Capital Markets & Trading in United States

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC issued the interpretation of the impartial access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b).

2026-12-05 Deadline

Thirty-day period expires for DCMs to cease domestic geographic restrictions that violate the impartial-access requirements or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible; the same period applies to addressing intermediary impediments or explaining why compliance is not feasible.

Suggested considerations

• DCMs should inventory all domestic geographic eligibility, onboarding, trading, product-access, and account-management restrictions and assess them against 17 CFR 38.151(b)'s requirements for impartial, transparent, and non-discriminatory access.
• DCMs should review whether state-based restrictions affect members, persons with trading privileges, independent software vendors, or access to particular products, including event contracts.
• DCMs should identify and review contractual, technical, and operational controls used by futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries to determine whether they impose geographic restrictions inconsistent with the DCM's impartial-access requirements.
• DCMs should document the legal and operational basis for removing each restriction or, where removal is not feasible, prepare a fact-specific explanation for the Division of Market Oversight before the 30-day period expires.
• Compliance teams at intermediaries should map state-based geofencing, customer-location verification, product blocking, and position-management restrictions affecting access to DCM markets and assess whether those controls are required by applicable law, regulation, or court order.
• Affected firms should assess conflicts between the CFTC's interpretation and any state requirements or judicial orders, obtain legal analysis, and avoid treating the interpretation as automatically vacating an injunction or other binding court order.
• DCMs should retain evidence of governance review, intermediary oversight, customer communications, access testing, and remediation decisions in anticipation of possible fact-specific CFTC inquiry or enforcement.

What changed

The CFTC has applied the existing impartial-access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b) expressly to domestic geographic restrictions, including restrictions based on a market participant's state or location. DCMs must cease geographic restrictions that violate the rule within 30 days of the November 5, 2026 publication, or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight stating why compliance is not feasible.

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC Division of Clearing and Risk issued the no-action letter and accompanying public release addressing trust companies used for daily settlements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify any existing or proposed trust-company settlement arrangements and determine whether each arrangement is being governed under the DCO’s settlement-bank policies and procedures.
• DCOs should consider documenting that each trust company satisfies the applicable 17 CFR 39.14 settlement-bank criteria, including capitalization, creditworthiness, liquidity access, operational reliability, and regulatory status.
• Firms should consider reviewing account structures, settlement agreements, payment workflows, and legal opinions to confirm that transfers are irrevocable and unconditional no later than the time the relevant DCO or clearing-member account is debited or credited.
• DCOs may wish to assess credit, liquidity, concentration, and intraday settlement exposures arising from the use of each trust company and confirm that monitoring, escalation, collateral, and contingency arrangements remain adequate.
• Operations and resilience teams may wish to test the trust company’s connectivity, payment-failure procedures, recovery arrangements, and coordination with the DCO’s business-continuity and disaster-recovery plans.
• Legal and compliance teams should consider recording the no-action letter’s conditions and limits in the DCO’s regulatory inventory, noting that the relief is staff relief rather than a binding amendment to Part 39 and may not extend to materially different structures or facts.
• Clearing members may wish to confirm that their agreements with the DCO and trust company allocate settlement, segregation, insolvency, operational, and account-control risks consistently with the DCO’s approved procedures.

What changed

The letter provides staff no-action relief for a DCO that uses a trust company to conduct daily settlement, notwithstanding the distinction between a trust company and a settlement bank under the CFTC framework. It does not create a generally applicable exemption or amend 17 CFR Part 39; instead, it allows the arrangement provided the trust company is managed and controlled as a settlement bank.

Key dates

2023-12-13

The SEC adopted the Treasury clearing amendments, including the trade-submission requirement implemented through Exchange Act Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(A).

2026-10-30

The SEC issued exemptive relief for specified inter-affiliate and non-U.S. Treasury repo transactions.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Compliance date for applicable eligible secondary market cash transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.

2027-06-30 Deadline

Compliance date for applicable eligible secondary market repo transactions involving U.S. Treasury securities.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should obtain and analyze the operative October 30, 2026 Section 36 exemptive order, including all limits, conditions, definitions, recordkeeping provisions, and any continuing reporting requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all Treasury repo transactions by legal entity, counterparty location, direct-participant status, affiliate relationship, guarantee structure, and whether the transaction is market-facing or solely inter-affiliate.
• Firms should validate whether each proposed affiliate qualifies under Rule 17ad-22(a) as modified by the relief and confirm that the affiliate is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
• Broker-dealers and other direct participants should update trade-classification, order-management, confirmation, clearing-submission, exception-management, and surveillance controls to distinguish exempt transactions from transactions that must be submitted for clearing.
• Global firms should establish governance for monitoring any activity-based or volume-based limit applicable to non-U.S. repo relief, including data ownership, aggregation across affiliates and direct participants, calculation frequency, escalation thresholds, and evidence retained for supervisory review.
• Firms should continue implementation of the broader Treasury clearing framework and should not treat the relief as a basis for delaying preparations for the December 31, 2026 cash-market or June 30, 2027 repo compliance dates.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to assess whether non-U.S. branches, foreign affiliates, guarantees by U.S. persons, or local-law requirements create additional obligations notwithstanding the SEC relief.

What changed

The relief applies to certain repo transactions involving non-U.S. counterparties, subject to specified limits and conditions. It also expands the inter-affiliate treatment for repos between a direct participant of a U.S. Treasury securities covered clearing agency and an affiliated entity that is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided the affiliate otherwise meets the affiliated-counterparty definition in Rule 17ad-22(a).

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2026-10-28

FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
• Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
• Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
• Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
• Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
• Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.

What changed

The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2026-09-30

The SEC issued the proposed rule, Release Nos. 33-11444, 34-106534, and IC-36351; this is the underlying proposal date, not an effective date for new obligations.

2026-10-05

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63388.

2026-10-20

The SEC published a correction replacing the DATES section and confirming the comment deadline.

2026-12-04 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to calendar December 4, 2026 as the deadline for submitting comments to File No. S7-2026-34 and coordinate comments across legal, fund governance, distribution, operations, and investor-relations functions.
• Affected fund sponsors should consider assessing whether monthly or otherwise revised repurchase intervals, delayed initial repurchase offers, or more frequent discretionary repurchases would better align with portfolio liquidity and investor-liquidity expectations if the proposal is adopted.
• Registered closed-end funds and BDCs considering multiple share classes should consider mapping proposed Rule 18f-3 and Rule 17d-3 conditions against existing exemptive orders, board procedures, fee arrangements, allocation methodologies, distribution agreements, and conflict controls.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate the anticipated written multiple-share-class plan, board approval requirements, class-level expense allocation, asset-based distribution and service-fee arrangements, and related disclosure controls.
• Operations and disclosure teams should consider a gap analysis for proposed changes to Form N-2, Form N-CEN, Form N-23c-3, shareholder reports, prospectus legends, expense examples, NAV and repurchase processing, and investor communications.
• Firms should continue treating the current Investment Company Act rules and existing exemptive orders as controlling until any final rule becomes effective and applicable transition or rescission provisions are issued.

What changed

The October 20, 2026 Federal Register correction replaces the prior DATES text in the October 5 proposal and expressly states that the release was published on October 5, 2026 and that comments must be received by December 4, 2026. The underlying proposal would amend Investment Company Act Rules 23c-3, 18f-3, and 17d-3 and related forms and rules to modernize interval-fund repurchase programs, including potentially allowing a first repurchase offer to be deferred for up to two years, monthly repurchase intervals, annual discretionary repurchases, and deduction of deferred sales loads from...

Key dates

2022-05-12

The CFTC filed its complaint against Alexandre and EminiFX, alleging fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and operation of an unregistered commodity pool.

2026-07-01

As of July 2026, the court-appointed receiver had returned more than $98 million to over 28,000 investors.

2026-10-19

The CFTC announced that the Southern District of New York had entered orders granting summary judgment, injunctive relief, and a civil monetary penalty against Alexandre and EminiFX.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory products, investment clubs, managed accounts, and digital-asset offerings that pool customer contributions and obtain exposure to forex, futures, options, or other commodity interests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their activities constitute operating a commodity pool or acting as a commodity pool operator or associated person under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, including whether registration or an available exemption is required.
• Firms should consider validating marketing claims about returns, automated trading, proprietary technology, trading results, and risk, with particular scrutiny of unusually high or consistent returns such as weekly performance representations.
• Compliance teams may wish to test segregation, custody, reconciliation, withdrawal, and use-of-funds controls to detect commingling, personal use of customer assets, payments to earlier investors, and unexplained transfers.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence supporting reported performance, trading activity, investor statements, and asset ownership so that customer communications can be reconciled to underlying records.
• Digital-asset businesses may wish to review whether crypto terminology or a technology-focused structure obscures activities that remain subject to commodities, anti-fraud, registration, or customer-protection requirements.
• Firms should consider escalating suspected misappropriation, fabricated performance, or unregistered commodity-pool activity through applicable internal investigation, suspicious-activity, and regulatory-reporting processes.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or generally applicable regulatory amendment. The Southern District of New York entered summary judgment and injunctive relief against Alexandre and EminiFX, finding that the defendants made fraudulent representations, misappropriated investor funds, and operated as an unregistered commodity pool operator, with Alexandre acting in an unregistered associated-person capacity. The judgment imposes $228,576,962 of restitution, $15,049,500 of disgorgement subject to offset by restitution payments, and a $45,148,500 civil monetary penalty.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The interim final rule becomes effective and 17 CFR 1.3 is amended to exclude qualifying casino-style gambling products from the CEA swap definition.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the interim final rule must be received by the CFTC through the specified submission channels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms offering sportsbook, casino, lottery, raffle, bingo, or other gaming products should consider documenting how each product satisfies both the Provider Test and Product Test, including the relevant state or tribal authorization and applicable gaming-law classification.
• Gaming operators should consider verifying that the provider is acting within the scope of its license or authorization and retaining evidence that the transaction is offered on house or other standardized terms rather than traded through a multilateral or individually negotiated market.
• Prediction-market operators, designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, swap dealers, and banks should consider reviewing event-linked products separately from traditional sportsbook wagers, with particular attention to venue, price formation, trading structure, and whether participants interact through competing bids and offers.
• Firms should consider reassessing products that combine sportsbook or casino-style features with exchange trading, bilateral dealer negotiation, or other market mechanisms, because the rule’s exclusion may not apply even where the underlying event resembles a conventional wager.
• Compliance teams may wish to update product inventories, legal opinions, customer disclosures, jurisdictional analyses, and surveillance or onboarding controls to reflect the distinction between authorized house wagers and exchange-traded event contracts.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments to the CFTC on the Provider Test, the definition of transactions regulated as gaming or gambling, and alternative ways to distinguish swaps from traditional gambling products by November 18, 2026.
• Firms should consider separately assessing state gaming, tribal gaming, consumer-protection, tax, anti-money-laundering, and licensing requirements because exclusion from the CEA swap definition does not remove those obligations.

What changed

New 17 CFR 1.3(7) creates a two-part exclusion from the swap definition. Under the Provider Test, the product must be offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under state law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the provider must act within the scope of that authorization, and the transaction must be regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable state or tribal law.

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposed amendments to Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7, Release No. IC-36358, File No. S7-2026-36.

2026-10-15

Proposed rule published in the Federal Register; the 60-day public-comment period begins.

2026-12-14 Deadline

Public comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory current and potential cross trades by asset class and valuation level, distinguishing Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 positions and identifying fixed-income portfolios that could become eligible.
• Advisers may wish to design a documented pre-trade best-interest process for each participating registered fund, including consideration of open-market alternatives, alternative securities, and the option not to trade.
• Funds and advisers may wish to assess pricing-source governance, including unaffiliated-source due diligence, periodic reasonableness reviews, NAV-pricing consistency, and controls preventing use of amortized-cost values.
• CCOs may wish to map quarterly review, annual back-testing, subsequent-sale analysis, escalation, and reporting responsibilities across fund and adviser compliance functions.
• Boards and counsel may wish to assess amendments to Rule 38a-1 policies, board reporting, and governance materials in light of the proposed shift away from board-adopted Rule 17a-7 procedures.
• Operations and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to map internal asset classifications to Form N-PORT Item B.12 and Form N-MFP Item A.23, including controls for the preceding-12-month activity test and reconciliation of cross-trade and total purchases and sales.
• Records-management teams may wish to evaluate systems capable of retaining trade records, CCO review materials, and board reports for six years.
• Interested parties may wish to submit comments by the Federal Register deadline, addressing the 79 specific requests for comment, including Level 3 eligibility, bid-side NAV pricing, review frequency, scaling, and public-reporting impacts.

What changed

Eligible securities would expand from generally Level 1 securities with readily available market quotations to securities valued using inputs that are observable directly or indirectly, provided Level 2 inputs are the lowest level of inputs significant to measurement; Level 3 securities would remain excluded. The proposed independent current market price would be either the value used in the fund’s next NAV calculation on the trade date or a price the adviser reasonably determines represents current market value using one or more unaffiliated pricing sources, subject to periodic review.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Approximate beginning of the alleged delayed-allocation and cherry-picking conduct.

2023-10-31

Approximate end of the alleged conduct period.

2024-11-25

The SEC filed its civil complaint against Leech concerning the alleged allocation scheme.

2025-01-21

The district court reportedly stayed the SEC civil action pending resolution of the parallel criminal prosecution.

2026-06-05

The SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty and establishing a Fair Fund for affected investors.

2026-10-06

The SEC reported the consent resolution and final-judgment process against Leech, including a $3 million penalty, permanent injunctions and an officer-and-director bar.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing whether each block or derivatives trade is assigned to intended portfolios at or near execution, with documented reasons, approvals and timestamps for any necessary delay.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether allocation systems and workflows prevent personnel from using intraday price movements, daily settlement prices or first-day performance to select recipient accounts.
• Firms should consider surveillance comparing execution time, allocation-entry time, settlement-price availability, subsequent performance and recipient portfolio across portfolio managers and strategies.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate statistically significant differences in allocation latency, first-day gains and losses, reallocations, exception rates and benefits received by particular portfolios, fee arrangements or clients.
• Advisers should consider reconciling written fair-allocation and reallocation procedures with actual operating practices, including practices followed by chief investment officers and other highly senior personnel.
• Firms should consider preserving allocation instructions and related communications from trading platforms, order-management systems, email, messaging tools and manual worksheets in a form suitable for supervisory review.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance escalation procedures for delayed allocations, repeated reallocations, unexplained exceptions and material performance differences among similarly situated accounts.
• Advisers should consider reviewing client disclosures and policies describing pro rata, fair or equitable allocation methodologies against the firm’s actual allocation logic and exceptions.

What changed

This is an enforcement resolution, not a new rule or prospective compliance deadline. It reinforces that delayed post-execution allocation can create an Advisers Act antifraud and fiduciary-duty violation where the decision-maker can observe market or settlement-price information before assigning trades to client portfolios. The matter also signals that written allocation policies are insufficient if firms do not operate, test and supervise them effectively, particularly for senior investment personnel.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Federal Register publication date for the ANPRM, published as 91 FR 64811 and document number 2026-20888.

2026-12-14 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the CFTC on Regulation CTX, Regulation CAM, and the interpretation and implementation of CEA section 2(c)(2)(D).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned retail crypto products could constitute transactions covered by CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including products described as spot, margin, leveraged, financed, perpetual, or otherwise structured to defer delivery.
• Firms should consider mapping current customer agreements, funding arrangements, custody models, delivery controls, and liquidation processes against the CFTC's preliminary positions on offers and actual delivery.
• Prospective venues may wish to assess the potential CAM operating model, including registration perimeter, governance, listing standards, market surveillance, position controls, execution, recordkeeping, cyber and system safeguards, proof-of-reserves, and customer-asset arrangements.
• FCMs, IBs, DCOs, custodians, and leverage providers should consider identifying the registrations, permissions, capital, segregation, margin, clearing, insolvency, and operational dependencies that a CAM structure could create.
• Crypto businesses may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of section 2(c)(2)(D), the definition and practical test for actual delivery, treatment of fully paid open transactions, permissible crypto assets, and the allocation of responsibilities among CAMs, FCMs, DCOs, and leverage providers.
• Firms should monitor whether the CFTC follows the ANPRM with a formal proposed rule and should not treat the ANPRM as creating immediate registration, margin, reporting, or conduct obligations.
• Affected firms may wish to preserve evidence of product design, delivery capability, customer disclosures, surveillance controls, and legal analysis in anticipation of supervisory or enforcement scrutiny under the CFTC's stated interpretation of section 2(c)(2)(D).

What changed

The CFTC has published ANPRM RIN 3038-AF80, 91 FR 64811, concerning proposed Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets. Regulation CTX would seek to clarify when section 2(c)(2)(D) applies to crypto asset transactions, including the meaning of covered offers, actual delivery, and actual delivery of fully paid open transactions. Regulation CAM would create a crypto asset market subcategory of designated contract market registration under 17 CFR part 38, supported by related amendments or requirements under 17 CFR parts 1, 38, and 39.

Key dates

2026-10-09

CFTC announced publication of the NPRM concerning inclusion of certain event contracts in the definition of swap and identified a 30-day comment period beginning on Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory event contracts by underlying event, settlement structure, customer type, and current legal classification, including whether each product is a binary option, another swap, a future, a security-based swap, or a casino-style gambling product.
• Potential operators, DCMs, SEFs, registrants, trade associations, and affected customers should consider submitting written comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register; the Federal Register publication date and resulting calendar deadline should be monitored because the CFTC release does not specify either date.
• Firms may wish to assess whether current exchange, venue, customer-eligibility, market-surveillance, anti-manipulation, product-certification, disclosure, margin, reporting, and recordkeeping controls would support treatment of relevant contracts as swaps under existing CFTC requirements.
• Operators currently relying on state licenses may wish to evaluate the potential need for DCM or SEF arrangements, CFTC registration, federal compliance infrastructure, and transitional management of overlapping state and federal obligations if the rule is finalized.
• DCMs and SEFs may wish to review product-listing governance against CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C), applicable core principles, and 17 CFR 40.2(c), including whether particular contracts are readily susceptible to manipulation or involve gaming or other activity contrary to the public interest.
• Legal and tax teams may wish to keep CEA classification separate from federal tax and information-reporting analysis, which the NPRM states will continue to depend on the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, and IRS guidance.
• Firms may wish to monitor the separate CFTC action concerning casino-style gambling products and assess how the two rulemakings interact for products near the boundary between event contracts and gambling wagers.

What changed

The NPRM, RIN 3038-AF82, would add proposed 17 CFR 1.3(Swap)(2)(i)(G): “Event contracts, including those based on sports-, politics-, cultural, and weather-related events.” The CFTC relies on several existing swap-definition provisions, including CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), covering options, transactions dependent on events with potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences, instruments commonly known as swaps, and combinations or permutations of covered instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-09

The CFTC announced the interim final rule.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify sportsbook, casino, lottery, bingo, raffle, and other wagering products in their portfolios and map each product against the provider, licensing, State or Tribal regulatory, and trading-venue conditions in 17 CFR 1.3(7).
• Licensed gaming operators should retain evidence that each relevant product is offered within the scope of the applicable State or Tribal authorization and is regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable law.
• Operators and market intermediaries should assess whether any product is traded on an exchange, board of trade, swap execution facility, or other multilateral or individually negotiated market, because that structure prevents reliance on the specific exclusion.
• Prediction-market and derivatives businesses should maintain a separate legal analysis for products that fail the exclusion; failure to qualify does not by itself establish that a product is a swap.
• CFTC-regulated market participants should compare the rule's house-versus-customer and price-formation distinctions with their event-contract inventories, exchange rules, clearing arrangements, and product approvals.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after Federal Register publication, referencing RIN 3038-AF81 and the title "Further Definition of Swap to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products."
• Compliance teams should continue evaluating applicable State gaming, Tribal gaming, tax, consumer-protection, licensing, and other federal requirements because the rule addresses CEA classification only and does not displace those regimes.

What changed

The rule adds 17 CFR 1.3(7) to the definition of "Swap" and excludes an agreement, contract, or transaction offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., acting within the scope of that authorization and subject to State or Tribal gaming regulation. The product must not be traded on a board of trade, organized exchange, swap execution facility, or any other market where trades are executed multilaterally or are subject to individual negotiation.

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposal to amend Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine which corporate, municipal and other fixed-income holdings are currently excluded from Rule 17a-7 cross-trading because they lack a readily available market quotation under the valuation-rule framework.
• Firms should consider assessing potential execution-cost savings, liquidity benefits and conflicts risks from expanded internal crossing, using the SEC’s indication that market impact is concentrated among larger fund families and that corporate-bond cross-trading materially declined after the valuation-rule compliance date.
• Registered fund advisers may wish to review pricing governance, independent price verification, best-execution analysis, allocation controls and conflict-management procedures in anticipation of any final rule.
• Firms may wish to map the data needed for the proposed aggregated cross-trade reporting and test whether existing order-management, compliance-monitoring and regulatory-reporting systems can capture it.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments during the 60-day period after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register, particularly on eligible security classes, pricing methodologies, reporting granularity and oversight conditions.
• Until a final rule becomes effective, firms should continue applying the existing Section 17(a), Rule 17a-7 and Rule 2a-5 requirements and should not treat the proposal as a current exemption.

What changed

The proposal would amend Rule 17a-7, the exemption from Section 17(a) for specified purchases and sales between a registered investment company and certain affiliated persons. It would generally restore eligibility for cross-trading most fixed-income securities, which became substantially unavailable after the SEC’s adoption of the Investment Company Act valuation rule in 2020, while modernizing the conditions governing pricing and oversight to reflect more verifiable and transparent market pricing.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63676 and the comment period opened.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether existing or proposed fund products could use the regulated-fund performance-compensation pathway and map each arrangement against the proposed 20% net-gains cap, specified-period methodology, governance requirements, and board-determination condition.
• Advisers and fund sponsors should consider inventorying current performance-fee arrangements and identifying clients who could become eligible under the proposed accredited-investor route, without treating the proposal as authority to implement changes before adoption and an applicable compliance date.
• Fund sponsors may wish to assess the operational and disclosure impact of separately reporting performance-based compensation in Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-CSR, including fee-table, prospectus, financial-reporting, and board-material changes.
• Adviser compliance programs should consider reviewing Rule 205-3 eligibility controls, investor-classification procedures, accredited-investor evidence, client look-through analysis, and controls for the related Rule 203A-3, Rule 204-3, and Form ADV amendments.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate how performance-fee proposals would affect fiduciary-duty analysis, conflicts management, valuation, incentive alignment, investor communications, and approval documentation.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments by December 7, 2026, particularly on the 20% cap, specified performance period, governance conditions, disclosure design, accredited-investor eligibility, and transition or compliance-period issues.

What changed

Proposed amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rule 205-3 would create an additional route for registered investment advisers to receive compensation based on capital gains or capital appreciation from registered management investment companies and business development companies, collectively referred to as regulated funds.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 63870, covering pages 63870-64103.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Public comments must be received by the SEC on or before this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether client or fund crypto assets are currently held through arrangements that would constitute adviser or regulated-fund self-custody under the proposal, including arrangements involving service providers, private keys, wallets, or decentralized finance protocols.
• Firms should consider mapping proposed requirements for key management, joint authorization, asset segregation, safeguarding expertise, cybersecurity, incident response, annual review, internal control reporting, and client or investor account statements against existing custody, information-security, and operational-resilience controls.
• Advisers and regulated funds may wish to assess whether existing custodians, including state trust companies, could satisfy the proposed authorization, policy, audit, internal-control, and segregation conditions.
• Compliance teams should consider preparing comments for File No. S7-2026-35 by December 7, 2026, particularly on the proposed scope of self-custody, the qualified-custodian determination, treatment of airdropped crypto assets, decentralized finance activity, and the interaction with existing custody arrangements.
• Firms should assess potential changes to Form ADV, Form ADV-E, Form N-CEN, custody records, crypto-network records, audited financial statements, and accountant reports if the proposal is adopted.
• Investment advisers and regulated funds may wish to inventory tokenized private funds and tokenized regulated-fund shares in anticipation of the proposed additional Form ADV and Form N-CEN questions.
• Firms should distinguish proposal-stage planning from current legal obligations because the publication does not itself impose the proposed requirements and does not establish a final compliance date.

What changed

The proposal would add an adviser self-custody framework under proposed Advisers Act rule 223-1(b)(7), allowing an adviser to self-custody client crypto assets only in specified circumstances and subject to conditions addressing safeguarding expertise, documented safeguarding systems, key management, joint authorization, segregation, cybersecurity risk assessment, threat and vulnerability management, incident response and recovery, annual review, an internal control report, and client account statements.

Key dates

2026-09-14

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed. LIVE and TEST submissions became available for ANE Exception Notices, withdrawals, Form 1, and specified Form 1 variants; the revised EDGAR functionality and interfaces became operational.

2026-10-06

The final rule became effective, and incorporation by reference of the revised EDGAR Filer Manual Volume II, Version 78, into the Code of Federal Regulations was approved.

2026-12-31 Deadline

Last day on which ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals may be submitted by email.

2027-01-01 Deadline

ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; email submissions will no longer be accepted.

2027-03-01 Deadline

Last day on which Form 1 and specified Form 1 variants may be filed in paper.

2027-03-02 Deadline

Form 1 and specified variants must be submitted electronically through the EDGAR online interface or by filer-constructed EDGAR submission; paper filings will no longer be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all ANE Exception Notices and withdrawals that could be submitted between January 1, 2027 and December 31, 2026, and establish procedures using the EDGAR online interface or filer-constructed submissions before the mandatory transition.
• Affected Form 1 filers may wish to obtain or validate EDGAR access, submit Form ID where required, and migrate filing procedures from paper to the EDGAR interface or filer-constructed submissions before March 2, 2027.
• Firms may wish to use the EDGAR test environment and, where applicable, the EDGAR Beta environment to test user access, filer-constructed submissions, validation, acknowledgments, and correction workflows.
• Filing teams may wish to update internal checklists and software templates for the corrected Forms 13F and 13F-CTR reference to Special Instruction 4.
• XBRL filers and filing agents may wish to replace references to the former Volume II XBRL instructions with the EDGAR XBRL Guide and confirm that current taxonomies and technical specifications are being used.
• Firms may wish to retain evidence of successful testing, accepted submissions, filing acknowledgments, and fallback procedures during the transition periods.
• Compliance teams may wish to review EDGAR access credentials, CIK status, delegated filing permissions, and responsible-person coverage for any filer converting from paper to electronic filing.

What changed

EDGAR Release 26.3 was deployed on September 14, 2026, and the SEC adopted the corresponding Filer Manual amendments as Version 78. Technical instructions for submitting XBRL documents were removed from Filer Manual Volume II and relocated to the EDGAR XBRL Guide. EDGAR submission templates for Forms 13F and 13F-CTR were corrected so that the cover-page reference points to Special Instruction 4 rather than Special Instruction 5.

Key dates

2026-10-05

The CFTC Chairman announced the proposed Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM framework, and independent industry reporting identified the accompanying action as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for publication of the CTX/CAM ANPRM and calculate the 60-day comment period from the actual publication date rather than from the Chairman’s October 5 statement.
• Affected exchanges should map each product and customer flow against margin, leverage, financing, custody, settlement, and internal-ledger features to determine whether the activity could fall within the proposed CTX concept.
• State-licensed platforms may wish to assess the strategic and operational consequences of pursuing a CFTC registration pathway instead of relying solely on state money-transmitter licenses.
• Firms may wish to review governance, conflicts-of-interest controls, market surveillance, anti-manipulation controls, customer-asset segregation, operational resilience, disclosure, and recordkeeping capabilities against existing CFTC designated contract market and customer-protection expectations.
• Exchanges and service providers may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of Section 2(c)(2)(D), the treatment of fully paid transactions, the boundary between spot trading and financed transactions, and the interaction between CAM registration and state licensing.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to inventory crypto assets and classify them consistently with the referenced joint CFTC-SEC interpretation, while preserving separate analysis for assets that may constitute securities or fall outside the proposed framework.
• U.S.-facing offshore platforms should reassess territorial exposure and customer-access controls because the proposal may create a clearer federal compliance pathway without eliminating potential CFTC jurisdiction over unregistered or fraudulent activity.

What changed

The CFTC is proposing to use its existing Commodity Exchange Act authority, including Section 2(c)(2)(D), to develop a purpose-built framework for crypto asset transactions and markets. Regulation CTX would address retail crypto transactions involving margin, leverage, or financing. Regulation CAM would establish a tailored category of CFTC-registered crypto asset market, apparently as a specialized form of designated contract market, for exchanges offering those transactions.

Key dates

2026-10-05

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium and publicly described the CFTC-SEC crypto-asset classification framework and the shift toward formal crypto market regulation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory each supported token and document its likely classification under the five-category framework, including the facts supporting treatment as a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, stablecoin, or digital security.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether their products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including transactions involving margin, leverage, financing, or other arrangements that may require execution on or registration with a CFTC-registered venue.
• Crypto exchanges and trading platforms may wish to assess whether their activities could require DCM registration, a future crypto-asset-market registration, SEC registration, or multiple registrations depending on the asset and service provided.
• Issuers and platforms may wish to preserve evidence concerning network functionality, decentralization, token utility, marketing, purchaser expectations, transfer restrictions, and the separation of a crypto asset from any investment contract.
• Firms may wish to maintain controls addressing customer-asset segregation, custody, conflicts of interest, orderly trading, market surveillance, anti-manipulation, recordkeeping, and AML obligations, because the speech criticizes state money-transmission licensing as insufficient to provide federal market protections.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the CFTC and SEC rulemaking dockets and distinguish the Chairman's personal views, the joint interpretation, proposed rules, and any final rules or effective compliance dates.
• U.S. and offshore groups serving U.S. customers may wish to reassess their territorial and solicitation controls because the policy direction is intended to offer a federal pathway without eliminating the risk of CFTC or SEC jurisdiction over offshore conduct.

What changed

The Chairman described a joint CFTC-SEC interpretation that classifies crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The interpretation reportedly provides that digital commodities, digital collectibles, and digital tools are generally not securities; stablecoins may in some circumstances be securities; and digital securities remain subject to the federal securities laws.

Key dates

2026-10-05

CFTC published Release 9307-26 announcing the ANPRM and beginning consultation on a potential framework for crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA Section 2(c)(2)(D), particularly where crypto assets are leveraged, margined, financed, or embedded in derivatives or perpetual-style products.
• Firms should consider mapping their customer-facing crypto activities, order execution arrangements, custody model, financing terms, liquidation processes, conflicts, market-abuse controls, and consumer disclosures against the issues identified in the ANPRM.
• Potential commenters may wish to prepare submissions addressing the scope of CTXs, the proposed treatment of spot versus financed transactions, appropriate registration and supervisory requirements, and the operational feasibility of a crypto asset market category.
• Designated contract markets and prospective applicants should consider assessing whether existing governance, surveillance, listing, liquidity, technology, and risk-management controls could support a future crypto asset market registration framework.
• Firms may wish to preserve evidence of existing controls and industry practices that they regard as effective, because the CFTC is specifically seeking information on crypto-specific contextual guidance and compliance practices.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the ANPRM publication and calculate the 60-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the October 5 press release.
• Firms should continue complying with currently applicable CEA, CFTC, securities, commodities, consumer-protection, AML, and state requirements because the ANPRM does not replace or suspend existing obligations.

What changed

The CFTC has opened a consultation process and is considering future rules referred to in market commentary as Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM). The ANPRM seeks views on preventing abusive practices in crypto asset markets and CTXs, providing crypto-specific context on compliance requirements and industry practices that the Commission considers best practices, and codifying a subcategory of designated contract market registration for crypto asset markets.

Key dates

2025-01-01

Beginning of the general period identified by the SEC during which the charged entities allegedly filed Forms ADV containing material misrepresentations; the publication does not specify an exact start date.

2026-08-27

The SEC announced the charges, disclosed the requested remedies, stated that the 38 ERA filings had been removed from its website, and referenced its related investor alert.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to perform a documented, line-by-line validation of Form ADV Part 1 and applicable Form ADV Part 2 disclosures, including business addresses, telephone numbers, websites, ownership, control persons, regulatory status, assets, private funds, clients, and service providers.
• Firms should consider retaining contemporaneous evidence supporting material Form ADV representations, such as lease or office records, corporate and ownership documents, fund records, audited financial statements, auditor engagement evidence, and records supporting reported assets and advisory activities.
• ERA and registered adviser compliance programs may wish to establish independent verification of counterparties' SEC registration or ERA status through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system and should avoid treating an SEC filing, certificate, or website badge as conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Firms that market investment advice to individuals should consider reviewing whether their regulatory status, Form ADV disclosures, and marketing materials accurately describe whether they are registered, exempt reporting, or otherwise authorized to provide services to retail investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate repeated or highly similar ownership structures, numerical disclosures, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, auditor names, or filing patterns across related advisers as potential indicators of coordinated fraudulent filings.
• Firms should consider escalating unanswered SEC requests for records and preserving relevant books, records, communications, websites, and filing-support materials, because the SEC expressly relied on alleged failures to substantiate Form ADV information.
• Private fund sponsors and allocators may wish to verify that purported fund audits were performed by identifiable independent public accounting firms with appropriate federal or state registration or licensing, rather than relying solely on statements in Form ADV.
• Financial-crime and onboarding teams may wish to incorporate the SEC's PAUSE list, investor alerts, foreign-jurisdiction indicators, website authentication checks, and independent corporate-registration checks into risk-based due diligence for purported U.S. advisers.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement complaints rather than a new rule or generally applicable filing requirement. The SEC alleges violations of Section 204(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which governs adviser records and reports including Form ADV, and Section 207, which prohibits untrue statements or omissions in applications and reports filed under the Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions preventing the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties.

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.