The National Football League has urged the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to tighten its proposed prediction market rules, arguing that stronger safeguards are needed to protect game integrity and consumers.

According to The Closing Line, which obtained a July 27 letter sent to CFTC Chair Michael Selig, the NFL told the regulator that its draft framework for prediction markets contains useful proposals but does not go far enough to address risks tied to sports-based event contracts.

“The NFL’s highest priority is preserving the integrity of our games,” the league wrote in the letter published by The Closing Line. It added that maintaining that integrity is also important for the “stable and orderly administration” of event contracts linked to NFL games and for protecting traders who participate in those markets.

The submission comes as the CFTC considers public feedback on proposed amendments to Rule 40.11, which would establish a federal framework for reviewing event contracts tied to gaming, war, terrorism, assassination and unlawful activities. The comment period closed on July 27 after attracting responses from sports leagues, exchanges and crypto industry groups.

NFL wants tighter limits on sports prediction contracts

Among its recommendations, the NFL called for stricter restrictions on contracts that could be influenced by a single participant, depend heavily on officiating decisions or involve outcomes that may become known before the public, according to The Closing Line.

The league also asked the CFTC to narrow its proposed definition of permissible contracts. According to the publication, the NFL argued that the agency should better distinguish legitimate event contracts from activities that are effectively gambling.

Another concern involved the CFTC’s proposed 10-day review period for newly self-certified contracts. The NFL reportedly argued that the review window is too short and could allow contracts to remain listed before regulators have enough time to assess them.

Awards markets also drew criticism. The league questioned why contracts tied to honors such as “Offensive Player of the Year” should be allowed simply because their outcomes are decided by a voting panel.

On market integrity, the NFL asked for explicit rules governing the use of material non-public information. It also recommended mandatory league-specific prohibited bettor lists instead of allowing individual platforms to develop their own monitoring systems.

The letter repeated several recommendations the league has made previously, including a ban on margin trading for sports event contracts, advertising restrictions and a minimum participation age of 21.

CFTC has continued building a federal prediction market framework

The NFL’s latest submission arrives as the CFTC has adopted a more structured approach toward prediction markets rather than seeking broad prohibitions.

Earlier this month, the agency’s Division of Market Oversight issued its second compliance advisory of the year, warning exchanges against submitting broad, template-style self-certifications covering large groups of event contracts. Instead, designated contract markets must provide contract-specific terms, settlement methods, data sources and legal analysis for each product they intend to list.

The July 24 advisory did not eliminate the self-certification process. Exchanges may still introduce qualifying event contracts without prior Commission approval when they comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC rules. However, the agency said filings covering open-ended groups of contracts without enough product-level detail limit its ability to review settlement procedures, manipulation risks and legal compliance.

The guidance followed a March advisory reminding exchanges that they act as front-line regulators responsible for reviewing whether contracts can be manipulated and whether settlement sources are reliable before listing products.

At the same time, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 40.11 that would create a three-step review process for contracts linked to activities identified in the Commodity Exchange Act. Under the proposal, regulators would first determine whether a product qualifies as an event contract, then assess whether its settlement depends on activities such as gaming or unlawful conduct before applying public-interest factors to decide whether the contract should proceed.

According to legal analysis from Ropes & Gray cited by crypto.news, the proposal would review contracts individually instead of prohibiting entire categories in advance while also distinguishing games from contests, placing elections and award events outside the proposed gaming definition.

League takes different position from some sports organizations

Unlike the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball, which have entered partnerships with prediction market platforms including Kalshi and Polymarket, the NFL has repeatedly argued for tighter oversight of sports-related event contracts.

In March, the league sent letters to Kalshi and Polymarket asking the companies to withdraw several sports contract offerings, continuing its position that sports prediction markets require stronger integrity protections.

By contrast, the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has defended federally regulated prediction markets against state challenges while advancing formal rules for the industry. Since his appointment in 2025, Selig has supported treating qualifying prediction markets as legitimate derivatives subject to federal oversight rather than state gambling laws.

Recent court filings also show the Commission defending that position in litigation against Minnesota and win. The agency argued that the law conflicts with the federal derivatives framework established under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Kalshi and Polymarket have filed similar requests seeking temporary relief while their own legal challenges proceed. The dispute could determine whether federally regulated prediction markets remain available nationwide or become subject to individual state gambling restrictions.

The NFL’s comments arrive as prediction markets continue expanding across sports, politics, economics and current events.

CFTC data cited in its March rulemaking notice showed registered exchanges listed an average of about five event contracts each year between 2006 and 2020. That number increased to 131 contracts in 2021 before reaching roughly 1,600 new contracts during 2025.

More recent testimony referenced has estimated that CFTC-regulated prediction markets handled more than $25 billion in trading volume during 2025. The same testimony said daily listings on one major platform increased from about 1,600 contracts in April 2025 to roughly 162,000 by April 2026.

Apple is being sued by three customers who allege they suffered a combined loss of about $1.8 million after installing a fraudulent “Bitcoin wallet” app from the App Store. The lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Apple failed to properly review and monitor applications even as it markets the App Store as a trusted marketplace.

According to the complaint, the victims entered their Bitcoin seed phrases into the fake wallet, enabling scammers to move funds. The plaintiffs say their losses occurred during 2025, with reported losses of approximately $875,000, $840,000, and $120,000 across the three accounts, respectively.

Key takeaways

• Three plaintiffs allege App Store controls were insufficient, leading to seed-phrase theft via a fake Bitcoin wallet app.
• The complaint states total claimed losses reached roughly $1.8 million during 2025.
• Apple says it removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated associated developer accounts.
• Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app, which the filing and related developer commentary indicate should have mattered to users.

Lawsuit alleges App Store oversight failures

The lawsuit names plaintiffs James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis, and Jalen Delgado. The filing alleges Apple did not adequately review and monitor applications despite promoting the App Store as a secure channel for users to obtain software. A copy of the complaint was obtained by MacRumors, which reported on the case.

The core allegation is straightforward and common to seed-phrase theft scams: the victims allegedly provided their seed phrases to the fraudulent application, after which scammers transferred their Bitcoin. Each plaintiff reported losses of different magnitudes during 2025, culminating in the combined figure cited in the complaint.

The broader issue raised by the plaintiffs is less about one specific scam and more about whether platform-level processes—review, monitoring, and enforcement—were strong enough to prevent an impersonation-style wallet from reaching users.

Sparrow Wallet impersonation and the iOS gap

MacRumors’ coverage ties the alleged scam to Sparrow Wallet impersonation. Sparrow Wallet is described as being available for Windows, macOS, and Linux, and the wallet’s developer, Craig Raw, previously criticized Apple over fake versions of the application appearing on the App Store.

Crucially for users, Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app. That absence is significant because impersonation scams typically rely on confusion—users may assume a popular wallet exists on their device and may not realize that the genuine developer did not provide an iOS version.

While the lawsuit centers on the plaintiffs’ alleged experience, this iOS gap also points to a practical takeaway: wallet users should be cautious about any “official” claim for seed-based wallets appearing on mobile app stores—especially when the known developer ecosystem indicates a different set of supported platforms.

Apple says it removed the apps and took enforcement action

In response to MacRumors, Apple said it had removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts linked to those apps. Apple also stated that developers and users can report applications that violate App Store guidelines, and that it takes action against apps that do not comply with its rules.

This response frames Apple’s position as enforcement after detection, rather than an admission that the App Store’s gatekeeping was insufficient before the scam was live. For investors, traders, and builders, the tension here is important: seed-phrase scams produce irreversible outcomes for users, so the debate naturally turns to how quickly and how effectively malicious impersonators are identified and removed.

The case therefore sets up a likely factual dispute over timing and adequacy—what Apple knew, when it acted, and whether its review and monitoring efforts met the standard the plaintiffs argue should apply to a marketplace that promotes itself as trustworthy.

Why this matters for crypto users and the broader app ecosystem

Seed-phrase entry scams are among the most damaging categories of fraud in the crypto ecosystem because they transfer control of funds in a way that is difficult for users to reverse. This lawsuit highlights a recurring vulnerability: users often treat app stores as inherently safer than installing software from unknown sources, even though wallet-related attacks can still pass through if impersonation and branding are effective.

For crypto users, the dispute underscores several risk-control habits that remain relevant regardless of what the court ultimately decides. First, users should verify whether a wallet exists on iOS at all—particularly when a developer’s published support list does not include iOS. Second, users should avoid entering seed phrases into any app that was not directly sourced from official developer channels. Third, even if a platform removes malicious apps later, users may already have lost funds by the time enforcement occurs.

For app developers and wallet maintainers, the case is also a reminder that brand impersonation can cause real financial harm quickly, and that monitoring and reporting mechanisms may need to be paired with more proactive user education—especially around what is and isn’t available on mobile.

Readers should watch next for how the court addresses the alleged timeline of the fraudulent apps and what evidence the plaintiffs use to argue that App Store processes were inadequate prior to the losses. Apple’s response suggests it will emphasize removals and enforcement efforts, so the factual record on detection and action timing may be the central battleground.

Bitcoin (BTC) has regained some poise, recovering from Asian session lows despite signs of worsening risk aversion in equity markets.

The leading cryptocurrency by market value traded at around $63,500 as of this writing, up from the low of $63,065 in Asia, according to CoinDesk data. Prices are still down by 0.3% since midnight UTC and by nearly 3% over the past 24 hours.

In the meantime, e-mini futures tied to Nasdaq have slipped to 27,930 points, the lowest since May, and are down 1.2% for the week, having peaked near 31,000 in June. On Monday, shares in NVDA, the index heavyweight, fell by nearly 5%.

Earlier today, South Korea’s Kospi index tanked by 10%, alongside relatively more measured declines in other regional indices, such as Japan’s Nikkei.

Readiness matters because quantum computing poses a real long-term risk to the cryptography that underpins modern finance. Banks are especially vulnerable to “harvest now, decrypt later” attacks, which the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Leap has flagged as an immediate threat to the financial system.

The harvest now, decrypt later means that malicious entities could be stockpiling encrypted banking data today, waiting for the quantum hardware to catch up. Blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum face the same risk, which could leave modern finance exposed to a long-term security risk.

While practical, large-scale quantum machines capable of breaking bank security and blockchains such as Bitcoin do not exist today, estimates for when that risk could become real start in as early as 2029.

The HKMA is aiming for a perfect 10 on the Quantum Preparedness Index by 2030. To get there, the regulator is rolling out practical tools: a post-quantum cryptography toolkit being developed with Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s business school, plus a series of workshops to help banks build skills, improve crypto agility and explore quantum opportunities responsibly.

It’s not alone. President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders. One aims to accelerate U.S. quantum computing development, with a goal of producing a machine powerful enough for scientific research by 2028. The other calls for the federal government’s migration to post-quantum cryptography by 2030-31.

Bitcoin traded near $63,490 on July 28 after falling below $64,000 during a broad risk-off move across Asian markets. 

According to crypto.news market data, BTC dropped about 2.85% over 24 hours, with a daily range between approximately $63,055 and $65,546 at the time checked.

The decline began after U.S. markets closed Monday and accelerated as South Korean technology shares sold off. Bitcoin dropped from nearly $65,000 to around $63,200 before recovering slightly, while ether, XRP and solana also weakened.

The move places BTC back inside the lower half of its recent $60,000–$66,000 range. Technical momentum has softened, although compressed volatility, whale accumulation and the approaching Federal Reserve decision leave the next direction unsettled.

Asian equity losses added pressure to Bitcoin price

South Korea’s KOSPI fell more than 8% on Tuesday morning, forcing the Korea Exchange to suspend marketwide trading for 20 minutes. The Level 1 circuit breaker was activated after the decline remained above the required threshold for one minute.

Selling continued after the halt. The KOSPI fell almost 10% during the session, while Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix lost more than 12%. Concerns centred on heavy AI spending, financing risks and growing competition from Chinese semiconductor companies.

Japan’s Nikkei also fell about 4%, following a 2.2% decline in the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index during Monday’s U.S. session. Nvidia had dropped 5%, adding another negative signal for technology-linked risk assets.

Bitcoin often trades alongside equities when selling is driven by interest rates, liquidity or broad macro concerns. However, the relationship is not constant. Bitcoin may decouple when pressure is limited to company earnings or sector-specific capital-spending concerns.

Tuesday’s price action suggests traders initially treated the Asian selloff as a wider risk event. It does not prove that the KOSPI decline alone caused Bitcoin’s fall, because Fed expectations, ETF flows and geopolitical developments were moving simultaneously.

Bitcoin remains trapped between $60,000 and $66,000

The BTC/USDT daily chart places Bitcoin near $63,500 after repeated failures to establish support above $65,000–$66,000. Price has consolidated since June’s sharp decline, but it remains in a broader downtrend from the previous peak above $100,000.

The relative strength index on the supplied chart stands at 46.77, below its moving average of 53.49. An RSI reading below 50 shows that short-term momentum has moved slightly towards sellers, although it remains well above the traditional oversold level of 30.

Bitcoin price chart, source: crypto.news

The moving average convergence divergence indicator has also weakened. Its histogram is negative at about minus 104.93, while the MACD line near 219.58 remains below the signal line around 324.51. That structure shows that the earlier July recovery has lost momentum.

Ali Martinez said Bitcoin’s three-day Bollinger Bands were beginning to squeeze. Bollinger compression usually reflects falling realised volatility and can precede a larger move, but it does not establish whether the eventual break will be higher or lower.

Bitcoin $BTC 3-day Bollinger Bands are starting to squeeze.

Periods of low volatility like this are often followed by a major price expansion. A big move could be just around the corner. pic.twitter.com/ytFoCBIedh

Advertisement

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) July 27, 2026

Crypto Patel separately argued that BTC had broken trendline support, retested approximately $65,600 and faced rejection. His bearish scenario targets the 0.618 Fibonacci area near $61,000 while price remains below reclaimed resistance. That level is an analyst projection, not a confirmed destination.

The chart therefore presents three immediate zones. Bitcoin must recover $65,000–$66,000 to improve its short-term structure. The $61,000 area is the first lower support identified by the bearish Fibonacci setup, while $60,000 remains the main floor of the broader consolidation.

A sustained daily close below $60,000 would weaken the range and expose the June lows near $58,000. Conversely, a close above $66,000 would invalidate part of the short-term bearish setup and place the July resistance near $67,181 back in focus.

Bitcoin reclaimed $65,000 on July 27 as falling oil prices briefly supported risk assets. That recovery failed to produce a breakout above the wider resistance band.

ETF selling conflicts with whale accumulation

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded combined net outflows of $11.64 million on July 27, according to SoSoValue data. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust recorded the largest individual fund outflow at $8.82 million.

Bitcoin spot ETF net inflow, Source: SoSoValue

The daily total was modest compared with the $240.08 million withdrawn on July 24. However, another negative session shows that institutional demand remains uneven rather than firmly returning to sustained inflows.

ETF activity has become an important source of marginal Bitcoin demand. Persistent inflows require authorised participants to create shares and source underlying exposure, while extended outflows can reduce that source of buying.

One session should not be treated as a trend. The four-week flow direction offers a more useful measure because individual daily totals can be affected by portfolio rebalancing, market making and settlement timing.

On-chain data present a different picture. Santiment said wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 BTC added 19,696 BTC over eight days. The analytics firm also said wallets holding less than 0.01 BTC showed weaker dip-buying activity.

🐳 Bitcoin’s key stakeholders are accumulating. Wallets holding 10 to 10K BTC added 19,696 BTC in just the past 8 days.

🧊 Micro retail demand is cooling. Sub-0.01 BTC wallets are showing less dip-buying urgency, which often means late retail noise is fading.

📈 This… pic.twitter.com/Vr8XyLuNfK

Advertisement

— Santiment Intelligence (@SantimentData) July 27, 2026

The divergence suggests larger holders have accumulated while very small accounts have shown less urgency. Still, wallet cohorts do not map perfectly to individual investors. Large addresses can represent exchanges, custodians, funds or several customers rather than one whale.

Whale accumulation may provide support if those coins remain off exchanges. It becomes less constructive if large holders begin transferring inventory to trading platforms during price rebounds.

Fed, GDP and core PCE create a volatility window

The Federal Open Market Committee is meeting on July 28 and 29. At its previous meeting on June 17, the Fed kept the federal funds target range at 3.5%–3.75% and said inflation remained above its 2% goal.

Interest-rate markets assigned a roughly 38% probability to a 25-basis-point increase before the decision. That estimate represents market pricing and can change quickly before the announcement.

The July meeting is not marked as one accompanied by a new Summary of Economic Projections. Traders will therefore focus on the rate decision, the statement and the central bank’s language about inflation, energy prices and future tightening.

Thursday brings two major U.S. releases at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The Bureau of Economic Analysis will publish its advance estimate of second-quarter gross domestic product and the June Personal Income and Outlays report, which contains the Fed’s preferred personal consumption expenditures inflation measures.

A rate increase or a more restrictive statement could lift Treasury yields and the dollar, conditions that often weigh on Bitcoin and other assets without fixed cash flows. Under that scenario, the $61,000 and $60,000 zones would become more exposed.

A rate hold accompanied by less restrictive guidance could help BTC challenge $65,000–$66,000 again. Cooler core PCE data on Thursday could support that move, while stronger inflation or GDP figures could renew expectations that rates must remain higher.

The outcomes should not be considered in isolation. A hold on Wednesday could initially lift Bitcoin, only for hotter inflation data to reverse the move on Thursday. Likewise, a restrictive Fed decision could be partly offset by weaker economic data the following day.

As previously reported, Bitcoin entered July with the Fed meeting and ETF flows as its main external catalysts. The earlier analysis identified $58,000 as major downside support, while the market has since established a nearer resistance zone around $65,000–$67,181.

Bitcoin needs confirmation outside the current range

Bitcoin’s immediate trend remains neutral to mildly bearish while price trades below $65,000–$66,000. The negative MACD histogram and sub-50 RSI support that reading, but neither indicator confirms a full breakdown while $60,000 remains intact.

A bullish confirmation would require a sustained close above $66,000, preferably accompanied by stronger spot volume and renewed ETF inflows. That would return attention to $67,181 and the higher resistance area near $68,000.

A bearish confirmation would require a decisive close below $60,000. Such a move would break the current consolidation and bring the late-June low near $58,000 back into view.

Until either boundary fails, Bitcoin remains range-bound. The Bollinger Band squeeze suggests that volatility may expand soon, while the Fed decision, GDP release and core PCE data provide clear events capable of triggering that expansion.

FAQs

It’s highly unusual for the largest derivatives exchange operator in the U.S., the CME Group, to be at war with its regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) — but that’s now happening in a situation brought about by the agency’s decision to allow blockchain-based perpetual future products.

Last month, the CME sued the ​CFTC and its chairman, Mike Selig, challenging his decision to let ‌the prediction markets platform Kalshi and cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase (COIN) list crypto perps, decentralized derivative contracts that allow users to speculate on the price of an asset with leverage and no expiration date.

Now, both sides await federal court action that could have significant influence on how the U.S. approaches the rapidly growing arena, with non-U.S. perps volume reportedly growing to $60 trillion in volume last year.

CME claims the agency is mislabeling the products, and therefore misapplying the law. Futures need an end date, and the products known as perps are designed for traders to be able to take a financial position on an asset’s future without any deadlines. The lawsuit argues these perps are harmful to its long-dated futures products and alleges that the CFTC’s sudden embrace of them did not consider the ramifications.

Mounting tension between the two entities ramped up around the start of Iran conflict, which saw interest spike in perpetual contracts on oil prices traded 24/7 on off-shore decentralized finance (DeFi) exchanges like Hyperliquid, as well as blockchain prediction markets hosting trades tied to the oil markets.

Those on the side of the CFTC’s reforming agenda in this highly politicized schism are voicing frustration, if not outrage.

“It is unbelievably unusual to see the largest exchange in America attacking its own regulator, where the regulator is basically saying everybody who’s registered, including the CME, can offer these types of products, and the CME says no one should be allowed to offer them,” said Jake Chervinsky, CEO of Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) in an interview.

HPC is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit focused on creating compliant DeFi in the U.S, heavily focused on perps and on-chain financial infrastructure, and backed by a $28 million initiative from the Hyper Foundation.

Not long after CME filed suit, this disagreement took another turn, when the exchange made a bid to fast-track 24/7 trading for crude oil futures but was blocked by the CFTC. CME Group’s attempted 24/7 West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil contract is a traditional expiring futures product rather than a crypto-style perpetual swap. The CME had cited investors’ desire to manage their positions “whenever news breaks.”

Representatives of the CFTC declined to comment. At the time, CFTC Chair Mike Selig said on X that “CME’s decision to disregard the Commission’s effort to undertake a reasoned analysis of the critical issues at stake is wholly inappropriate.”

CME, which played a significant role in getting bitcoin futures listed and was helpful in getting crypto accepted and adopted in the U.S., has a deep influence over commodities that the exchange has successfully wielded in Washington D.C. over the years, thanks in large part to its outspoken chairman, Terry Duffy.

“The definition of a swap is pretty clear,” he said in an interview with CoinDesk. “When two parties exchange payments to each other, that is deemed a swap,” he said. “When you’re dealing in swaps contracts, that comes with obligations to maintain five-day margin and register with the CFTC as a participant in the swaps market.”

As such, the CFTC did not follow the protocol which is effectively the law of the land, Duffy claimed, adding a complaint that the CFTC may not be prepared to enforce its emerging perps policy properly, such as blocking non-U.S. traders from trading on Kalshi or other CFTC-regulated platforms. “What are you doing to police U.S. participants from not participating in something that it’s illegal for them to do?” Duffy asked.

“I’ve not seen an answer to that yet, but yet they’re holding up my 24/7 contract of self certification,” he said.

Duffy had tangled with opponents in the digital-assets space before, once debating then-FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried on the industry’s efforts to cut out intermediaries months before Bankman-Fried’s company collapsed and he was imprisoned on a conviction tied to fraud.

During the CME’s recent Q2 earnings call, Duffy addressed the growing market presence of perpetual futures, stating that institutional clients do not use perpetuals for hedging. He said that CME has “the full technical and operational capabilities to launch perpetual futures” but “have not heard demand from our customers for these products.” Duffy went on to describe competitors’ perp markets as “an incubator system that I’m not paying for.”

When it comes to the way futures contracts work on traditional commodities, the structure differs from crypto, according to Liz Davis, partner and co-chair of the financial services practice at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

“These perpetual contracts that started out in the crypto space are a different type of product than, say, pork bellies or crude oil,” Davis said in an interview. “There’s an underlying tension with these new types of products being offered on traditional commodities. Here you have delivery issues, and it really isn’t traded 24/7, because you have monthly contracts that you roll from month to month.”

Davis said there’s a lot to consider in a market in which the commodities the perps are tied to can be limited to trading only five days a week and set to only change hands within certain hours, as opposed to being always on.

“You just need to think through the various issues in terms of marginal liquidity and custody over the weekend; staffing and resources; your surveillance now needs to go over to the weekends and holidays, etc.,” she said.

Duffy’s crypto perps stance is viewed by crypto natives and DeFi enthusiasts as typical of the way large incumbents handle innovation that might threaten their dominance.

“It’s really going to come down to this sort of policy fight between this massive incumbent and the regulator who is trying to allow challengers to that incumbent, allowing competition that the incumbent doesn’t want to see happen,” HPC’s Chervinsky said, adding:

“The issue with the CME isn’t whether they’re pro or anti-crypto. It’s an incumbent using regulation to hold off competition, and they’re willing to take opposite positions depending on the moment to try to beat back the competition.”

So the future of CFTC-driven perps remains on a bubble as the CME readies its case, which includes claims that the agency rubber-stamped the Kalshi application, which had been submitted a day before approval.

“The CFTC approved perps despite a history of arguing they are swaps and without issuing a regulation despite seeking public comment in April 2025,” noted Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst with TD Cowen, arguing the CME may have the “upper hand” in this legal dispute. “This distinction matters as the regulatory and tax regimes for swaps and futures are different.”

Though the CFTC is meant to be a five-member commission, Chairman Selig currently occupies the leadership as its lone member, so his is the lone voice of the agency. And he wanted the regulator to clear a path for U.S. perps in the crypto space, signing off on a Kalshi product and approving customer activity at Coinbase.

“It’s interesting that this is being done with a single-person commission,” Davis said. “When you have a five-person commission, the rulemaking doesn’t go as quickly, because of the counter view. So you’re sort of getting deprived of that counter view, other than the CME bringing suit and their commentary.”

Representatives of Kalshi and Coinbase declined to comment about the perps regulatory situation.

So far, Selig’s agency is opening up this U.S. market through a policy statement — not a new rulemaking that gives interested parties a chance to comment and try to steer the outcome. It’s much the same crypto approach as its sister agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has issued a wide array of new policy statements without yet pursuing formal and durable rules.

The CFTC determined that a case-by-case review process was suitable for perps. As a result, Kalshi’s debut offering emerged last month, and the company said it reached more than $1 billion in trading volume in less than a week.

OKX has returned to South Korea’s Google Play Store after a four-day suspension, while Bybit’s app remains unavailable in the country.

According to a July 28 report by Digital Asset, the OKX: Trade Bitcoin & Crypto app once again appears in search results on South Korea’s Google Play Store, allowing users to install the application or update existing versions after it disappeared from the platform on July 24.

The publication verified that the exchange’s Android app had resumed normal distribution as of 8:00 a.m. local time on July 28. The restoration comes roughly four days after South Korean users lost access to new downloads and updates through Google Play.

Bybit, however, remains in a different position. Digital Asset said the exchange’s app, which became unavailable on July 10, was still blocked from search results and installation at the time of publication.

OKX becomes the first recent exchange to regain Play Store access

Only days earlier, Digital Asset had reported that the OKX app could no longer be found on South Korea’s Google Play Store, preventing Android users from installing or updating the application. At the time, other major overseas exchanges, including Binance and Bitget, continued to appear normally in search results and remained available for download.

The latest development makes OKX the first of the recently restricted overseas exchanges to return to the platform.

The restoration also changes part of a picture outlined by Digital Asset in a separate investigation published on July 24. In that report, the outlet found that at least 29 overseas cryptocurrency derivatives exchange apps had become unavailable on the Korean version of Google Play.

According to the investigation, 17 apps could no longer be found through search, six displayed an “Unavailable” notice, and another six showed a message stating that the service was not available in the user’s region.

At the time, both OKX and Bybit were included among the affected exchanges, with OKX becoming inaccessible on July 24 and Bybit on July 10.

Google’s restrictions have extended beyond the FIU’s enforcement list

Digital Asset’s earlier review also found that the affected exchanges fell into two categories.

Fourteen of the blocked platforms had already been identified by South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit as unreported virtual asset service providers and referred to law enforcement. The group included exchanges such as KuCoin, MEXC, BingX, XT.COM, LBank and CoinW.

The remaining 15 exchanges, including OKX, Bybit, Gemini, WhiteBIT and BitMEX, had not been referred to law enforcement by the FIU but were still unavailable through Google Play.

Based on those findings, Digital Asset reported that Google’s enforcement appeared to extend beyond the FIU’s published enforcement list. The publication said Google had indicated the restrictions were made under the company’s own policies rather than as a direct requirement from South Korean authorities.

Even while Android app availability changed, the July 24 report noted that affected users could still access the exchanges through their websites or Apple’s App Store.

Earlier policy changes laid the groundwork for the restrictions

The latest restoration comes against the backdrop of South Korea’s continuing oversight of overseas crypto businesses operating without local registration.

According to Digital Asset, the FIU classified overseas crypto firms that had not registered under the country’s Special Financial Information Act as unreported VASPs earlier this year. Google later introduced a policy to limit downloads and updates for such exchange apps on Google Play.

Although the policy had been scheduled to take effect earlier, Digital Asset noted that enforcement was not implemented immediately after the announced timeline. Restrictions instead appeared gradually, with multiple overseas exchanges becoming unavailable during 2026.

South Korean regulators have also increased enforcement across the digital asset sector beyond app distribution. Earlier this month, Financial Services Commission Chair Lee Eog-won said authorities had investigated more than 40 suspected cases of unfair crypto trading during the first two years of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, referring more than 30 cases to investigative agencies while expanding AI-based market surveillance.

OKX continues expanding in other regulated markets

The app’s return to South Korea comes as OKX continues to grow its regulated operations outside the country.

Earlier this month, OKX Europe launched a one-way conversion service allowing customers across 30 European Union and European Economic Area countries to deposit USDT and voluntarily convert their holdings into MiCA-compliant USDC after European exchanges tightened support for Tether’s stablecoin.

The company has also continued building its institutional business. On July 20, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo joined OKX’s board of directors after advising the exchange since 2023 on U.S. regulatory and institutional strategy. OKX has also been expanding its presence in the United States following the relaunch of its U.S. exchange and self-custody wallet in 2025.

Apple is facing a lawsuit from three customers who say they lost a combined $1.8 million after downloading a fake Bitcoin wallet app from the App Store.

The complaint, filed Friday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Apple failed to adequately review and monitor apps despite promoting the App Store as a trusted marketplace, according to a copy of the filing obtained by MacRumors.

The plaintiffs, James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis and Jalen Delgado, said they entered their seed phrases into the fraudulent app, allowing scammers to transfer their Bitcoin. They reported losses of about $875,000, $840,000 and $120,000, respectively, during 2025, according to the complaint.

Sparrow Wallet is available on Windows, macOS and Linux. Its developer, Craig Raw, has previously criticized Apple over fake versions of the app appearing in the App Store. The wallet has no official iOS app.

Apple told MacRumors that it has removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts linked to those apps. The company said developers and users can report apps that violate its guidelines, adding that it takes action against apps that do not comply with App Store rules.

Related: Binance disappears from Google Play in certain EU countries

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.

Fanatics agreed on July 27 to acquire Water Street Labs and CX Clearinghouse from BGC Group, giving the sports platform a federally regulated exchange and clearinghouse for its prediction markets business. 

Financial terms and a closing date were not disclosed. The deal has been announced but has not been described as completed. 

Once ownership transfers, Fanatics intends to list event contracts through Water Street Labs and settle them through CX Clearinghouse rather than relying entirely on an outside exchange and clearing partner.

Fanatics prediction markets move in-house

Fanatics Markets launched in December 2025 through a partnership with Crypto.com Derivatives North America. Fanatics had also acquired Paragon Global Markets, a CFTC-registered introducing broker and National Futures Association member, in July 2025.

The new transaction would add the remaining core market infrastructure. Fanatics said owning the exchange and clearinghouse would let it directly list and clear contracts across a wider range of events. The service is currently available through mobile apps and the web in 23 states and four U.S. territories.

As previously reported, Fanatics initially explored entering prediction markets through Crypto.com before launching the service in December. The acquisition would reduce its reliance on third-party infrastructure, although existing partner arrangements may continue separately.

The acquired firms hold separate CFTC registrations

The CFTC designated Water Street Labs as a contract market on July 16, eleven days before the acquisition announcement. A designated contract market is a federally supervised exchange that operates under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC rules.

CX Clearinghouse has been registered as a derivatives clearing organisation since April 2010. Its current CFTC order permits it to clear fully collateralised futures, options on futures and swaps. The business was previously known as Cantor Clearinghouse.

Those registrations do not remove product-level oversight. CFTC guidance says designated contract markets must file new contracts and certify that they comply with federal law, or request formal approval where required.

BGC will remain a prediction market data partner

Fanatics and BGC also plan to create data products combining prediction market sentiment with BGC’s traditional financial-market information. The companies did not provide a product name, release schedule or pricing model.

BGC said the arrangement would pair its institutional trading and analytics experience with Fanatics’ retail audience. Fanatics said the combination could connect consumer event trading with institutional participants. These are company objectives rather than completed services.

BGC shares last traded at $11.79, up about 1.2% from the previous close. Fanatics is privately held, so there was no public share-price reaction for the buyer.

Competition and legal risks remain

The acquisition moves Fanatics closer to competitors that control or closely align with regulated exchanges. Coinbase expanded Kalshi-powered prediction markets across all 50 U.S. states, while Robinhood has pursued contracts from several exchanges to broaden its product range.

Owning a CFTC-registered exchange does not settle the dispute between federal derivatives oversight and state gambling laws. In related coverage, Kalshi and Polymarket are fighting a state-by-state legal battle involving cease-and-desist orders, lawsuits and conflicting court decisions.

Fanatics may face similar questions as it expands sports-linked contracts. Its exchange and clearinghouse would remain subject to CFTC supervision, while states could still challenge individual products under gambling and consumer-protection laws.

The next steps are completion of the acquisition, any necessary ownership and rule filings, and the first contracts listed through Water Street Labs. Fanatics and BGC must also develop the proposed market-data products. Neither company announced a launch deadline, and the release did not mention crypto or blockchain integration.

Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan bill that has proposed insider-trading rules for prediction markets while preventing sportsbooks and other gambling companies from supplying liquidity or acting as market makers for those platforms.

The proposal, House Bill 2711, was introduced on July 22 by Democratic Rep. Tarik Khan and referred to the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee. Backed by 24 lawmakers, including 20 Democrats and four Republicans, the measure would regulate prediction markets through conduct standards and consumer protections instead of creating a licensing system or banning the products outright.

Pennsylvania bill targets sportsbook role in prediction markets

At the center of the proposal is a provision that would prevent a prediction market provider from operating in Pennsylvania if its liquidity provider or market maker knowingly conducts gaming activity in the ordinary course of business, regardless of whether that activity occurs inside or outside the state.

The restriction would also extend to parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, employees, and entities acting for another company’s financial benefit. In addition, prediction market operators would be barred from entering contracts or revenue-sharing arrangements with businesses that ordinarily engage in gaming.

The legislation does not define what constitutes “gaming activity” within the new prediction market chapter. It also leaves unanswered how the restriction would apply to exchanges connected to sportsbook operators, creating uncertainty over how regulators or courts could interpret the provision if the bill becomes law.

The timing is notable because several gambling companies have expanded beyond traditional sports betting into federally regulated event contracts. DraftKings recently launched its proprietary DKeX exchange after acquiring CFTC-registered Railbird Technologies, while both DraftKings and Flutter have pursued market-making operations tied to prediction markets.

If interpreted broadly, the proposal could prevent sportsbook-controlled firms from providing liquidity for prediction contracts offered to Pennsylvania residents. It could also complicate commercial arrangements in which prediction exchanges share revenue with casino operators, sportsbooks, or affiliated gambling businesses.

Unlike bills introduced in several other states that seek to prohibit prediction markets altogether, HB 2711 would regulate their conduct while separating their trading infrastructure from companies engaged in gambling.

Consumer protections accompany the liquidity restriction

Alongside the market-making provision, the legislation would establish several operating requirements for prediction platforms.

Participants would have to be at least 21 years old, while operators would be required to block self-excluded individuals, company employees, employees connected to settlement sources, and anyone possessing material nonpublic information.

Providers would also need commercially reasonable safeguards against fraud, market manipulation, and the misuse of confidential information.

The proposal would prohibit contracts tied to high school sporting events, sporting competitions involving minors, individual health conditions, and so-called “death markets,” which the bill defines as contracts related to a person’s death, assassination, attempted killing, or mass-casualty events.

Athletes, coaches, officials, political candidates, campaign workers, and others capable of influencing an outcome could face liability if they trade contracts connected to those events.

Rather than creating a licensing framework, the bill would give enforcement authority to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who could investigate violations, seek penalties, and stop platforms operating outside the proposed rules.

Companion proposal would create licensing and taxation

The conduct-focused legislation follows a separate prediction market proposal already pending in the Pennsylvania House.

Earlier this year, Rep. Danilo Burgos introduced House Bill 2497, which would require prediction market operators to obtain licenses from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board instead of relying solely on federal oversight.

HB 2497 would impose a $1 million initial licensing fee, require another $1 million annual renewal payment, and tax gross prediction wagering revenue at 20%, together with a 2% local share assessment.

The combined 22% rate would remain below Pennsylvania’s existing tax rates on licensed gambling businesses, which pay 36% on sports wagering revenue and 54% on online slot revenue.

Burgos has argued that platforms offering event contracts as financial derivatives bypass consumer protections and regulatory requirements already imposed on casinos and sportsbooks.

Although the two bills take different approaches, they have advanced along parallel tracks rather than replacing one another. Burgos circulated his licensing proposal in March, while Khan introduced the conduct-focused legislation in April. Khan is a co-sponsor of both measures, allowing the proposals to complement each other if lawmakers choose to move forward with both.

The approach resembles other recent Pennsylvania legislative efforts involving emerging technologies. In June, Gov. Josh Shapiro introduced the state’s GRID Standards for large data centers, pairing economic incentives with compliance requirements, while previous crypto-related proposals have similarly relied on targeted regulatory measures instead of outright prohibitions.

Neither HB 2711 nor HB 2497 has received a committee hearing or vote.

Federal dispute over prediction markets continues

The latest proposal also arrives while prediction markets remain at the center of a growing conflict between state regulators and federal authorities.

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board told the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in May that sports event contracts amount to illegal gambling under state law and argued that federally regulated exchanges function as unlicensed sportsbooks that remain accessible to people younger than 21.

Pennsylvania also joined a coalition of 40 states urging the CFTC to leave sports event contracts under state gambling oversight.

Federal courts, however, have reached a different conclusion in an important case.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 in KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling laws when applied to sports event contracts listed on CFTC-registered exchanges. The ruling upheld an injunction preventing New Jersey from enforcing its gambling laws against Kalshi and now serves as binding precedent for federal courts in Pennsylvania.

Judge Jane Roth, writing in dissent, argued that Kalshi’s contracts were “virtually indistinguishable” from products offered by DraftKings and FanDuel, highlighting the overlap between prediction markets and sportsbooks that Pennsylvania’s latest proposal seeks to address through its liquidity restrictions.

The state proposal also follows fresh legal battles elsewhere. As crypto.news previously reported, the CFTC recently asked a federal court to expedite its ruling against Minnesota before that state’s prediction market ban takes effect on Aug. 1, arguing that federally regulated exchanges fall under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than state gambling laws. 

At the same time, the agency has tightened oversight of event-contract listings by requiring exchanges to provide contract-specific disclosures instead of relying on broad self-certification filings.