Remittix has urged RTX presale buyers to register wallets ahead of the upcoming token distribution.

Remittix has issued a major reminder to RTX holders as airdrop registration continues ahead of the upcoming token distribution phase. Presale buyers are now being encouraged to register their wallets through the official Remittix site before distribution begins.

The update has added fresh urgency across the Remittix community, with holders moving to complete registration and stay connected before the next launch-stage announcement. As attention builds around the upcoming RTX launch price reveal, wallet registration has become one of the most important steps for presale participants.

Wallet registration is now the key step

The Remittix airdrop refers to the distribution of RTX tokens purchased during the presale. This is not being positioned as a separate free-token giveaway, but as the process linked to getting presale tokens ready for holders.

To register, users need to visit the official Remittix airdrop registration page, connect their wallet, submit their wallet address, and complete the registration page. There is also an optional section where users can add notification details to receive future updates linked to the airdrop and token distribution process.

Once the process has been completed, the page confirms that the user has successfully registered.

For RTX holders, this step is important because it helps keep them updated as Remittix moves closer to token distribution. The community is being urged to use only official Remittix links and avoid connecting wallets to any unofficial pages or accounts.

Token distribution moves closer

With registration now live, the focus is shifting toward the next phase of the Remittix launch process. Presale holders have been waiting for clearer updates on token distribution, launch price, and wider exchange activity.

The launch price reveal remains one of the most-watched updates in the Remittix community. As that announcement moves closer, wallet registration gives holders a direct action to take now instead of waiting on the sidelines.

This is why the current update has created renewed attention around the project. It gives RTX buyers a clear checkpoint before the launch phase begins and helps bring the community back into focus.

Live platform adds more confidence

The registration update also comes as Remittix continues to highlight its live crypto-to-fiat platform. The platform is designed to let users send crypto while recipients receive fiat directly into their bank accounts.

Multiple community members have reportedly received fiat payments into their bank accounts through the Remittix system, giving the project an active utility story alongside its token launch preparations.

That combination is now driving the latest wave of attention around Remittix. The platform is live, airdrop registration is open, and the community is waiting for the launch price reveal.

For RTX holders, the message is simple. Register your wallet through the official Remittix site, stay alert for future updates, and make sure you are prepared before token distribution begins.

For more information, visit the official website and airdrop registration.

FAQ

What is the Remittix airdrop for?

The Remittix airdrop refers to the distribution of RTX tokens purchased by holders during the presale, rather than a separate free-token giveaway.

How do RTX holders register for the airdrop?

Holders can register through the official Remittix site by connecting their wallet, submitting their wallet address and completing the registration process.

Why is the Remittix launch price reveal important?

The launch price reveal is one of the biggest upcoming updates because it will help shape expectations around RTX as the project moves from presale into its launch phase.

A group of 17 Democratic US senators has asked leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from using federal funding to continue lawsuits targeting state regulators over prediction markets. The senators’ request centers on Chair Michael Selig’s litigation strategy, which asserts that the CFTC has “exclusive jurisdiction” over certain prediction market products.

The letter—sent to the chair and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee—frames the issue as a practical and compliance-relevant question of federal oversight, state consumer-protection authority, and how enforcement resources are deployed in parallel regulatory systems.

Key takeaways

• 17 Democratic senators urged subcommittee leadership to block CFTC access to federal funds for litigation against state gaming authorities tied to prediction market enforcement.
• The senators contend that ongoing CFTC lawsuits could undermine state consumer protections and intensify a “race-to-the-bottom” dynamic across jurisdictions.
• CFTC litigation has targeted multiple states, while some market operators—including Kalshi and Polymarket—have brought related lawsuits challenging state actions.
• The dispute sits within a broader legislative debate over the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act and the division of authority between the CFTC and SEC.
• Legal observers have pointed to the possibility that one of the cases could eventually reach the US Supreme Court, potentially revisiting the balance of state authority in sports betting.

Senators seek limits on CFTC litigation funding over state actions

In the Wednesday letter, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, and 15 additional Democrats asked the appropriations subcommittee to intervene in the budgeting and oversight process governing how the CFTC can use federal resources. Their request is directed at preventing the CFTC from employing federal funds in Chair Michael Selig’s legal challenges against state-level authorities pursuing crackdowns on prediction markets.

The senators argue that the CFTC’s litigation posture risks distorting federal-state regulatory balance in a way that could benefit online prediction markets while reducing consumer protection and oversight. They specifically warn that the CFTC’s use of enforcement litigation as leverage against state authorities may enable platforms to evade local guardrails.

While appropriations do not determine the legality of the CFTC’s underlying statutory interpretations, the senators’ intervention signals a policy and accountability concern: whether enforcement resources should be used in a way that the senators view as escalating conflict rather than clarifying jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional fight: CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” and “swaps” characterization

At the center of the dispute is the CFTC’s position that certain contracts used on prediction market platforms fall within its regulatory authority. According to the senators’ framing, Selig and the agency defend the view that the event contracts in question qualify as “swaps,” placing them under the CFTC’s purview.

This jurisdictional argument has been tested across a growing set of state challenges. As of June, the CFTC has pursued legal actions involving prediction markets in a range of states, including Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. In parallel, some companies, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have filed their own lawsuits against state authorities, a development that underscores how quickly these disputes have evolved into multi-forum litigation.

According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the CFTC’s cases have included litigation such as its suit against Kentucky after state-level prediction market enforcement actions. Cointelegraph has also covered related operator litigation, including challenges that support the CFTC’s broader view of federal jurisdiction.

Potential Supreme Court implications and the sports-betting jurisdiction precedent

As the legal battles progress, some experts have suggested that the trajectory of these cases could ultimately produce a Supreme Court outcome. The concern is not limited to prediction markets alone; it also relates to the broader constitutional and statutory question of how much regulatory space states retain when federal agencies assert exclusive control over particular types of wagering or trading-like instruments.

The senators’ letter implicitly draws on the existing legal framework around state regulation of sports betting. In the 2018 Supreme Court decision Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Court held that states may regulate sports betting. If the justices were to grant review in one of the currently pending prediction market-related matters, they could be asked to clarify or revisit the scope of state authority under circumstances where federal regulators contend that certain products fall within an exclusively federal regulatory category.

For compliance and legal teams, the potential for Supreme Court review matters because it could reshape how state gaming rules apply to contracts characterized by federal agencies as financial derivatives. It could also determine whether state enforcement efforts remain viable when operators argue federal preemption or exclusive jurisdiction.

CFTC leadership, agency structure, and the CLARITY Act debate

Beyond the litigation itself, the senators’ intervention comes amid a broader debate over how US regulators should divide responsibility for digital assets and related market structures. Chair Michael Selig is currently the sole commissioner and chair of the CFTC, giving him significant control over the agency’s leadership-driven policy direction. The senators’ focus on appropriations reflects their view that the CFTC’s current approach is not merely an isolated enforcement matter, but part of a wider institutional posture toward prediction market regulation.

The CFTC is expected to have a bipartisan group of five commissioners in the long run, but as of Friday there had been no announcement of additional CFTC appointments to fill vacancies. That governance context can affect regulatory predictability: when leadership is concentrated, courts and Congress may scrutinize whether enforcement priorities align with statutory intent and legislative design.

Meanwhile, the US Senate is expected to vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal intended to establish separate regulatory roles for the CFTC and the SEC over digital assets. The prediction market enforcement controversy intersects with this legislative discussion because some stakeholders have argued that the CLARITY Act should not be used to extend federal oversight in ways that they believe exceed the CFTC’s mandate.

Last week, gaming organizations petitioned the Senate to add language barring sports event contracts from CLARITY’s coverage, contending that the CFTC was not created to regulate such wagers. This reflects how prediction markets are increasingly treated as a legal and policy test case for the broader question of how Congress intends to allocate authority across regulators.

What to watch next

The immediate next step is whether appropriations subcommittee leadership will act on the senators’ request to restrict federal funding for the CFTC’s prediction market litigation. Separately, the ongoing multi-state cases and related challenges by market operators will determine how quickly courts clarify jurisdictional boundaries—potentially culminating in higher-court review. Until then, uncertainty remains for institutions trying to map compliance obligations across federal and state regimes, particularly where contract structuring, derivative labeling, and wagering classifications overlap.

Key Highlights

• Tokenization platform Securitize anticipates $400M in capital from CEPT transaction

• NYSE trading debut under ticker SECZ scheduled for July 2

• Critical shareholder approval meeting set for June 29

• Minimal redemption requests preserve transaction funding

• Platform currently oversees $4B in real-world tokenized assets

The impending business combination between Securitize and Cantor Equity Partners II is projected to deliver roughly $400 million in total gross funding. Following a crucial shareholder vote scheduled for June 29, the transaction could finalize on July 1, paving the way for public trading to commence under the SECZ symbol on the New York Stock Exchange just one day later.

Minimal Redemption Activity Preserves Transaction Capital

According to recent disclosures, under 30% of CEPT’s Class A stockholders exercised their redemption rights. This outcome ensures substantially more funding will be accessible to the merged entity upon deal completion. The anticipated $400 million figure encompasses accompanying private investment but does not account for deal-related expenses.

The capital infusion will enable Securitize to expand its footprint in the rapidly developing tokenized asset sector. The firm presently administers over $4 billion worth of tokenized real-world assets across its platform. Its infrastructure powers investment vehicles created in partnership with numerous prominent international asset management firms.

Before the merger can proceed, CEPT investors must grant their approval at the specially convened meeting on June 29. Both organizations must also satisfy or obtain waivers for all standard closing conditions. Current projections indicate the deal will reach completion forty-eight hours following the stockholder vote.

Public Market Entry Positions SECZ on NYSE

Once finalized, the unified enterprise will conduct business publicly as Securitize Corp. The company’s common shares are anticipated to launch trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the SECZ ticker symbol on July 2. This public listing will establish a prominent tokenization services provider within traditional equity capital markets.

Securitize delivers compliant infrastructure enabling the creation, administration, transfer, and exchange of tokenized financial instruments. The platform collaborates with industry giants including BlackRock, Apollo, BNY, Hamilton Lane, KKR and VanEck. These strategic alliances bridge conventional asset management firms with distributed ledger technology-based financial systems.

The organization maintains multiple regulated subsidiaries spanning North America and Europe. Within the United States, its operations encompass a licensed broker-dealer, securities transfer agent, registered investment adviser, and fund administration entity. Its European division functions under the European Union’s specialized DLT Pilot Regime framework.

SPAC Transaction Stems from Late 2025 Agreement

Securitize and CEPT publicly unveiled their binding merger agreement on October 28, 2025. CEPT functions as a blank-check company sponsored by an affiliate of Cantor Fitzgerald. The framework established plans for the post-combination company to obtain a New York Stock Exchange listing.

In subsequent months, both entities have compiled comprehensive regulatory submissions and deal documentation for investor examination. These disclosures encompass CEPT’s mandated regulatory filings and Securitize’s registration statement submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The documentation details transaction mechanics, corporate structure, funding arrangements, and potential risk factors.

Citigroup is acting as financial and capital markets advisor to Securitize for this transaction. Cantor Fitzgerald provides advisory services to CEPT, with both institutions additionally coordinating the associated private placement offering. Multiple legal firms are delivering counsel to the companies and placement representatives.

Securitize approaches this prospective public listing with more than eight years of operational history in asset tokenization. The platform integrates securities issuance, transfer agency services, fund oversight, and secondary market trading within a unified regulated framework. The SECZ public debut would link its tokenization capabilities with enhanced access to mainstream capital markets.

SOIL has rejected claims that XRP Ledger users were used as exit liquidity after an on-chain analyst linked multiple token sales to wallets that allegedly received SOIL directly from the issuer.

According to June 26 X posts published by on-chain analyst Skeptic, blockchain data indicates that much of the early selling activity came from wallets that had received SOIL directly from the issuer rather than from ordinary market participants.

The analyst argued that the transaction pattern suggested issuer-linked distribution followed by immediate sales into XRPL liquidity instead of organic price discovery.

Skeptic highlighted several wallet addresses to support the claim. One wallet reportedly received about 68,766 SOIL across 20 transactions before exchanging roughly that amount for approximately 11,457 XRP. Another allegedly received 17,098 SOIL and later sold nearly 17,998 SOIL for around 6,769 XRP, while a third wallet received 20,000 SOIL and offloaded approximately 17,628 SOIL for about 6,683 XRP.

According to the analyst, the activity made it appear that XRP Ledger users had been used as exit liquidity during the launch.

Skeptic also argued that the pattern “does not look like healthy price discovery” and instead resembled issuer distribution followed by immediate dumping.

SOIL says bridge wallets drove the disputed transactions

Responding publicly on X, the SOIL team rejected the allegations and disputed the interpretation of the on-chain data. The project said the wallets identified by Skeptic were bridge addresses rather than project-controlled wallets and maintained that its team did not influence the token price.

SOIL attributed the sharp move in the XRPL market to strong buying interest meeting limited liquidity on decentralized exchanges. According to the project, arbitrage between centralized and decentralized venues functioned as expected once demand accelerated, while temporary price differences are common when market-making liquidity is relatively thin.

The disagreement continued after Skeptic argued that only the project initially possessed enough tokens to seed liquidity on XRPL. In response, SOIL maintained that the liquidity available at launch functioned as intended and only became strained because demand increased rapidly. Skeptic later replied that the project had simply failed to prepare for that level of demand.

The discussion later expanded beyond trading activity after another X user asked whether deposits of RLUSD locked in the protocol could be at risk. Skeptic responded that there was no evidence supporting such concerns and clarified that the criticism was limited to the token launch, concluding that the project had “screwed up.”

Recent XRPL developments provide additional context

The debate comes shortly after XRP Ledger released version 3.2.0 on June 22. As previously reported by crypto.news, the update introduced fixes for several software issues after a security review by blockchain security firm Common Prefix identified numerical and behavioral edge cases in the network’s core implementation.

SOIL has also been positioning itself as an early participant in XRP Ledger’s planned native lending ecosystem. Earlier this month, the project announced plans to operate on the proposed XRP Ledger Lending Protocol and Single Asset Vault framework once the XLS-65 and XLS-66 amendments receive approval.

Under the proposals, XLS-65 introduces shared asset vaults, while XLS-66 enables fixed-term lending backed by pooled liquidity.

Separate reporting by crypto.news also noted that blockchain security firm Halborn recently completed a re-audit of Ripple’s XRP Ledger Lending Protocol. The review found no critical or high-risk vulnerabilities and identified five findings in total, all of which were addressed, accepted, or acknowledged following review.

The audit examined transaction validation, accounting rules, state consistency, protocol limits, and access controls as Ripple continued preparing the lending framework for future deployment.