An XRP Ledger account could soon let another account make payments or approve customers on its behalf without handing over the keys that control everything else.

The feature, called PermissionDelegationV1_1, entered a 14-day activation countdown on Sept. 21 after 29 of the network’s 35 trusted validators backed it. It could go live on Oct. 5 at 11:18 UTC if support remains at or above 80% throughout the period, according to the live amendment dashboard.

At least 28 validators must continue supporting it. Any drop below that level resets the clock.

The upgrade lets an account divide its authority by job. A stablecoin issuer could allow an internet-connected compliance system to approve customer accounts to hold its token while keeping the keys with full control offline.

A separate operations account could receive permission to make payments without gaining the power to change those keys or grant authority to somebody else. Each delegate can receive as many as 10 permissions, which the main account can later change or revoke, according to XRPL documentation.

PermissionDelegationV1_1 is the network’s second attempt at introducing the feature.

Solana has moved its Alpenglow consensus upgrade toward public testnet deployment as developers prepare to test a design intended to cut transaction finality from roughly 13 seconds to around 150 milliseconds.

According to github, the testnet stage will let developers test the migration across Solana’s established testing environment before the consensus system can be considered for the main network.

Finality refers to the point when a transaction becomes irreversible under the network’s consensus rules. Exchanges typically wait for finality before crediting deposits, while blockchain bridges use it before releasing assets on another network.

Solana currently relies on TowerBFT for consensus, with validators recording votes onchain and accumulating enough votes across 32 slots before a block reaches finality. Alpenglow replaces that process with a protocol called Votor, which lets validators exchange votes directly.

Under the new design, validators can reach agreement after one or two voting rounds. The change removes the longer sequence of onchain consensus votes required under TowerBFT while leaving transaction execution largely unchanged for applications and users.

Solana Alpenglow moves into public testnet

Alpenglow has already spent more than four months operating on a smaller community cluster created specifically to test the consensus system. Moving the upgrade into Solana’s established public testnet exposes it to a larger group of validators, infrastructure providers and services already connected to the network.

The public testnet uses tokens without monetary value, allowing developers to restart the network, test migration procedures and investigate problems without putting mainnet funds at risk.

Anza first moved Alpenglow into community validator testing in May, describing the upgrade as the largest consensus change in Solana’s history. As crypto.news previously reported, the community cluster allowed validator operators to test the new consensus design before deployment across Solana’s existing test infrastructure.

Votor is designed to reach finality through one of two voting paths depending on validator participation. Earlier specifications indicated that a block could settle after one round when enough stake participates, while a second round provides another route to finality under lower participation.

The expected result is a sharp reduction from Solana’s existing finality time. Anza has estimated median finality at around 150 milliseconds, with earlier simulations putting it as low as 100 milliseconds under favorable conditions.

Developers have not changed how applications execute transactions as part of the upgrade. Wallet users will continue sending transactions through the same interfaces, while the main changes take place in how validators communicate and agree on the permanent state of the blockchain.

Agave 4.3 carries the Alpenglow code

Validators participating in the Alpenglow test need to run Agave 4.3, the latest branch of the main validator software maintained by Anza.

Anza recommended Agave 4.3 for general adoption among mainnet validators on Sept. 21. The rollout had previously moved through controlled stages, first asking operators responsible for 10% of mainnet stake to upgrade before expanding the recommendation to 25%.

Alpenglow development has been tied to Agave releases for months. In August, the 150 millisecond finality target was expected to arrive through Agave 4.3 after the underlying Alpenglow code had already been included for testing in the previous software branch.

The Sept. 28 date listed in Anza’s Agave 4.3 schedule refers to the tentative resumption of mainnet feature activation. Anza states that its release dates are subject to change, while its feature gate tracker still listed the Alpenglow testnet activation as pending early Wednesday.

Sept. 28 therefore does not represent a confirmed date for Alpenglow to begin operating on Solana mainnet.

The distinction comes as several Solana performance upgrades have been moving through separate activation schedules. Transaction finality, slot production and transaction capacity are controlled by different network changes even though each can affect how quickly applications interact with Solana.

Solana has already reduced slot times to 250ms

Solana recently cut its target slot time from 300 milliseconds to 250 milliseconds under SIMD-0525, bringing the network to a target of four slots per second.

The 250 millisecond slot upgrade reduced each validator’s four slot leader window from 1.2 seconds to one second. Network processing limits were adjusted alongside the shorter slots, meaning the change did not raise overall processing capacity by the same proportion.

A final stage under SIMD-0525 targets 200 millisecond slots, which would bring the network to five targeted slots per second. Developers have not set a confirmed mainnet activation date for that stage.

Slot time and finality measure different parts of the network. Slot time determines how frequently Solana can produce new slots, while Alpenglow changes how validators reach agreement that a block is irreversible.

Solana began the current sequence of slot reductions in August, when its target fell to 350 milliseconds from the 400 millisecond setting used since the network launched. SIMD-0525 laid out successive targets of 350, 300, 250 and eventually 200 milliseconds.

Alpenglow follows a separate path through SIMD-0326 and replaces TowerBFT with Votor instead of modifying the duration of individual slots.

Firedancer remains outside the first Alpenglow test

Firedancer and Frankendancer, validator clients developed by Jump Crypto, do not currently support the Alpenglow test, leaving the initial migration dependent on Agave.

Client diversity gives Solana validators different software implementations for participating in the same network. If separate clients are available, a software fault affecting one implementation does not necessarily affect every validator.

Firedancer began producing mainnet blocks earlier this year after years of development by Jump Crypto. The team initially recommended a gradual rollout while security audits continued, with the independently built client intended to reduce reliance on Solana’s existing validator implementations.

Frankendancer serves as a hybrid implementation that combines components from Firedancer with existing Solana software. Neither implementation is listed as supporting the pending SIMD-0326 Alpenglow feature on Anza’s current feature gate tracker.

Agave 4.3 is therefore the supported client for the first public testnet migration. Anza’s tracker lists Alpenglow as a pending testnet activation under SIMD-0326, while support fields for Firedancer and Frankendancer remain marked as unavailable.

Bitpace has integrated Fireblocks into its payment infrastructure to support cross-border stablecoin settlements across a platform that handles more than 75 cryptocurrencies and 40 fiat currencies.

Bitpace said on Sept. 22 that Fireblocks has been connected directly to its core platform, giving corporate customers additional transaction controls, digital-asset security tools and custody infrastructure for international payments.

The companies did not disclose the value of transactions expected to pass through the integration, implementation costs or a list of blockchain networks enabled specifically for Bitpace clients. Bitpace said the infrastructure will be used for stablecoin transfers, multi-currency treasury activity and payment settlement across international markets.

Bitpace integrates Fireblocks into stablecoin settlement

Through the deployment, Bitpace customers can route and settle stablecoin transfers using Fireblocks infrastructure without Bitpace building a separate security and transaction-management layer for each payment flow.

Russia has warned that investors may have to absorb losses when foreign stablecoin issuers freeze assets outside a Russian depository’s control, as officials estimate residents hold 3.7 trillion rubles, or roughly $44 billion, in crypto and related products.

TASS reported that Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov put Russia’s crypto user base at around 20 million and daily transaction volume at approximately 50 billion rubles during an interview published Sept. 22. He said the holdings estimate includes direct cryptocurrency ownership and some financial products linked to digital assets.

The figures are expert estimates used by the Finance Ministry, not a complete government count of every wallet or transaction. Officials expect the new regulated framework to provide more precise data as activity moves through licensed exchanges, brokers and digital depositories.

Foreign stablecoin freezes can leave investors with losses

Chebeskov said foreign-issued stablecoins create a risk that Russian infrastructure cannot always control.

“The risk of assets being blocked by a foreign issuer does exist,” he said, using USDT and USDC as examples. Under the framework described by the deputy minister, a Russian digital depository remains responsible for failures in its own accounting, custody and transfer duties, including unauthorized disposal of customer assets.

Federal Law No. 282-FZ draws a separate line for actions carried out by foreign entities. Article 20 permits contracts, including exchange rules, to state that market operators, platform operators and clearing organizations are not liable for customer losses caused by foreign-law persons that seize digital assets or restrict transactions.

Chebeskov said a freeze imposed by a foreign issuer for reasons outside the Russian depository’s control would therefore not automatically require the depository to reimburse the customer.

The issue has already appeared in Russia’s crypto market. Tether said in March 2025 that it helped the U.S. Secret Service freeze $23 million in USDT connected to transactions involving sanctioned Russian exchange Garantex. U.S. authorities later said a coordinated enforcement operation froze more than $26 million in cryptocurrency controlled by the exchange.

As previously reported, Tether’s freeze forced Garantex to suspend operations after billions of rubles in USDT became inaccessible. The incident provides a documented example of the issuer-level control Russian officials now want investors to understand before buying foreign stablecoins.

Circle’s terms similarly state that the issuer can block USDC addresses linked to prohibited activity and may freeze tokens when required by a valid government order.

Russia puts its crypto market at 3.7 trillion rubles

Chebeskov said experts estimate about 20 million people in Russia currently use cryptocurrency.

Their combined investment exposure stands near 3.7 trillion rubles, according to the Finance Ministry estimate. The amount covers cryptocurrency held directly alongside certain crypto-linked financial products, meaning it should not be treated as a pure on-chain wallet-balance total.

Daily crypto activity is estimated at roughly 50 billion rubles. Chebeskov said regulators are not setting a fixed target for how much of that activity must migrate into licensed channels by July 2027. Their immediate focus is creating a market where intermediaries, responsibilities and investor protections can be identified.

Russia’s main cryptocurrency law took effect on Sept. 1. The Bank of Russia said both qualified and nonqualified investors may trade crypto through regulated intermediaries under the new framework. Domestic use of cryptocurrency as payment for goods and services remains prohibited.

As previously reported, Russia opened regulated cryptocurrency trading under Federal Law 282-FZ on Sept. 1, bringing exchanges, brokers, custody providers and cross-border settlement activity into a formal supervisory structure.

For nonqualified investors, the law permits purchases of eligible liquid cryptocurrencies after testing, capped at 300,000 rubles per year through each intermediary. Qualified investors must pass testing as well but do not face the same purchase ceiling.

Foreign crypto activity will trigger tax reporting

Russia’s new rules preserve the ability of residents to use cryptocurrency infrastructure outside the domestic regulated system, but reporting requirements are being added.

Amendments to Russia’s currency-control law state that residents can use addresses not administered by Russian digital depositories. Starting May 2, 2027, covered residents must submit reports to tax authorities on crypto operations involving such addresses, subject to procedures set by the government in coordination with the Bank of Russia.

Chebeskov said Russian tax residents will need to disclose qualifying transactions conducted outside the regulated domestic perimeter to the Federal Tax Service. The reporting framework covers transactions using addresses that Russian digital depositories do not administer.

The rule does not ban self-custody. Federal legislation explicitly permits residents to open non-depository-administered addresses without restriction. Reporting obligations apply to relevant transactions and differ for some residents who spend more than 183 days outside Russia.

The Bank of Russia has meanwhile begun publishing the secondary regulations needed to operate the market. It outlined rules covering organized crypto trading, digital accounts and depositories in July, with required depository capital ranging from 50 million to 250 million rubles depending on the services provided.

Independent cryptocurrency exchanges face a lower threshold. The central bank’s current admission rules set minimum own funds at 15 million rubles for organizations exchanging digital currencies.

Market participants receive a transition period running through July 1, 2027, to obtain the required approvals and bring their operations into line with the framework.

Russian stablecoin model remains under discussion

The Finance Ministry and Bank of Russia are separately studying whether Russia should develop a domestic stablecoin structure.

Chebeskov said it is “too early to talk about a specific model or a final bill.” Officials are examining how such an asset might operate, which transactions it could support and whether there is enough demand to justify a separate framework.

Russian policymakers have discussed local stablecoin alternatives before. Following the Garantex freeze in 2025, Finance Ministry official Osman Kabaloev said the episode had prompted officials to consider instruments similar to USDT but potentially linked to other currencies. As crypto.news previously reported, Russia’s Finance Ministry raised the possibility of a domestic stablecoin after the Tether freeze.

The current law already applies Russian crypto-market requirements to foreign stablecoins. The Bank of Russia confirmed that rules governing cryptocurrencies apply to foreign stablecoins as part of the regulated trading regime.

Enforcement provisions are still developing. Article 21 of Federal Law 282-FZ, scheduled to take effect July 1, 2027, requires banks to restrict payments to entities suspected of illegally organizing cryptocurrency circulation outside the authorized framework.

A separate government bill would create criminal liability for unlicensed digital-currency market operations that cause large losses or generate large illicit income. The State Duma has passed the proposal in first reading, but it has not become law. The draft provides prison terms of up to seven years for aggravated cases and proposes a July 1, 2027 effective date if enacted.

What actually works is, not surprisingly, the buddy-comedy stuff—the sillier, the better. Matthew and Woody squished into a rideshare with too many rowdy, young fans? A treat. Woody and Matthew donning ridiculous Sunset Strip rocker disguises, complete with facial prosthetics, to play an acoustic set at a coffee shop? Classic. Showrunner Lee Eisenberg (Stick, The Office), who created Brothers alongside McConaughey, Harrelson, and Schitt’s Creek alum David West Read, understands his leads’ personae, and they’re more than game to laugh at themselves. The series opens by showing us the versions that live in the public imagination; Woody enters smoking a joint and holding a surfboard, while Matthew roams the sun-dappled fields of Texas, sipping whisky in a cowboy hat as he recites an excerpt from his megahit memoir Greenlights in voiceover. He plays the charismatic, image-conscious, golden-boy straight man to Woody’s free-thinking hippie, a guy who doesn’t let fame stop him being as weird as he wants to be.

Security researchers have traced nearly $580,000 in stolen crypto to a malicious iOS application distributed through Apple’s App Store. According to an investigation by blockchain security firm SlowMist, the app—named FomoPeek—contained kernel exploitation capabilities designed to break out of Apple’s sandbox and reach sensitive wallet-related data.

SlowMist says the incident involved multiple attack modules that could elevate privileges and steal data stored by other apps, including items accessible via iOS Keychain mechanisms. The firm also tied onchain activity to a primary hacker address that received 579,984 USDT, with funds later routed across several services and networks.

Key takeaways

• SlowMist links the FomoPeek iOS app to about 579,984 USDT in stolen funds, based on onchain analysis.
• The malicious components were distributed in specific app versions released on Sept. 9 and Sept. 12, and removed in version 1.3 released Sept. 17.
• The exploit framework targeted iOS versions broadly (12.0 to 18.7.2 and 26.0 to 26.1) and included multiple methods for sandbox escape.
• SlowMist’s tracing indicates cross-network movement, followed by consolidation and transfers through intermediaries such as FixedFloat, KuCoin, and cce.cash.

What researchers say the app did

In its threat-intelligence analysis, SlowMist reports that FomoPeek introduced two malicious modules capable of exploiting iOS vulnerabilities. The firm describes how these components could help the app escape Apple’s sandbox environment, then gain elevated privileges to access sensitive data and files associated with other apps.

The report specifically highlights the ability to reach data stored in the Keychain, a common target for attackers looking to obtain credentials, tokens, or other secrets used by mobile applications. Once those privileges are gained, the scope of theft can broaden quickly—especially for users who already have crypto wallet software or related services installed on the same device.

Version timeline and what changed

SlowMist’s investigation provides a narrow window for when the harmful code was present. The firm says the affected FomoPeek versions were released on Sept. 9 and Sept. 12. It then points to a mitigation step: version 1.3**, released on Sept. 17, that removed the malicious components.

The detail matters for users and defenders because it implies the threat was not continuous across the entire app’s lifecycle. Instead, it appears tied to particular builds—meaning that devices running older versions would be at the highest risk, while later versions may have reduced exposure.

SlowMist also states that its work began after it received reports from users who said they experienced crypto theft and confirmed they had installed FomoPeek builds that fell within the affected period. The firm conducted the technical work together with the OKX security team.

Onchain trail: 579,984 USDT and cross-platform routing

To connect the iOS compromise to real-world losses, SlowMist performed onchain analysis. The firm says it identified a primary hacker address associated with the incident that received approximately 579,984 USDT.

SlowMist reports that this address became active on Sept. 15 and that the stolen funds were handled across multiple blockchain networks before being consolidated. From there, the flow continued through additional hops and addresses designed to obscure the trail.

In the report, SlowMist notes that portions of the funds were directed toward services including FixedFloat, KuCoin, and cce.cash. Other funds were dispersed across further addresses that the firm continued to trace.

While onchain movement cannot prove the full mechanics of the compromise by itself, it does provide a measurable link between the suspected attacker infrastructure and the ultimate transfer behavior. It also helps explain why such incidents often become multi-stage: initial theft on-device can be followed by rapid conversion, relocation, and consolidation efforts across chains and counterparties.

Targets, scope, and the exploit framework

SlowMist says the exploit framework used by FomoPeek included eight attack methods and claimed support for a wide range of iOS versions—specifically 12.0 to 18.7.2 and also 26.0 to 26.1.

That breadth is notable because iOS versions are not uniform, and exploit reliability can vary widely depending on device and patch level. A broader claimed range can indicate an attempt at wide applicability, which increases potential impact beyond a single narrow segment of users.

Still, the report’s most practical takeaway for users is not the list of supported versions—it’s the version-specific presence of the malicious code. If the harmful components were truly removed in version 1.3 on Sept. 17, that suggests updated installs could have helped limit damage going forward.

Cointelegraph attempted to request comments from Apple, SlowMist, and OKX, but did not receive responses before publication.

Readers should watch closely for follow-up disclosures from the security community and, most importantly, verify whether they have installed FomoPeek and which app version is currently on their devices. If a user still has any affected build installed, removing the application and updating to a later version would be a sensible immediate step, alongside reviewing wallet activity for any unusual transfers.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emerged as a leading candidate to become President Donald Trump’s next artificial intelligence czar as the administration prepares to establish a new “AI Force.”

Semafor reported on Sept. 22 that Bessent is among the officials being considered for the position, citing three people familiar with the matter. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios, Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross are among the other names under consideration.

No appointment has been finalized. White House spokesperson Kush Desai pushed back against reports about the personnel deliberations, telling Semafor that “any reporting about personnel decisions that have not been officially announced by the administration should be regarded as baseless speculation.”

Trump announced on Sept. 19 that he planned to appoint a new AI czar and create an “AI Force,” but provided few details about its structure, authority or membership. Reuters reported that the announcement came as Washington faced renewed debate over AI safety and the pace of development, while Trump continued to favor using existing legal frameworks to address misuse instead of imposing new restrictions on the industry.

Bessent has taken a bigger AI policy role

Bessent has become more involved in the administration’s AI discussions this year, extending his work beyond Treasury’s traditional financial and economic policy responsibilities.

During meetings held around the United Nations General Assembly this week, Bessent spoke with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng about establishing a formal U.S. China dialogue on artificial intelligence. Their discussions included a possible notification system that could allow the two governments to communicate when AI incidents pose national security risks.

Bessent said in a CNBC interview earlier this week that appointing an AI czar could help put “context, shape and contours” around questions raised by artificial intelligence. He maintained that humans ultimately remain responsible for decisions involving AI systems.

His involvement grew after financial institutions raised concerns that advanced AI systems could expose weaknesses in their operations, according to Semafor. Bessent subsequently became a more active participant in discussions surrounding AI policy inside the administration.

The Treasury secretary already holds a prominent position in Trump’s technology and digital asset agenda. Bessent has repeatedly represented the administration on cryptocurrency regulation, including its push for congressional market structure legislation and its policy toward the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

In May, Bessent urged lawmakers to advance the CLARITY Act while reaffirming that the Trump administration opposed the creation of a U.S. central bank digital currency. He argued that clearer rules were needed to bring more digital asset activity into the United States.

A few days later, crypto.news previously reported that Bessent backed expanding the reserve while appearing before the Senate Finance Committee. He told lawmakers that the administration remained committed to developing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and wanted durable rules governing the initiative.

Trump is replacing the role once held by Sacks

Trump previously assigned AI and cryptocurrency policy to venture capitalist David Sacks, who became the White House AI and crypto czar after Trump announced his appointment in December 2024.

Sacks ended his czar term in March after reaching the 130 day service limit applying to his position as a special government employee. He continued working with the administration through the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, where he serves as a co chair.

Trump’s Sept. 19 announcement therefore sets up the first formal replacement for the AI czar position since Sacks left the government role. Reuters reported that Sacks continues advising Trump despite no longer serving as a special government employee.

Sacks has remained a prominent voice in the administration’s AI debate, particularly around regulation and competition with China. In July, he warned about Chinese AI after Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 reached first place on the Frontend Code Arena. Sacks argued that restrictive U.S. rules could weaken American developers as Chinese models improved across several benchmarks.

Trump has used a similar competition argument when discussing both cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. During his July push for the CLARITY Act, he framed the legislation around competition with China and presented technological leadership in crypto and AI as part of the same U.S. policy challenge.

White House has resisted strict AI rules

Any new AI czar would enter the role while the administration continues to favor a relatively light federal regulatory approach toward artificial intelligence.

The White House’s National AI Policy Framework released earlier this year favored voluntary agreements with technology companies over prescriptive federal requirements and called for Congress to preempt state AI laws considered excessively burdensome to innovation. The administration’s AI framework placed technology development and U.S. competitiveness among its main priorities.

Trump has continued resisting calls to slow AI development even as executives and researchers raise concerns over increasingly capable models. His Sept. 19 announcement did not explain whether the planned AI Force would have regulatory authority or how it would interact with existing federal agencies.

At the same time, Washington and Beijing have started discussing possible cooperation on some AI risks. Semafor reported that Bessent and He explored a notification mechanism for incidents with national security implications as part of discussions about establishing a formal bilateral AI channel.

OpenAI head of national security policy Sasha Baker said at a Sept. 22 Semafor event that an AI crisis communication line between the United States and China could provide a “starting place” for cooperation. Baker said both countries host leading AI laboratories, while other countries have an interest in decisions surrounding advanced AI systems.

Several officials remain in consideration

Bessent is not the only administration official being discussed for the czar position, and Trump has not publicly identified a preferred candidate.

Kratsios already oversees technology policy as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Kupor entered government after previously serving as a managing partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, while Cairncross serves as National Cyber Director.

Semafor reported that Bessent and Cairncross previously disagreed over Anthropic’s Mythos model in May, pointing to differences within the administration over how officials should approach individual AI systems and companies.

Holding the Treasury post would not necessarily prevent Bessent from taking the additional assignment. Semafor noted that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has retained his Cabinet position while simultaneously serving in an administration coordinating role on energy policy.

Trump’s decision remains pending, and the White House has not confirmed Bessent, Kratsios, Kupor, Cairncross or any other official as the next AI czar.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has warned federally regulated prediction markets that contracts settling on what named people say, attend or do may face a presumption of being readily susceptible to manipulation.

The CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight issued the staff advisory on Sept. 22, covering contracts based on specific words or phrases, event attendance, public appearances and interactions between individuals. The guidance applies directly to designated contract markets and describes only limited circumstances in which such products may satisfy existing federal market-integrity requirements.

Unlike a new Commission rule, the advisory is informational and expressly says it creates no new legal obligations. Exchanges remain responsible for complying with the Commodity Exchange Act, including Core Principle 3, which requires designated contract markets to list only derivatives that are not readily susceptible to manipulation.

CFTC says mention markets can be presumed manipulable

Mention markets differ from contracts based on election results, economic releases or regulated sporting outcomes because settlement can depend on conduct controlled by one named person or a small group, according to the advisory. The regulator cited examples involving speeches, earnings calls, social-media posts, event appearances, photographs and personal interactions.

CFTC staff said a person controlling an outcome could deliberately trigger it, prevent it from occurring or know the result before traders outside that person’s circle. A podcast host, for example, could say a word tied to a contract payout, while people with access to scripts, prepared remarks or guest lists might possess material nonpublic information before settlement.

For that reason, the Division of Market Oversight said it may view mention markets as “presumptively readily susceptible to manipulation.” The phrase represents staff’s regulatory view under Core Principle 3 and does not mean every contract in the category is automatically prohibited.

A designated market could rebut that presumption in limited cases by showing that its contract design and controls sufficiently reduce manipulation risks. Staff identified independent verification and substantial public scrutiny as central considerations when evaluating those products.

The advisory asks exchanges to examine whether the person controlling settlement faces legal, professional, fiduciary, confidentiality, contractual or organizational duties that discourage deliberate interference. Exchanges should separately consider whether outside traders could influence the individual through payments, social pressure, inducements or other forms of interference.

Public settings receive particular attention. CFTC staff said formal events involving public figures may provide stronger independent verification, while conduct occurring privately or involving non-public people can be harder to verify and monitor. Even a public speech may present concerns when a contract turns on an incidental word with little connection to the substance of the event.

Recent cases show how insiders can control outcomes

The advisory follows two CFTC enforcement cases involving traders whose own access or conduct affected event-contract outcomes.

On Aug. 28, the regulator ordered former White House teleprompter operator Gabriel Perez to disgorge $107,539.02 and pay a $65,000 civil penalty after finding that he used advance access to President Donald Trump’s speeches to trade presidential mention contracts. Perez received a three-year trading ban.

Between December 2025 and February 2026, Perez had access to presidential speeches before delivery because of his federal employment, according to the CFTC order. The Commission found he misappropriated that information and generated more than $107,500 in trading profits. The CFTC credited KalshiEX for assisting the investigation.

As previously reported, the White House speech betting case involving advance access to Trump’s remarks ended with Perez agreeing to more than $172,000 in disgorgement and penalties after the regulator completed its investigation.

A separate July case involved former Rep. George Santos. The CFTC found that Santos traded contracts on whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union while making public statements about his own attendance plans.

The regulator said contract prices moved in directions favorable to Santos after several of his social-media statements. Its settlement required him to disgorge $17,569.98, pay a $17,500 civil penalty and accept a three-year trading ban.

Kalshi later imposed its own permanent suspension. Kalshi’s lifetime ban on Santos over the State of the Union market followed the federal enforcement action and covered his access to the exchange directly or indirectly.

Kalshi keeps some mention markets live under tighter scrutiny

The new guidance does not amount to an industrywide ban on mention contracts.

As of Sept. 23, Kalshi still displayed markets tied to what Trump would say during United Nations meetings, including contracts covering terms such as AI, NATO and ceasefire. Another contract covering Trump’s United Nations General Assembly speech had recorded nearly $194,000 in volume in the available snapshot.

CFTC filing records show Kalshi previously self-certified amendments covering contracts asking whether a specific word would be said by a person, including a separate template tied to Trump. Those amendments were recorded as certified in June.

The Sept. 22 advisory means future Part 40 submissions involving such products are expected to contain more detailed, contract-specific manipulation analysis. Staff encouraged platforms to identify potential controllers and known insiders, then calibrate position limits, reporting requirements, recordkeeping and surveillance controls around those risks.

Staff said independent obligations placed on the person controlling an outcome do not replace the exchange’s own market-surveillance duties. Exchanges seeking to list a mention contract are expected to explain how their rules can detect manipulation, attempted manipulation and misuse of nonpublic information.

Kalshi has already reduced its exposure to some parts of the category. CFTC review of mention markets prompted Kalshi to pull sports mention contracts in August while political and corporate versions remained available.

A separate development arrived on the same day as the new CFTC advisory. Kalshi Klear requested approval for a margin framework covering selected event contracts, but mention and culture markets were excluded from the proposed eligible group, according to its filing coverage.

Prediction-market rulemaking remains unfinished

The mention-market advisory sits alongside a separate CFTC rulemaking process covering event contracts more generally.

The Commission proposed amendments to Regulation 40.11 in June that would create a formal process for assessing contracts involving areas Congress specifically identified, including gaming, terrorism, assassination, war and activities unlawful under federal or state law. The proposal includes a 90-day review process and contract-specific public-interest factors.

CFTC data said trading volume on federally registered prediction markets surpassed $25 billion during 2025. The regulator described event contracts as a growing part of derivatives markets while noting that the figure remained small beside the roughly $31 trillion notional value of the overall futures market it regulates.

The Commission has not published a final version of the June prediction-market proposal as of Sept. 23. Its current 2026 final-rule list does not show a completed Regulation 40.11 rulemaking, leaving the Sept. 22 staff advisory operating under existing Core Principle 3 and Part 40 requirements.

The federal framework is developing while courts consider separate disputes over state gambling authority. On Aug. 28, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Kalshi had not shown Nevada’s regulation of its sports event contracts was likely displaced by the Commodity Exchange Act, allowing Nevada’s sports-related enforcement to continue while other issues returned to the lower court.

As previously reported, the Ninth Circuit’s Nevada ruling on Kalshi’s sports prediction contracts did not invalidate the CFTC’s prediction-market rules or decide how every category of event contract must be treated.

Polymarket’s U.S. operation is part of the federally registered market structure through QCEX. CFTC records show amendments to the Polymarket U.S. rulebook were certified in April, while QCEX has continued filing event products with the regulator during 2026.

For mention markets specifically, the next compliance step falls on designated contract markets when they submit new products or amendments under Part 40. The Sept. 22 advisory says staff expects each filing to provide a detailed evaluation of the manipulation factors and describe the controls intended to address them.