standard. We don't

have the authority to do that under our statute, but what we do have the authority to do is allow for a federal option and that's exactly what we're doing. >> A federal carrot for them to come in and get some new features, I think is also one of the big reasons why a an exchange a non-trust exchange might come to you guys to to to do this. Is the big feature what you talked about with giving retail access to margin or leverage inside of the spot market? And so, again, just using Coinbase as as the example, like in the way that that Coinbase works today is like I deposit a thousand dollars and then there's a thousand dollars in my account and I can buy a thousand dollars of Bitcoin.

With this new regulation CTX regulation crypto asset transactions, it's it's it's a little bit different and now Coinbase can if this proposed rule making is accepted and made into a rule, individual spot retail people like me get margin, get leverage. Can you go into that a little bit more and how that fits into this whole structure? >> Yeah, so when you're trading on the exchange, the exchange would be able to have a effectively a drop down or some other prompt and allow you to choose to trade on a margin basis, leverage basis, or a finance basis. And every exchange might be different in terms of how they carry that out. Our framework is a principles based one, so we don't tell exchanges exactly how to offer their

business, but we do have certain requirements principles-based requirements around how they do so. Um, that gives a lot of flexibility to the exchanges, which I think is a great thing. But, effectively, as a trader, what you would expect is you go to the exchange, you want to purchase Bitcoin, maybe you have a bunch of other crypto assets in your custodial wallet, and so you can trade on margin. You can say that I will take these assets in my wallet. Let's say you've got ETH and SOL and whatever else. You pledge those as collateral, and you can go trade. And of course, if the price of Bitcoin goes down, you get margin called, and you might have to add more to your account.

But, it allows you to trade and and effectively leverage the capital uh of your assets instead of just having these sit idle in your wallet, you can use them to go and and take positions. And the margin requirements would be set by the exchange in consultation with the CFTC, but they would be consistent with what we have in perpetuals and other futures markets in crypto. Which has been around 7x is really the highest we've gone so far. It's not a hard rule, that's just where it's landed so far, but we have a margin process where methodologies are set by the exchange and worked through with the staff.

>> And this is just giving onshore crypto exchanges something that feels like feature parity with traditional brokerages. So, Charles Schwab, Robinhood, you know, TD Ameritrade, this is all they've been offering, you know, margin financing, leverage to their customers based on their portfolio for decades now, as long as I can remember, as long as I've been in finance. And so, this is just enabling centralized crypto exchanges to have the same sort of feature set that we've expected from our our brokerages elsewhere. >> That's exactly right. And it's also available offshore. This has been incredibly popular offshore. And so, people come to the United States and say, "Why can't we trade on margin? And why are you as an agency enforcing against exchanges that allow it when you haven't created a path

forward. And so, we're creating the rules to allow this to happen. And you know, we want to make sure, of course, that traders on the exchanges have the same protections that they have in the brokerage account, whether it's Charles Schwab or or otherwise, as well as offshore. You know, a number of these foreign regulators have been very strict in terms of making sure that there are protections for customer funds. And similar to in the week of FTX how you know, some of the actually CFTC regulated entities protected customer funds. They had a derivatives exchange that segregated and protected customer funds and and didn't fail in the same way as their money transmitter licensed entities and and other foreign entities.

But, there were some foreign regimes where they had very strict requirements around margin and segregation of funds. And those exchanges have similarly the subsidiaries protected customer funds. So, we're just making sure that Americans have best in class protections. And we're really trying to set the gold standard here that will protect customer funds and make sure we're competitive globally. >> I want to connect something for the listeners. You talked about the trilogy of the rule making first from the SEC with their original rule making. I can't remember the name of it.

But, then also the two new rules that we're discussing here today, regulation CTX and regulation CAM. When we first had you on as you were named named chair, you talked about wanting to harmonize regulation between the SEC and the CFTC. And then now we have these trilogies of rule makings. First one from the SEC and now two from the CFTC. Is that what you were Is these what you were talking about? That's what you were referring to. These are trilogies. I'm also getting like an image of like, well, these are puzzle pieces fitting into each other. And because you have just been talking with SEC Chair Paul Atkins, you guys can work together to draw lines as to which regulation goes under which rule to make sure that these three rules

together harmonize and work together to create the regulation that they are intended to create. Is that the story here? >> That's exactly right. We want to make sure that there's a harmonized and consistent regulatory framework. For so many years, the two agencies have been locked in turf battles. You know, under the last administration, of course, Gary Gensler, all of our favorite SEC chairman, um he used to fight all the time with Chairman Behnam. I mean, it appears that they didn't even agree on what's commodity and and what's a security. And so, we're ending that turf battle once and for all. We've put in place a memorandum of understanding between the agencies to work together to make sure that we're totally harmonized and consistent across our policies. And that

includes crypto. So, we have, as I said earlier, done this joint interpretation laying out what's a security and what's not. The SEC's regime around crypto asset distributions will fit right in as a puzzle piece with our market structure. And I think there's even a possibility of a world where we continue to harmonize and allow for broader trading of, for example, tokens that are associated with an investment contract. Um cuz the tokens themselves are not the securities, but the investment contract is. So, we need to take special care around the trading of those products because they touch both jurisdictions. But, the products that are no longer associated with an investment contract per the Reg Crypto, which is the SEC's regime, uh Reg Crypto

Assets, as long as the token is separated from the the investment contract and is safe harbored under that rule, then it can go trade in our market. So, all of this fits together very well, and we're going to continue to harmonize in future rule makings and other areas. But, I think that's an important message as well for the American people that we're done fighting. We want to make sure that there's a regime that makes sense. We don't want an exchange coming to market and getting sued by the CFTC and then sued by the SEC and the two are fighting over what the products trading on the market are. You know, we did see, for example with many of the the exchanges, you know, even the Mango Markets incident, um

which not necessarily, you know, an example of something that was good behavior, but both the agencies went after the same person and had similar allegations. So, one agency should be policing uh certain products and the other one policing other products. And so, the agencies need to agree on what's what for that to happen. And that's exactly what we're doing. We don't want to waste taxpayer dollars fighting between the two agencies. We want to waste not waste those uh dollars, uh use them effectively to police and and protect American people. >> I want to go back into history a little bit and get a little bit more of some lessons out of you to the best of my ability. When we allow when the CFTC enables margin from a and to a centralized exchange and onshore

centralized exchange like Kraken, Coinbase, uh it seems we are integrating different businesses that, to my understanding in the in the TradFi world, have been segregated. Uh and the this is like so, Coinbase is an exchange. I think that its its corollary is a clearinghouse. It clears transactions and and spits out dollars or Bitcoins between the different parties. It clears things. Now, we are also allowing it to provide margin, which is typically what a brokerage does. But, a brokerage in the TradFi world is not a clearinghouse. And this goes back to the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, which required futures brokers to segregate customer margin funds. And in the uh in the securities

world, the SEC's 1972 customer protection rule established possession and control and also reserve requirements intended to prevent customer assets from financing the brokers' unrelated activities, such such as proprietary trading, something that we saw in the great crypto contagion crisis of 2022. And I think maybe to illustrate some of the tension here for the audience, you could imagine that there's an exchange who has an affiliated lending business who has financed a very large customer on that exchange. Now, imagine if this customer owns a lot of Bitcoin, but Bitcoin falls, and this customer is approaching default. The clearing house of this one

entity, the clearing house risk team, wants more collateral from this customer or immediate liquidation. The lending division wants time for this customer because the liquidation would would crystallize its loss, and they would have to deal with that. The exchange wants the customer to keep on trading, and then if this if all of this is happening under one roof, management has to just balance its own interests of its independent divisions. Now, to my understanding in the TradFi world, these are three segregated entities. And when they are combined together, it might procreate a perverse outcome that is that historically we have segregated. So, there's been historical precedent for segregating

these services, and this is something that I know the TradFi world was pointing at crypto looking at like look at these services look at like these exchanges doing all of this integrated services that we've learned the lessons of from the Great Depression in the '30s, and then later on in in the '70s. Why now do we think it's a correct or okay to combine these services under one roof? >> So, let me be crystal clear because we don't believe that that is the case, and that's exactly why we're offering this federal option. So, under the state regimes, to your point, this is exactly what's happening now. It's not even a hypothetical. You're able to offer look no further than, for example, BlockFi, which had a lending business,

its money transmitter business. It was tied into other businesses and was lending assets out from customers' wallets and paying interest and all of that and allowing people to trade crypto. So, these types of businesses have existed, many of them have failed, some of them still exist today. The federal option actually is not a a all-in-one. So, for example, under the the crypto asset market regime or under our DCM regime, you have separation of the broker, the exchange, and the clearinghouse.

The broker is the customer-facing piece of the equation. It would custody customer funds or work with a custodian to custod- custody those funds, uh segregate the funds, and is walled off. So, you know, whether all these entities are owned by the same holding company or not uh it's walled off from the other two business lines. So, for example, in the the case where there's vertical integration, we've put out actually a vertical integration rule proposal that we'll hopefully finalize in the near future. And this will apply just as much to the new regime with CAMs as as to our existing DCM regime. There are certain conflicts of interest requirements that we have in place today, but this will

actually bolster those, make sure that um there there's actually uh more granularity in our rules than than currently exists around these types of models because we are seeing more of them uh these days. But, you would have the brokerage separated off. That's what's called a futures commission merchant within our markets, but that would be the customer-facing piece where you would obtain the leverage, financing margin, and that connects into the exchange itself. So, the exchange itself is the order book, the matching engine, the execution piece of the equation. That's where customers would go to trade through their brokerage account. Uh and then you have the clearinghouse that handles the customer funds that have been moved on from the futures commission merchant for settlement uh to

the clearing house and the clearing house of course will call margin uh to the to the FCM where um required to do so. So, all of this is separated. We do have the same sorts of requirements we have in our traditional financial markets that we're bringing over to crypto, acknowledging that there are some unique aspects of how these exchanges operate um and some unique aspects around how the the assets settle on chain and how they're custodied and all of that. But, we think that's just as important today as we did uh in the time of FTX and we saw the collapse of that platform and the failure to have in place conflicts of interest prevention.

Um you know, Alameda was getting special trading privileges on the exchange as a market maker. You saw um the ability to go into negative balances as that uh entity. Uh you saw customer funds, as I mentioned, wired into like Alameda's bank account. So, it was a total disaster. There was no uh compliance program to speak of. I think if you go back and listen to some of the the hearings in the bankruptcy proceeding, I mean the the John Ray, I think was the um the CEO who took over uh during the bankruptcy was like, "This thing had absolutely no legal compliance to speak of. It's the farthest thing I've ever seen from a regulated platform." Um but then the the CFTC piece actually was

completely regulated and worked completely well. So, um so that's what we're bringing to this market and we have seen, as I mentioned, a number of the major exchanges come in to our framework to offer perpetual contracts and other types of derivatives, and it's worked very well. And we expect that they will uh continue to expand their product offerings under this new framework. So, maybe maybe I was just mistaken in that um cosmetically maybe they appear to be integrated products and services because and there it's all coming from the same place. So again, using Coinbase, if I go to coinbase.com and I can get you know, margin, I can get leverage.

Uh it appears to be coming from the same place, but what what I heard you say just now is that we're actually just applying the lessons that we've learned in TradFi, the segregated business lines that we've that we have in TradFi, and now we are applying them to the crypto world in this rulemaking process. So never mind that you can get margin same place that you trade. We are still doing the whole segregation strategy because that is tried and true, that's the way finance has been built, and now we are providing this rulemaking to crypto to increase the uh the scope and the TAM of the market by giving it a federal uh blanket. Is that right?

>> That's right. And some exchanges will choose to have the same sort of model that you would see with the New York Stock Exchange, for example, where you can go with whatever brokerage you want. You know, you go through Robinhood, you go through uh Charles Schwab, or whoever. We have that same sort of model here on the commodity side, where you can actually use Robinhood, for example, to access CME or ICE or other exchanges. It's no different when it comes to these crypto markets, but we do see some exchanges that choose to have a vertically integrated model, where they might have their own brokerage that is tied in, and sometimes that's the only brokerage, sometimes there's options alongside that. But it's it's a similar framework. So you do, regardless of model, have the same protections. You

have walls put up between the the different functions. You have conflicts of interest rules, and uh usually these are separate entities within a holding company structure as opposed to the same entity. Sometimes it's all in the same entity, but the same rules apply, where you've got those conflict prevention. So um that's really an important principle to take away here. If you look at the states, it's all one licensed entity. Actually, it's usually 50 licenses, but it's it's all effectively one business, and they they kind of have to operate at the lowest common denominator and take the or I should say highest actually.

They they sort of have to use the the rules let's say if it's set by New York that the highest standard because they it would be very impractical to have different rules in each state applied. So they take the highest unless there's a conflict of course. But with our federal regime it's it's one set up but you have different requirements on brokerage, exchange and clearing. >> Bankless Nation, we've built something for you. Introducing the Bankless MCP. Chat GPT and Claude are great at a lot of things but ask them anything beyond the basics of crypto about protocol mechanics, or just what happened last week in crypto and the gaps will start to show.

The problem is context. Bankless on the other hand has spent almost a decade building one of the deepest archives of crypto data anywhere. More than 2,000 podcast transcripts, 10,000 articles and countless conversations with the people actually building this industry. And now we've structured all of that data into the Bankless MCP. So you can go and connect it to your Claude or Chat GPT and suddenly your AI can answer your crypto queries with the entire Bankless archive behind it. And every new Bankless article or episode gets added automatically so the context keeps staying up-to-date. The Bankless MCP is exclusively available to Bankless [music] premium subscribers. So you can go to bankless.com, upgrade to premium and connect the MCP in just a few minutes and all of a sudden your crypto queries to your AI LLM, whatever you use, will get a thousand times better.

So go check it out. There is a link in the show notes and once you become a Bankless premium member you can hop into the Discord and let me know how you like it. >> Some exciting news. We are launching a new podcast to help people figure out the crypto cycle, how to navigate it. The best crypto cycle investor I know, his name is Michael Nadeau. He runs the DeFi Report. This is the guy that sent me a sell alert before the 10 10 price drop happened. His cycle analysis has been [music] absolutely on point. I've been following him for years and this year we started recording weekly podcast episodes. Each one we get into his portfolio, what he's holding, the market structure, entry targets, fair market value of Bitcoin and Ether, and where we are in the cycle. There's new episodes that are released every Wednesday.

They're 30 minutes, [music] they're short, they're punchy. I think this crypto cycle is harder to navigate than most, so let's do it together. Go subscribe to this podcast. Search The DeFi Report wherever you get your podcast YouTube Apple Spotify or find a link in the show notes. There's a new episode waiting for you now. >> All right, other than uh margin and leverage, does this rule making unlock any other products for US users and exchanges? Like what products do you anticipate coming in to register with the CFTC? And then uh if there are more beyond that, like what can a CFTC registered crypto market offer as like a consumer protections?

>> It's very exciting to me, and in part this is due to harmonization with the SEC, but of course you can envision a designated contract market that's able to offer various product lines. So they can offer, for example, perpetual futures, and and those might include futures on equities, uh on securities. They might include perpetual futures on crypto and and other products. And then they can include the traditional futures products that are typically offered on other exchanges. They can include various types of options. Um and then this retail um trading of leveraged margin financed crypto. So they've got a huge suite of products they can offer. And you can envision that the tokenized

assets that are used on these platforms, so let's say you're buying Bitcoin, selling Bitcoin, you can take those and use them as collateral for your perpetuals or for your options trading. Um you or you can use some of your derivatives positions or your securities, you have tokenized securities, for example, in your account, you can use those as collateral. So I I think there's just going to be a whole um unlocking of capital in these markets, and that's going to be um great for economic activity. It's also great for people to be able to um leverage their assets more effectively. So when you've got assets, let's say just sitting in your account, and maybe they're staking, you might be able to pledge those effectively as collateral and go take out a perpetual position, or you might be able to take

some of your assets that you're using as collateral and stake those and and so on and so forth. So, I think it just unlocks a lot more financial activity in our markets, and it also, most important to me, does so alongside clear rules of the road and customer protections. So, of course, that that type of activity that happened with FTX, we can't allow to happen in our markets, and we're not going to. I mean, we're going to take every precaution to make sure that this is done right, and we have the protections in place. But, at the same time, we want the innovation, and we want people to be able to engage in new financial activity. And we're also excited about on-chain markets, so that's a whole separate area, but I think you combine some of these different product

classes and the on-chain opportunities with these platforms, and it's a really exciting time to be in these markets. >> The uh advance notice of rulemaking, you said the president for this goes back to the prior administration where, on the flip side, the Biden administration was using it as a weapon rather than just as a tool to prevent to create clear regulation. But, it goes back even before the Biden administration. Like, doesn't doesn't like kind of this go back even to like Dodd-Frank in 2010 where different administrations have concluded along different lines whether or not the CFTC has this jurisdiction to do this.

And maybe you can kind of give us give me just like a a quick history lesson going back to Dodd-Frank in 2010 about the different administrations and the different precedent that the CFTC actually has the jurisdiction that it has to create these rules. >> Well, the CFTC originally was created to regulate the commodity futures markets, and this included a number of options products that were originally banned that they came into the fore uh several years later. Um and then it expanded into swaps markets with Dodd-Frank, where that was originally sort of a um a product that looked a lot like futures, but were offered over the counter between sophisticated parties. That whole uh regime was brought under the

CFTC's oversight after the financial crisis with Dodd-Frank, but there was also another uh class of products that came in with that same Dodd-Frank legislation. And this is oversight over retail commodity transactions. These transactions that are offered on a platform to retail customers uh with margin leverage or financing. And what we saw leading up to Dodd-Frank, separate from all of the shenanigans in the financial markets, were these platforms that were saying, "You can buy gold or silver or other types of commodities, typically precious metals, but also foreign currencies, um and you can do so on a leveraged basis, and we're not going to actually deliver the products you have to buy it.

We're going to hold it on our platform or or in storage, and you're effectively getting that um as a book entry, right? So So just like a crypto exchange today, like centralized exchange, they're not actually delivering it to your external wallet. It's in a kind of sub wallet within a larger omnibus wallet. Um and so it's a book entry within their books. Um and so they're settling that across, but they also have the ability, let's say you don't pay up on your margin call, to pull the assets from you. And so the um CFTC uh started to investigate these platforms and bring enforcement actions, and the court said that you don't have authority over uh these transactions.

They look a lot like a a derivative, a type of derivative you would typically regulate because there's not actual physical settlement, and it's not contemplated you would receive the delivery within a a typical window, but there's something a little bit different from a typical futures contract. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank is they fixed this so-called loophole within the statute to broaden out the CFTC's regulatory authority and require that these types of transactions occur on a CFTC regulated platform. And that the CFTC have the authority to regulate these so-called retail commodity transactions. And they also gave the CFTC a ton of authority to define a number of the terms associated with that and the exceptions to that. So

we've done exactly this. We have started the process of rule making to interpret what a retail commodity transaction is in the context of crypto, which we can call a crypto transaction or CTX. And that rule making's underway. We hope to to continue to move that forward and get that finalized in the you know, year year to come you know, next several months hopefully. But but the the idea there is to take language that was added in Dodd-Frank for exactly this purpose to make sure that there's a federal regulatory framework when you're offering products on an exchange that have similar attributes to a futures contract. We're able to trade crypto on margin leverage

or financing. And the statute's very clear. It's only the offer of that that gets you into the regime. It doesn't matter if you actually accept it. So if you choose to go through the the click-through menu on your transaction, you say, "I don't want to do leverage today. I'm just going to trade your spot." That's fine. That can still be within the framework because the offer of that is enough to get it within the CFTC's regime. >> This all comes pretty short shortly after the Clarity Act has failed to pass. Rest in peace. How much can you actually imagine get like accomplished through this rule making alone? And then also how durable do you think that this rule making is? You know, one fear that I think the industry has

is that the Democrats will both regain administration after, uh, after the end of this administration and then, in addition to that, will also attempt to dismantle some of these rules when they are back in charge of the CFTC, whenever that is. Uh, so like, how how optimistic are you about the durability of these rules without any sort of legislation? And then also, what can the industry do with these rules while we have them to make them more durable as well? >> Well, I laugh because that would be the most deregulatory Democrat administration we've probably seen in a pretty long time, but, uh, all jokes aside, what we can do is put in place clear rules of the road that are

designed to protect customers and, in my view, are good policy. And And that's exactly what we're trying to do. So, we put out an advanced notice proposed rulemaking. So, this is even like a pre-rulemaking phase before we move to the real substance of what we're proposing, so we can gather as much information and feedback from industry as possible. And that's from both sides of the aisle. We hope that this can be a bipartisan endeavor. And And I'm very disappointed we couldn't get clarity through. It really got sidetracked with these issues of ethics and, um, the GENIUS Act, which really These things have nothing to do with the customer protections that the the Clarity Act was designed to ensure. Um, this is a market structure

statute. Um, but we do have a ton of authority as an agency and we're going to use it. So, the the Clarity Act would have required, as I said earlier, all crypto exchanges that are centralized and offer trading in in certain crypto asset products to register with the agency and similarly for brokers and dealers and other, uh, categories of participants to register with the CFTC. And it also would have drawn a clear line between securities and non-securities, as Chairman Atkinson and I have already done through rulemaking through this interpretation that we've got in the Federal Register. So, we've done a lot of the work already that would have been in clarity, but this would have codified it and I think that is important in Washington. Statutes is

important is permanent as you can get. So, of course we want that, but this is something that we don't need today. We can get clear rules of the road in place using our existing authority. We want to do it across party lines. We don't want this to be some, you know, pure one-sided bipartisan effort. We're taking all the input that we'll get. And so, if people want to comment from either side of the aisle, we'll welcome those comments and we'll work with whoever wants to work with us to get this right. But, my goal here is to put in place something that is future-proof.

It's something that's durable and it's something that is bipartisan and has the support of both sides of the aisle. And I think if we get that right, there's no chance that a future administration is going to withdraw all of that. And they'd be taking a huge risk. You know, as I said at the outset, sitting in this seat, the most important thing is to make sure that we have customer protections and that our markets are working efficiently, that they're sound, that we don't have another financial crisis or another major fraud on the market like Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried. And you pull these customer protections that we're putting in place to side to prevent that, and who knows what happens. I don't think anybody wants to be responsible for that. And so, I'm optimistic that no matter what, these rules will withstand

the test of time. We of course are going to be reasonable in what we put in the rules to make sure that they actually protect customers and they're not just window dressing on the industry. They're going to be serious rules, but we think that this is going to be something that can stand the test of time. >> Well, Chairman Mike Selig certainly takes no opportunity to miss going toe-to-toe with the states. In that also, I'd like to kind of get a quick download on the prediction market fight. So, there are a couple circuits, a couple court circuits that have ruled in favor of the states. There's I think one court circuit that has ruled in favor of the CFTC. At I broad strokes, I think that's true.

Are we going to the Supreme Court, Mike? Is this just going to go all the way to the top? >> It looks like we're tracking for the Supreme Court. You know, there's a split in the circuits as you've outlined. So, New Jersey has requested that the Supreme Court review the case and so we're standing by waiting to see what happens there. But, the bottom line is, you know, I I don't like the reputation of someone who's going after the states. You know, we're trying to protect our jurisdiction as an agency and that's really my I don't want to say it's my number one job, but it's up there, right? My number one job is to make sure that our markets are efficient and effective, but I can't really do that very well if I don't know what the markets are, if they're constantly shifting under my feet. And

so, what we're doing here is making sure that it's clear and and I think our statute's very clear, but it's clear in the in the courts that the CFTC has exclusive regulatory authority when it comes to event contract derivatives that are offered on a designated contract market on one of our exchanges. And the states have gone and and brought lawsuits against a number of our exchanges and so we had to get involved and and fight back as well as as these exchanges, but what's really important here is we're just trying to protect our jurisdiction and make sure that the markets continue to function. I do have concerns, for example, if you can walk into an MGM Grand or a Harris casino and you're able to trade on an order book and there's no market-based protections.

For the same reasons, I'm concerned when you go to you know, state-licensed you know, Western Union or 7-Eleven and you trade in an order book on crypto. I mean, a lot of this stuff works well for certain types of products and services, but it doesn't work well when you get into financial markets, and that's really not a a laughing matter. You know, when you get into serious financial market inner workings, order books, clearing houses, and you try to kind of simplify it and offer it under a you know, a state regime that's not really fit for, you get manipulation, you get insider trading, you get wash trading. I couldn't even tell you, of course we

investigate what's going on in a lot of these markets because we have that anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority, but we don't have all the order book data that we'd want in many cases because we're not supervising these exchanges at the state level, just like we're not supervising the casinos. So, you know, to the extent you're offering an order book with derivatives products on the platform, our statute is very clear. It doesn't matter if it's on sports or politics or really anything else aside from onions and motion picture box office receipts. That's a derivatives contract. That's something we're designed to regulate, and we'll continue to do so until the courts tell us that that you know, that the states are now going to be market regulators.

>> Well, Mike, I think um the idea of making the United States the crypto capital of the world is downstream of what the United States already has, which is the center of capital for the whole entire world. And at Bankless, we are very much are not a political entity. We're not left, we're not right, but we are anti-authoritarian, and we are also pro-markets. And so, I think what you are doing at the CFTC is very pro-markets, and I definitely take the argument that a patchwork state regulatory apparatus makes the markets smaller, less efficient, less organized, and that is a worse product for me as a user, but also the globe as a whole. So, I like what you're doing. I'm supporting you.

Hopefully, when the prediction markets go to the Supreme Court, that we get a a victory. And I'm also excited to see what happens with all of this proposed rulemaking. Rostin, do you have any asks for the crypto industry? So, this is the rulemaking is in a period of comments. How can the crypto industry help you get your job done as these rules are being proposed? >> We would love to see the industry comment on the proposed rulemaking. So, you can do so by going to the CFTC's website. The proposal's available on the website and then you can click through to get to the comment section and file comments. And of course, we would love to hear specifics about how we can make

the rule proposals better, what you're looking for out of the regime, but also just, you know, whether support or you hate the thing, we'd love to hear so we can make it the best product possible because again, this is a a bipartisan effort. It's a non-partisan effort, I should really say. We don't want, you know, to to put in place rules that don't stand the test of time and are not good for the industry and good for the market. So, please comment, comment, give us your thoughts. We're very happy to to hear from all of your listeners and excited to get this thing done.

>> Chairman Behnam, thanks for coming back on Bankless. >> Thanks for having me. >> Bankless Nation, you guys know the deal. Crypto is risky, you can lose what you put in, but we are headed west. This is frontier. It's not for everyone, but we are glad you are with us on the Bankless journey. Thanks a lot. >> [music]