The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun developing a regulatory framework for crypto markets, seeking public input on how existing commodity laws should apply to leveraged retail transactions and the platforms facilitating them.
The agency’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), titled Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets, was published in the Federal Register on October 13. The document outlines two regulatory frameworks, Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM), covering the treatment of leveraged crypto trades and the registration and oversight of trading platforms.
The notice, listed under RIN 3038-AF80, covers 17 CFR Parts 1, 38, and 39. The CFTC has set December 14, 2026, as the deadline for public comments. The initiative would use the agency’s existing authority under Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to establish rules for certain retail commodity transactions involving crypto assets. It also examines how designated contract market requirements could be adapted for platforms handling these transactions.
The publication marks the start of a consultation process, not the adoption of new regulations. The CFTC is seeking feedback before deciding whether to advance the proposed regulatory approach through further rulemaking.
CFTC seeks to define regulatory scope for crypto transactions
The proposed Regulation CTX framework addresses when retail crypto transactions involving leverage, margin, or financing fall under the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The agency’s interpretation draws on Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the CEA, which subjects certain retail commodity transactions to federal oversight when they are offered on a leveraged, margined or financed basis.
Under the interpretation outlined in the notice, an offer of leverage could bring a transaction within the provision even if a customer ultimately chooses to purchase the crypto asset without borrowing funds. The treatment would depend on the circumstances of the offer and whether the transaction meets the statutory requirements.
The proposal also examines how the CFTC should determine whether a customer has received actual delivery of a crypto asset. Drawing on the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in CFTC v. Monex Credit Co., the agency considers whether customers obtain meaningful possession or control of the underlying asset. For crypto transactions, that raises questions about whether customers control their private keys or can independently access and transfer their assets.
An exchange’s internal ledger entry, without a corresponding transfer of meaningful control, would not necessarily satisfy the actual-delivery standard.
The distinction is relevant to centralized trading platforms that maintain customer balances internally rather than transferring assets directly to individual wallets.
New exchange framework would address crypto market structure
The second component, Regulation CAM, examines a specialized registration framework for crypto trading platforms operating under the CFTC’s designated contract market regime. Rather than applying existing exchange requirements without modification, the agency is seeking input on how its core principles should account for blockchain infrastructure and the operational characteristics of crypto markets.
The framework considers requirements for asset listings, market surveillance, trading systems, and operational risk management.
For asset listings, the CFTC is examining whether platforms should assess factors such as circulating supply, governance structures, open-source code, and the resilience of underlying blockchain networks. Market surveillance requirements would also need to account for price oracles, activity across multiple exchanges, and trading systems that execute transactions directly on blockchains.
The notice further examines operational safeguards, including smart contract vulnerabilities, validator diversity, formal verification, and procedures for responding to emergencies. The agency is also seeking feedback on whether third-party-audited proof-of-reserves reports should be required for customer assets held in omnibus custodial accounts.
These considerations reflect the challenges of applying traditional derivatives exchange standards to trading infrastructure that relies on distributed networks and smart contracts.
CFTC examines rules for crypto brokers and clearing firms
The regulatory framework also addresses the intermediaries that provide financing and clearing services for covered crypto transactions. Under the contemplated approach, firms extending leverage or financing to retail customers would generally need to operate as registered Futures Commission Merchants (FCMs) or through qualified banking institutions sponsored by FCMs.
The CFTC is considering how existing requirements governing customer disclosures, asset segregation, capital adequacy, and insolvency protections should apply to crypto-related activities.
The notice examines customer asset protections under Section 4d of the CEA and the agency’s Part 190 regulations, alongside the potential application of Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It also considers the role of Derivatives Clearing Organizations (DCOs) in handling the clearing of leveraged crypto transactions, including how spot transaction legs and guarantee arrangements should be treated.
For smaller trading facilities, the agency is seeking input on potential de minimis exemptions based on trading volume. The framework therefore considers how trading platforms, brokers, and clearing organizations could operate within a coordinated regulatory structure without necessarily requiring every business to hold all three registrations.
CFTC reviews different registration structures
The ANPRM outlines several possible registration arrangements for businesses operating in the crypto market. One model would allow a single entity to hold CAM, FCM, and DCO registrations. Other arrangements would combine CAM registration with either FCM or DCO registration, allowing firms to separate trading, financing, and clearing functions.
The notice also considers whether existing Designated Contract Markets could offer covered crypto asset transactions under their current registrations, subject to applicable requirements. Separately, it addresses transactions conducted through on-chain protocols that result in actual delivery, examining how the statutory framework would apply to those activities.
These structures remain under consideration. The CFTC is seeking comments on how different business models should fit within its existing registration and oversight framework.
CFTC opens door to perpetual futures on U.S. exchanges
The CFTC has also taken steps to expand the availability of perpetual-style futures in U.S. derivatives markets. On October 3, its Division of Market Oversight issued conditional no-action relief, announced on October 5, allowing designated contract markets to remove expiration dates from eligible perpetual-style futures tied to broad-based security indexes.
The relief is subject to customer-protection and procedural requirements. It follows the agency’s determination that perpetual futures can qualify as futures contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Unlike conventional futures, perpetual contracts do not have fixed expiration dates. They generally use periodic funding payments to keep contract prices aligned with the underlying asset. The relief allows eligible exchanges to convert existing perpetual-style products into contracts without expiration dates.
Public comments will shape further rulemaking
The December 14 deadline allows crypto exchanges, financial intermediaries, custodians, and other market participants to comment on the proposed regulatory approach. The feedback would help the CFTC assess how its existing statutory authority could apply to leveraged retail crypto transactions and the platforms that facilitate them.
The notice does not establish binding registration, custody, or operational requirements. Nor does it finalize the proposed CAM and CTX frameworks. Any subsequent regulatory action will depend on the Commission’s review of the comments and its decision on whether to advance the proposals through further rulemaking.
Also Read: Trump’s Crypto and Prediction Market Ties Could Face Congressional Probes if Democrats Win
