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.

WTI crude oil plunged by more than 7% on 27 July 2026 after the US suspended a series of strikes against Iran over the weekend, raising hopes of a diplomatic solution and the reopening of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, according to CNBC. Brent crude also fell below $90 per barrel. Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported that Yemen’s Houthi movement had claimed attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities in Jizan and Yanbu, suggesting that the conflict remains far from resolved.

WTI Technical Analysis

Since the beginning of July, XTIUSD had been developing a short-term uptrend. A rebound from the $68 area on 2 July evolved into a sustained rally, supported by an ascending trendline. This trendline held until the market peaked near $94.2, but it was broken on 27 July following a sharp gap lower. Since then, the price has been attempting to move through two key levels within the current market profile: the POC at $84.7 and the lower profile boundary at $82.7. If this area fails to hold and the decline continues, the green support level at $80.5 could become increasingly important. Notably, the gap occurred on relatively modest trading volume considering the scale of the price move.

Above current levels lies the upper boundary of the market profile at $90.3, which could become the next upside target if the market reverses. Beyond that, traders will be watching the red resistance level at $94.2. The RSI + MAs indicator currently reads 36, 55 and 60, suggesting that the market remains unbalanced and is still searching for equilibrium.

Summary

The relatively low trading volume accompanying the gap suggests that the sell-off may have been driven largely by emotion, leaving room for buyers to return if the geopolitical risk premium begins to rebuild. For now, oil prices remain confined to a narrow range between the POC and the lower boundary of the market profile, where momentum for the next significant move may be building.

Start trading commodity CFDs with tight spreads (additional fees may apply). Open your trading account now or learn more about trading commodity CFDs with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed the concept of “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto and stablecoin providers that are already regulated in one country should not have to restart the licensing process when expanding into neighboring markets.

Speaking Tuesday at the “One ASEAN, One Digital Economy” fireside chat during the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026, Zhao backed an approach originally raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva: a simplified approval pathway—or license portability—so regulators can still conduct due diligence, but without forcing applicants to complete a wholly new application from scratch in each jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

• Zhao supports regulatory passporting across ASEAN to reduce the “apply from zero” burden for already-licensed crypto and stablecoin firms.
• He framed cross-border coordination as largely a political issue, while suggesting the underlying technology and compliance architecture are manageable.
• A streamlined regional licensing model could lower compliance costs and encourage competition across fragmented ASEAN rules.
• ASEAN has precedent for simplified cross-border authorization in other parts of finance, though crypto-specific passporting does not yet exist.
• The EU’s MiCA framework provides a clearer passporting example, highlighting the contrast between region-wide rules and ASEAN’s country-by-country regulatory environment.

Why “passporting” matters for crypto in ASEAN

ASEAN countries currently regulate digital assets through separate national frameworks, which can translate into multiple licensing processes for firms trying to operate regionally. Zhao’s argument is that this patchwork discourages cross-border expansion and increases overhead—both of which can slow access to new services and leave costs higher for users.

At the same time, Zhao did not suggest regulators would be sidelined. His core position was that regulators should retain the ability to review and assess applicants, but that the administrative burden should be lighter when a firm already holds a license in another participating market.

In practical terms, that distinction could matter most for compliance-heavy business models—such as custody, exchange operations, and certain stablecoin-related activities—where duplication of documentation, legal reviews, and internal controls can become expensive and time-consuming with each new country entry.

ASEAN already uses simplified approvals in other sectors

While ASEAN does not currently have a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto companies, regulators have used streamlined cross-border mechanisms in capital markets to deepen integration. One example is the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) framework for Collective Investment Schemes (CIS).

According to the ACMF, its Collective Investment Schemes Framework “allows” a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The initiative began operating in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand in 2014, and later expanded when the Philippines joined in 2021. The ACMF describes the Philippines’ entry as an enhancement to ASEAN capital markets connectivity. (See: ACMF CIS cross-border framework and ACMF news release on Philippines entry.)

Separately, the ACMF has also introduced the “ACMF Pass” under its Professional Mobility Framework. This arrangement enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another jurisdiction without obtaining another full license. The ACMF details the Professional Mobility initiative and related arrangements on its website. (See: ACMF Professional Mobility and ACMF announcement.)

Zhao’s crypto “passporting” idea is broader than these finance-specific programs, but the examples underscore a key point for investors and operators: ASEAN regulators have, in practice, found ways to use mutual recognition and simplified approvals in areas where rules differ across member states.

Europe’s MiCA shows how passporting can work in practice

A closer analogue outside ASEAN is the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) regime, which includes passporting rights for authorized crypto-asset service providers. Under the approach described in earlier reporting, an authorized provider can offer services across EU member states after notifying its home regulator about the countries and services involved. (See: Cointelegraph’s coverage of MiCA passporting.)

Zhao’s comments suggest he sees alignment across ASEAN as more difficult than building common technical rails, partly because policy and regulatory approaches vary between countries. Still, his central claim remains: the pathway for a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should be meaningfully easier when it enters another—provided regulators can still evaluate the application on its substance.

What changes—and what remains uncertain

If ASEAN regulators adopted a passporting or license portability model for crypto, the biggest immediate change would likely be operational: firms could focus compliance resources on meeting baseline requirements, rather than rebuilding licensing dossiers for each country. That could also affect market dynamics by making it easier for licensed operators to expand service offerings, potentially improving competition and reducing consumer-facing costs over time—an outcome Zhao explicitly tied to broader regional participation.

However, a major uncertainty remains how “lighter” the process could realistically be under current political and regulatory structures. Even within systems that use simplified approvals, host jurisdictions often still apply their own rules or requirements. In other words, passporting can reduce duplication without eliminating local oversight.

For readers watching ASEAN’s crypto landscape, the next signal to track would be whether regional bodies or individual regulators begin converging on shared standards for licensing and ongoing supervision—especially for businesses tied to stablecoins and custody/exchange services, where risk controls are central.

Zhao’s endorsement highlights that the technology for cross-border licensing mechanics is not the main barrier; coordination among regulators is. The practical question now is whether ASEAN moves from principles like mutual recognition and streamlined approvals in capital markets toward comparable frameworks for crypto—without compromising local regulatory objectives.

Psalion announced its third and largest venture fund on July 27, introducing a $50 million Singapore vehicle for pre-seed and seed-stage blockchain companies. 

The firm said Fund III will target infrastructure, middleware, trade finance, real-world assets, stablecoins, decentralised finance and selected consumer applications.

The announcement was followed one hour later by Fund III’s first publicly disclosed deal. Psalion said it led a $4 million funding round for Beezie, a commerce platform that links physical collectibles with on-chain digital twins.

吴说获悉，数字资产投资机构 Psalion 推出其迄今规模最大的第三期风投基金，募资规模为 5000 万美元，将重点投资基础设施、中间件、贸易融资、RWA、稳定币及 DeFi 领域的种子轮和早期项目。该基金采用新加坡 VCC 架构，由持有新加坡金管局牌照的 Conduit Asset Management…

— 吴说区块链 (@wublockchain12) July 28, 2026

Psalion Fund III targets six blockchain sectors

Psalion said the fund will back founders connecting established businesses with blockchain rails. Managing Partner Tim Enneking described the strategy as investing where web2 businesses operate on web3 infrastructure. The firm did not publish target cheque sizes, its planned number of investments or a deployment deadline.

The release called the vehicle a $50 million fund, but it did not identify limited partners, committed capital or a first-close amount. Its headline said Psalion had “closed” the fund, while the body described the event as a launch. The available documents therefore support describing $50 million as the announced fund size, rather than independently confirmed capital already deployed.

Psalion’s website says its existing venture portfolio includes projects such as Solana, Aave, Sushi, Polkadot, Arkis, Hinkal and stablecoin protocol Usual. The firm also operates digital-asset yield and lending strategies for professional investors.

Singapore records limit the fund to eligible investors

Fund III uses Singapore’s Variable Capital Company structure and is managed by Conduit Asset Management. The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s directory confirms that Conduit holds a Capital Markets Services licence for fund management.

MAS’s CISNet database lists Psalion VC Fund III VCC as a restricted scheme. That listing means MAS has been informed of an intended offer to accredited and other eligible investors. It does not authorise the fund for non-accredited retail investors and does not represent an MAS endorsement.

Singapore’s Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority describes a VCC as a corporate structure created for investment funds. A VCC can issue and redeem shares without shareholder approval and can operate as one fund or as an umbrella containing separate sub-funds.

Psalion said Fund III led Beezie’s $4 million round. Beezie allows users to obtain physical collectibles through a gamified system, then keep an item or sell it back under the platform’s terms. Each physical asset receives an on-chain digital twin, according to the company.

Moreover, Beezie reported more than $170 million in gross merchandise value, over $85 million in year-to-date revenue and more than 30,000 active users since January 2026. The press release presented those figures as company data and did not include audited financial statements.

The capital is intended to support inventory purchases, geographic growth and expansion across collectibles, luxury and entertainment. Psalion did not disclose its individual contribution, valuation terms or ownership stake in Beezie.

The investment fits Psalion’s stated focus on consumer products where blockchain infrastructure operates behind the interface. It also gives Fund III a disclosed portfolio company immediately after its launch.

Crypto venture capital remains selective

The fund arrives during a weaker venture environment. As previously reported, Coinbase Ventures completed 30 investments during the first half of 2026, while broader fundraising slowed and capital became concentrated among fewer investors and projects.

Psalion’s target sectors continue to attract large rounds. Pharos Network raised $44 million for institutional RWA infrastructure. Citi Ventures also invested in stablecoin payments company BVNK, although the investment amount was not disclosed.

The next updates will be further portfolio announcements, details about investor subscriptions and any revised disclosures concerning the $50 million size. Fund III must also remain within Singapore’s restricted-scheme framework while being offered there.

No public token or listed security was announced in connection with the fund. There was therefore no verified market-price reaction directly tied to the launch.