The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to ensure that contract “self-certifications” are detailed and product-specific when event contracts cover a wide range of outcomes.

In an advisory published Friday, the CFTC said that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking for prediction markets—operators may still certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable CFTC regulations under the existing self-certification framework, so long as they follow the statutory requirements.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC warned that platforms should not use broad, template-style self-certifications for events contracts that cover many permutations.
• According to the agency, “self-certified” submissions must include the terms and conditions for each proposed variation and a concise explanation of compliance for the product as structured.
• The latest advisory echoes a prior CFTC warning earlier this year about overly generalized filings.
• The guidance arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for comments on proposed rule amendments tied to public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Why the CFTC is pushing back on template certifications

The CFTC’s Friday notice focused on how operators describe and certify event contracts under the agency’s jurisdiction. The regulator highlighted concerns with the number of instances where platforms have “self-certified” event contracts without providing sufficient detail for each version of the product.

In particular, the CFTC criticized submissions that do not include, for each proposed permutation of the contract, the terms and conditions and a concise explanation and analysis addressing compliance with respect to the product’s terms, the underlying commodity, and the product’s regulatory compliance.

As the CFTC put it in its July 24 announcement, the guidance “reiterates that broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted.” The agency framed this as a compliance issue rather than a change to the underlying legal concept of self-certification.

A repeat warning earlier this year

This is the second time in 2026 that the CFTC has flagged the same type of problem. In March, the Commission issued an earlier warning about submissions that were “overly generalized,” again indicating that template-level descriptions are not adequate when contracts are structured to cover a broad range of event outcomes.

By issuing a follow-up advisory in July, the CFTC effectively signaled that its concerns are ongoing and that it expects operators to make practical adjustments to how they document certifications—especially for contracts with multiple permutations rather than a single, narrowly defined instrument.

The practical takeaway for platforms is straightforward: if an operator is certifying a wide slate of event outcomes under one certification approach, the filing must still be organized in a way that maps to each contract variation and explains how the design fits regulatory requirements.

Advisory timing ahead of public interest rulemaking

The advisory landed just days before the July 27 deadline for submitting comments on the CFTC’s proposed rule amendments related to public interest determinations for certain event contracts that fall under the Commodity Exchange Act’s enumerated activities.

While the Friday guidance largely addresses self-certification behavior, the timing matters because it underscores that multiple regulatory strands for prediction markets are moving at once: day-to-day product certification practices, and longer-term rules for determining when specific types of event contracts should be evaluated or restricted on public interest grounds.

The CFTC has proposed amendments that outline how it determines whether certain event contracts are contrary to the public interest. In the agency’s proposal, it would apply a three-step analytical framework to evaluate contracts, including those involving activities such as terrorism or assassination, as well as gaming-related considerations tied to the enumerated activities listed in the Commodity Exchange Act.

If those proposed amendments are adopted, the CFTC said they would reshape parts of the regulatory landscape for prediction markets by clarifying the evaluation method used for specific contract types. Legal analysis cited in the source notes that the proposal could represent a meaningful shift in how prediction markets are assessed from a public interest standpoint.

What operators and traders should watch next

For prediction market operators, the CFTC’s warning increases pressure to ensure certification workflows produce filings that are not only legally sufficient but also detailed enough to match each contract permutation and the underlying product structure. Investors and traders should watch for how platforms revise their certification documents—and whether the CFTC’s public interest rule amendments, due to be shaped by the July 27 comment process, later alter the types of event contracts that can be listed or how they are evaluated for regulatory compatibility.

The crypto industry, naturally, is urging passage. The common refrain online is that Clarity includes some investor protection rules and creates some structure for crypto products, while not passing the bill would mean there are no investor protections.

If the bill is to pass the Senate before summer recess begins, the first thing to watch for is a motion to proceed on Monday or Tuesday. This kicks off the formal process. If the motion to proceed is filed by Wednesday, one individual following the process said, that would still give the Senate enough time to vote on the bill before August 7, the last day of the summer session.

If the motion to proceed ripens — meaning it’s been an hour into the second day after the motion is filed, according to the Congressional Institute, a not-for-profit organization — there can be a cloture vote, most likely on the amendment in the nature of a substitute (i.e. the new text of the bill). If that passes, there can be another cloture vote later on for the actual passage of the bill.

“Recess deadlines are powerful tools,” Kristin Smith, the president of the Solana Policy Institute, told CoinDesk.

On a practical note, what this most likely means is we’ll see the motion to proceed Monday or Tuesday, two industry sources told CoinDesk, with a possible vote late next week.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to follow its rules when certifying event contracts that cover a wide range of possible outcomes. The regulator said some platforms are submitting “self-certified” listings without providing the specific terms and compliance analysis required for each contract permutation.

In an advisory released on July 24 and published as part of a Friday notice, the CFTC reiterated that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking—operators may still self-certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, as long as they do so within the statutory self-certification framework.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC warned that broad, template-style self-certifications for event contracts are not acceptable for listings under its jurisdiction.
• Operators are expected to submit the terms and conditions for each proposed permutation, along with concise explanations tied to the product and the relevant commodity and compliance requirements.
• The advisory underscores the regulator’s view that generalized submissions have been a recurring issue, with a similar warning issued earlier this year.
• The latest move comes just before a public comment deadline tied to the CFTC’s proposed amendments on public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Why the CFTC is pushing back on “self-certified” event contracts

According to the CFTC’s July 24 announcement, the agency has observed multiple instances where event contracts are being self-certified by platforms without supplying the full details the CFTC says it needs. Specifically, the regulator criticized submissions that do not include the terms and conditions of each proposed permutation, nor a concise explanation and analysis explaining how the product’s terms and conditions relate to compliance expectations.

The advisory frames this as a compliance execution problem rather than a blanket prohibition on prediction market products. The CFTC emphasized that operators can certify certain event contracts without seeking prior commission approval, but they must do so properly under the self-certification structure established by law and CFTC regulations.

In the regulator’s words, broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted. The CFTC’s concern is that generalized paperwork makes it harder to evaluate whether each individual contract listing complies with the CEA and applicable CFTC requirements—particularly when a contract covers a wide swath of events and permutations.

A warning issued twice in 2026

The July 24 advisory is not the first time the CFTC has flagged the issue this year. The agency referenced a similar warning on March 12, again targeting overly generalized submissions. By issuing the guidance for a second time, the CFTC is effectively signaling that it expects corrective action and that it views continued template-style filings as a repeated compliance failure.

For operators, this matters because self-certification is often treated as a faster path to listing products compared with seeking affirmative approval. If the CFTC continues to find that filings lack the required detail, platforms may face heightened regulatory scrutiny, which can translate into delays, requests for additional information, or more direct enforcement consequences—especially for contracts built around broad event categories.

Regulatory timeline: comments due before rule amendments

The advisory arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for submitting comments on proposed rule amendments related to how the agency conducts public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Those proposed amendments aim to clarify how the CFTC determines whether specific event contracts are contrary to the public interest under the CEA. The CFTC described the approach as a three-step analytical framework intended to evaluate contracts based on their involvement in certain enumerated activities—such as terrorism, assassination, or gaming—so that only appropriate contracts are listed for trading.

The proximity between the self-certification warning and the comment period is likely not accidental. For prediction market businesses, the next regulatory phase could change how contracts are assessed for public interest risks even if self-certification remains available in some circumstances. Operators will therefore need to reconcile two parallel expectations: submit sufficiently detailed self-certifications now, while also preparing for potential changes in the CFTC’s public interest evaluation standards later.

What changes for operators: from templates to permutation-specific filings

The practical thrust of the CFTC’s message is straightforward: when an event contract can take many forms—or when it is designed to cover numerous permutations—operators need documentation that matches that complexity. The CFTC’s criticism centered on certifications that do not provide, for each proposed permutation, the terms and conditions and a concise compliance explanation tailored to the product’s conditions, the underlying commodity, and applicable compliance considerations.

That means the template approach that may be common for scaled product development—where only a few parameters are varied across listings—could be viewed by the CFTC as insufficient when the certification is expected to demonstrate compliance for each unique configuration.

For market participants such as traders and liquidity providers, the filing quality issue may not directly change how contracts trade day-to-day, but it does affect listing stability and regulatory risk. If contract certifications are challenged, the availability of products could be disrupted, and participants may face sudden changes in trading access or contract availability.

Legal practitioners have also pointed to how the pending amendments could alter the regulatory landscape. Earlier coverage noted that law firm Ropes & Gray said the CFTC’s proposed changes could “rewrite the rulebook” for prediction market contracts, reflecting how significant the public interest determination framework could be if adopted.

What to watch next

With comments due July 27 on the proposed public interest determinations framework, prediction market operators should expect follow-on developments that could refine what the CFTC considers acceptable contract listings and how self-certification must be documented. The key question ahead is whether operators will update certification practices to avoid template-style submissions and how the CFTC will translate its three-step framework into enforceable guidance if the proposed amendments move forward.

For the second time this year, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a warning to prediction markets operators to follow the rules when creating contract certifications that operators consider cover a broad swath of events contracts.

The CFTC, which claims to be the primary regulator of prediction markets, on Friday issued an advisory clarifying that, notwithstanding ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking concerning prediction markets, the markets retain the ability to certify event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations without prior commission approval, subject to the statutory framework governing self-certification.

The agency on Friday warned about the number of instances of events contracts that are “self-certified” by the platforms under the agency’s jurisdiction “without supplying the terms and conditions of each proposed permutation and a concise explanation and analysis with respect to the product’s terms and conditions, the underlying commodity, and the product’s compliance.”

 “The guidance reiterates that broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted,” the CFTC said in its July 24 announcement. The regulator issued a similar warning about overly generalized submissions on March 12.

The advisory was issued just days ahead of the CFTC’s July 27 deadline to submit comments on its  proposed rule amendments governing public interest determinations for certain event contracts involving the Commodity Exchange Act’s enumerated activities.

The CFTC has proposed amendments to clarify how it determines whether certain event contracts are contrary to the public interest, establishing a three-step analytical framework for evaluation.

This framework will help assess contracts based on their involvement in activities like terrorism, assassination, or gaming, ensuring that only appropriate contracts are listed for trading.

The proposed rule, if adopted, would fundamentally reshape aspects of the regulatory landscape for prediction markets, law firm Ropes & Gray said in June.

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, says it will put new crypto trading infrastructure in place as the country moves its digital-asset activity into a regulated financial system. Interfax reported that Sberbank plans to create a “digital depository” by Dec. 1, alongside client-facing wallet operations for deposits, withdrawals and transfers.

The bank’s approach aims to shift the mechanics of ownership tracking and many transactions away from the public blockchain layer. Interfax said the depository will record clients’ rights to cryptocurrency and handle most transaction processing off the main blockchain, while Sberbank also operates active wallets to support customer orders for moving funds in and out.

Key takeaways

• Sberbank plans a crypto “digital depository” to record ownership rights and process most transfers outside the main blockchain.
• Interfax reports the infrastructure is targeted for completion by Dec. 1.
• Russia’s regulated crypto framework includes central bank oversight and sets liquidity thresholds tied to market size and volume.
• The timeline matters because the law defines categories of regulated market participants effective Sept. 1, 2026.
• Regulatory progress in Russia is unfolding alongside intensifying EU and UK sanctions involving major crypto service providers.

Sberbank’s proposed “digital depository” and how it would work

According to Interfax, the planned digital depository will serve as an institutional ledger for customer cryptocurrency ownership. Instead of relying solely on on-chain records to reflect balances and account entitlements, the system would maintain records of clients’ crypto rights and account for transactions outside the main blockchain.

Sberbank’s state-affiliated press service quoted Alexander Vedyakhin, first deputy chairman of Sberbank’s management board, describing the depository as a core element of the new infrastructure. He said it would track clients’ rights and support transfers by enabling transactions connected to “active wallets” used for deposit, withdrawal and client transfer instructions.

For market participants, the practical significance is that an institutional depository model can change operational workflows—particularly around reconciliation, custody accounting, and settlement processes—while potentially reducing reliance on public-chain activity for day-to-day internal movement and bookkeeping.

Russia’s broader shift toward a regulated crypto market

Russia has been working toward its first comprehensive crypto market framework. Earlier this month, lawmakers moved closer to that goal after completing final readings on a bill that would regulate digital-asset activity, according to earlier reporting linked in the source text.

The framework would grant the Bank of Russia broad oversight of a regulated market. The central bank’s role, as described in the source, would include deciding which crypto assets may be offered through licensed intermediaries and issuing implementing regulations.

Liquidity requirements also feature prominently. The Bank of Russia has set thresholds including an average market capitalization of more than 5 trillion rubles (about $64 billion) and an average daily volume above 1 trillion rubles (about $12.8 billion) over a two-year period. These benchmarks are intended to narrow eligibility and help define which assets qualify under the licensing regime.

Once the framework takes effect, the law establishes five categories of regulated market participants: crypto exchanges, brokers, asset managers, custodians and exchange service providers. The effective date for defining who can buy, sell, hold and exchange crypto assets is set for Sept. 1, 2026.

Why the Dec. 1 deadline could matter for regulated operations

The reported Dec. 1 target date for Sberbank’s digital depository suggests a pre-launch phase where banks and regulated intermediaries build internal rails before the broader participant categories become fully operative in 2026. In other words, infrastructure timelines are starting to line up ahead of the formal market framework’s effective date.

That sequence matters for two reasons. First, custody and settlement mechanics tend to be among the most complex components of bringing crypto into a mainstream regulated financial model. Second, the Bank of Russia’s licensing and asset-selection approach likely depends on firms being able to demonstrate controlled handling of ownership and transaction processing.

Even though the source does not provide additional technical specifics beyond off-chain recordkeeping and wallet-based customer operations, the intended function—maintaining ownership records and processing most transactions outside the main blockchain—implies that Sberbank is aiming to standardize how balances and client entitlements are managed within regulated channels.

Sanctions pressure continues as Russia formalizes its crypto rules

Russia’s regulatory momentum comes as external pressure on crypto businesses remains high. The source notes that the European Union has continued to tighten sanctions targeting Russia and has extended crypto-related measures affecting service providers.

In a Thursday European Council decision, the bloc amended previous measures “in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine.” The decision added HTX—formerly Huobi Global—to a list of 18 entities described as “providing crypto-assets services or payment services established outside of the Union” that significantly “frustrate the purpose of the prohibitions” against Russia. A decision published on the EU’s legal database is linked in the source text.

The HTX sanctions were reported as arriving the same day EU officials announced a prohibition on Belarusian nationals and residents owning, controlling or managing crypto exchanges and digital asset service providers under MiCA compliance requirements, according to the linked earlier coverage in the source.

Meanwhile, the UK government also imposed similar sanctions on HTX in May, citing “reasonable grounds to suspect” the exchange supported Russia’s government through financial services involving funds facilitated by sanctioned entities, based on the linked prior report included in the source.

Taken together, the developments highlight a split dynamic: while Russia is building domestic, regulated infrastructure for crypto trading, European and UK authorities are simultaneously restricting certain offshore service providers through sanctions and regulatory compliance measures.

Readers should watch how Sberbank’s digital depository plan progresses beyond the announced deadline and whether other regulated market players follow with similar custody and settlement infrastructure ahead of the Sept. 1, 2026 effective date for participant categories. At the same time, sanctions risk remains a moving variable—especially for cross-border access to services—so the practical impact on liquidity and venue availability may depend on enforcement and compliance decisions in Europe and the UK.