Crypto World
Winners And Losers Of SEC’s New Tokenized Stocks Rules
“Tokenization is coming to America,” said Robinhood chief executive Vlad Tenev after the SEC announced its Innovation Exemption last week — and it seems the markets looked kindly on the development.
BTC and ETH soared over 10%, and Uniswap’s UNI token — a protocol that looks as it if could become prime real estate for tokenized stock trading — gained more than 30% in the days that followed.
While the Securities and Exchange Commission has indeed greenlit tokenized stocks in America, most of the existing stock tokens fall outside of the new rules.
The commission’s new five-year Innovation Exemption creates a path for certain venues to trade tokenized National Market System (NMS) stocks onchain without registering as a securities exchange, and for third parties to tokenize stocks — but only under a specific set of conditions.
Tokens must give holders the same “rights and privileges” as the underlying shares and trading venues need to permission users and pools.
Related: Kraken brings DeFi yield to tokenized stocks and ETFs
Not all tokenized stocks are created equal. A token can look like a share and track the price of a share without providing the shareholder rights of a share. Under the new rules that’s classified as a synthetic stock and it’s not compliant.
UNI gained over 30% after the SEC announcement. Source: Coingecko
That means some of the industry’s biggest players may already have a head start, while others will have to play catch-up. As Ondo Finance’s head of global regulatory affairs, Peter Curley, tells Magazine:
“Not everything we do will fit, and that’s fine. What matters is that the SEC acted instead of waiting on Congress to finish the job.”
The SEC’s tokenization lane is narrow
The SEC’s Sept. 17 order gives certain venues temporary relief from having to register as exchanges when they trade tokenized NMS stocks through permissioned AMM liquidity pools.
In other words, the agency has opened a lane for onchain stock trading, but it’s a fairly specific one, and the token itself becomes just as important as the venue.
To qualify, a tokenized stock must give holders the same dividends and voting rights as the underlying security.
While a third party can tokenize a stock without being affiliated with the issuer, the issuer gets a chance to nix the token before it can be traded.
That rules out synthetic exposure which is bad news for Robinhood’s Stock Tokens and Kraken’s xStocks in their current forms.
Commissioner Hester Peirce stressed that the exemption covers one particular model rather than every possible way of trading tokenized securities, although she said the SEC is open to other models outside the TSV structure.
The products closest to the SEC’s model
Coinbase’s stock tokens are in the ballpark.
On Sept. 14, chief executive Brian Armstrong said the company had “set the standard” with its tokenized stocks, as they are not synthetic or debt instruments, but are “real fully-backed securities, redeemable for the underlying shares, with dividends integrated,” and voting rights “coming soon.”
Related: Robinhood chain to generate $160M in annual fees by 2028: Bernstein
However, Coinbase’s current tokenized stock offering is for non-US customers, and its exchange infrastructure is built around a central limit order book. The SEC’s exemption is built around TSVs providing permissioned AMM liquidity pools. Coinbase operates the Base network however, so it has options in that regard.
Ondo launched tokenized US securities in June, with the underlying shares held in traditional custody and the token representing the investor’s entitlement onchain.
SEC issues Innovation Exemption. Source: SEC
It also acquired Oasis Pro, which includes an SEC-registered broker-dealer, ATS and transfer agent, with infrastructure across the traditional and onchain sides of the market.
Curley says the SEC’s exemption favors “exactly the model we’ve already proven out: custodial, entitlement-based, with real shareholder rights and corporate actions passing through to the holder.” However, he adds, “we’re not assuming anything clears automatically.”
Both Coinbase and Ondo have pieces of the infrastructure the SEC seems to want. Neither can assume its existing setup qualifies without some finessing, but they may have less to rebuild.
Uniswap’s permissioned pools could open the door
The SEC exemption is specifically designed around permissioned AMM liquidity pools, which looks like being good news for Uniswap.
The protocol introduced Permissioned Pools for v4 in July, allowing regulated assets to trade through AMMs with compliance enforced directly onchain.
While that doesn’t make Uniswap itself a TSV, its v4 infrastructure could be used by operators building one, as Permissioned Pools let issuers control who can trade or provide liquidity, which is consistent with the SEC’s requirements.
Permissioned access requires Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, record keeping, public notices and transaction transparency.
If that infrastructure can be connected to the shareholder rights and regulatory infrastructure required for US securities trading, Uniswap potentially has a framework that could be adapted to the SEC’s model.
Robinhood has the users, but not the right product
Robinhood already has around 200 stock tokens trading on Robinhood Chain, which Tenev has described as one-to-one backed and fully DeFi composable.
But the head of research at Four Pillars, Jaewon Kim, pointed out that the SEC’s order excludes synthetic exposure, which rules out products like Stock Tokens and Kraken’s xStocks.
Robinhood’s Stock Tokens are tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. That means they provide economic exposure to the underlying stocks but don’t give holders legal or beneficial rights. They’re also not registered under US securities laws and not available to US persons.
Chairman Paul Atkins says the period will allow the market to “develop.” Source: SEC
But while Robinhood’s existing product doesn’t fit the SEC’s rules, its distribution and blockchain infrastructure could give it a big advantage if it can adapt its model to the new requirements.
Kraken’s xStocks are fully backed by underlying equities but they also don’t give holders the same rights as conventional shares. And being backed by shares is not enough to qualify for this exemption.
Bryan Choe, head of research and operations at RWA.xyz, a market intelligence platform for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), says most existing tokenized equity products are currently third-party sponsored, but he expects that to change in the next 12 months.
He tells Magazine, “We expect most of the products to shift to issuer-sponsored models.” He says the exemption “aligns the token issuers with the stock issuers,” and could bring more balance between different issuance models.
Five years to prove tokenized stocks are actually better
The SEC describes the exemption as temporary, and chairman Paul Atkins says the five-year-long period will allow the market to “develop” while the commission “evaluates future rulemaking.”
Beyond which company gets the first compliant venue, the real test is whether tokenized stocks will take off in the first place.
As Curley says, investors need to end up with something “faster, cheaper, or more useful than a conventional brokerage position.” Questions have already been raised over whether the fragmented liquidity for stock tokens will provide good prices or a decent user experience.
The exemption could enable 24/7 trading, fractional ownership, faster settlement, onchain composability and shareholder rights. But at the end of the day, those advantages only matter if investors actually care.
Cointelegraph publishes long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Some articles contain affiliate links, from which Cointelegraph may earn a commission. These relationships do not influence which products we review or our editorial conclusions. Content published in here does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence.
The race to build artificial intelligence (AI) chips is no longer just about who can make the fastest processor. Now, it is increasingly becoming a China-U.S. technology contest, with companies on both sides pushing to build more of their own AI-computing capabilities as U.S. government restrictions limit China’s access to advanced U.S. chips.
Huawei just gave that race another jolt. The Chinese tech giant is reportedly moving up the launch of its next-generation Ascend 960DT AI chip to the first quarter of 2027 from its previously planned Q3 timeline. Huawei also plans to launch the Ascend 960PR in Q3 2027, accelerating its broader Ascend roadmap as it works to expand China’s domestic AI infrastructure.
More News from Barchart
Huawei is not stopping at individual chips, either. The company is developing UnifiedBus technology to connect groups of AI processors so that they work as larger computing systems. Huawei has developed 11 chips around the technology for its supernode and supercluster systems and has reportedly already shipped more than 1,000 supernode systems.
That matters because Nvidia (NVDA) has become almost synonymous with the AI infrastructure boom. The company’s GPUs power the training and running of advanced AI models, while its advantage stretches beyond chips into networking and the broader software ecosystem. Huawei is now aiming at that system-level advantage, particularly in China, where U.S. export restrictions have made access to Nvidia’s most advanced hardware more difficult.
So, is Huawei’s faster roadmap just another headline, or could it eventually change the competitive landscape for Nvidia? Let’s take a closer look at what the move could mean for Nvidia and where NVDA stock stands from here.
About Nvidia Stock
Nvidia hardly needs an introduction these days. Once known mainly for making graphics chips for gamers, the company has become one of the biggest names in the AI revolution, and one of Wall Street’s favorite ways to play it. Founded in 1993 and headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Nvidia spent decades building its expertise in GPUs before the technology suddenly became central to the AI boom.
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has compared a new Connecticut firearms lawsuit with Ripple’s former SEC battle, arguing that both disputes raise questions about businesses determining whether their conduct complies with unclear regulatory standards.
Summary
- David Schwartz compared Connecticut’s Glock dispute with Ripple’s former SEC battle over regulatory clarity concerns.
- Glock filed its federal lawsuit September 21, seeking relief before Connecticut’s October 1 law starts.
- Judge Kari Dooley scheduled a federal September 29 hearing on Glock’s emergency preliminary injunction request.
- Connecticut’s attorney general says the convertible-pistol law is lawful and will be defended in court.
- Ripple and the SEC ended their appeals in August 2025, leaving the final judgment intact.
Schwartz said on Sept. 23 that the situation described in the Glock litigation appeared “grossly unfair,” after attorney Kostas Moros drew attention to Glock’s claim that Connecticut officials had not clearly told the manufacturer whether redesigned pistols comply with a law taking effect Oct. 1. Schwartz added: “Ask me how I know.”
His comparison refers to Ripple’s years-long dispute with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, but the Connecticut case does not involve cryptocurrency, securities law or the SEC. No court has found that Connecticut officials used the same legal strategy as the federal securities regulator; Schwartz’s comments describe his personal interpretation of the two disputes.
Ripple veteran sees familiar uncertainty in Glock case
Glock filed Glock, Inc. v. Griffin et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on Sept. 21, naming Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and state prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law. The company brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenged Connecticut’s new restrictions on “convertible pistols.”
The manufacturer has asked the court for emergency relief before the statute becomes effective. Judge Kari A. Dooley ordered Glock to serve the complaint and injunction papers by noon Sept. 24, gave defendants until 5 p.m. Sept. 28 to respond, and scheduled a hearing for 9:30 a.m. Sept. 29 in Bridgeport.
Connecticut Public Act 26-41 makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer or expose for sale certain newly manufactured “convertible pistols” beginning Oct. 1. The statute defines the category around semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered and converted into machine guns using a pistol converter.
Glock contends its redesigned Slimline, V Series and Gen 6 handguns should fall outside that definition because the company says they were engineered to resist illegal conversion devices. Its lawsuit seeks a declaration covering those products or, alternatively, relief against enforcement if the court finds the statutory terms too vague. The claims remain allegations and have not been decided.
Schwartz focused on the uncertainty Glock says it faces before the criminal provision becomes enforceable. In his post, he characterized a system where a company “cannot possibly know whether you are complying with the law” as unfair, then connected that complaint to his experience during Ripple’s litigation.
When another X user asked how he knew such tactics, Schwartz replied, “A little birdie told me,” while pointing readers back to the SEC v. Ripple dispute.
Connecticut rejects Glock’s challenge to new law
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has taken the opposite position on the statute.
Tong said on Sept. 21 that Connecticut’s gun laws are “lawful and lifesaving” and that his office would “aggressively defend” the state against the lawsuit. His statement did not address Schwartz or the Ripple comparison.
The law emerged from H.B. 5043, which Gov. Ned Lamont signed in May. Connecticut’s legislative analysis says the measure applies to newly manufactured convertible pistols and provides a maximum five-year prison term, a fine of up to $5,000, or both for a Class D felony conviction.
A second federal challenge arrived the same day as Glock’s filing. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Range Corporation filed NSSF et al. v. Griffin et al., arguing that the same restrictions violate the Second Amendment. NSSF has described the law as an unconstitutional ban on widely sold striker-fired handguns, a characterization Connecticut disputes.
The federal court calendar currently lists both cases for motion hearings at 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 29 before Judge Dooley.
Schwartz ties dispute back to Ripple’s SEC history
Ripple’s regulatory fight began in December 2020 when the SEC alleged that Ripple Labs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen conducted more than $1.3 billion in unregistered XRP securities offerings.
Throughout the case, Ripple disputed the agency’s interpretation of XRP transactions and argued that market participants lacked clear notice about how federal securities law applied to digital assets.
Judge Analisa Torres issued a split ruling in July 2023. She found that Ripple’s institutional XRP sales constituted investment contracts under the circumstances presented, while programmatic exchange sales and certain other distributions did not satisfy the same test.
Schwartz has continued discussing the distinction since leaving Ripple’s full-time CTO role. As previously reported, Schwartz argued that the SEC repeatedly described XRP itself as a security during the litigation, while former SEC officials have said the legal case ultimately concerned Ripple’s transactions and offers rather than an abstract classification of the token.
Ripple officially identifies Schwartz as CTO Emeritus and an XRP Ledger co-creator.
The original SEC case no longer remains active. The SEC announced on Aug. 7, 2025 that both sides had agreed to dismiss their appeals, ending the Commission’s civil enforcement action. The district court’s final judgment stayed in force.
That judgment requires Ripple to pay a $125.035 million civil penalty and subjects it to an injunction concerning future violations of the Securities Act’s registration provisions. The SEC’s own litigation release confirms that dismissal of the appeals did not erase those terms.
In related coverage, Ripple and the SEC formally ended their appellate fight in August 2025 after nearly five years of litigation.
Regulatory clarity remains part of Ripple’s policy message
Schwartz’s latest comment arrives while Ripple continues calling for clearer statutory rules governing digital assets in the U.S.
After the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, Ripple said the legislation had offered Congress a chance to create “clear, predictable rules of the road.” The company argued that XRP’s existing legal position was not changed by the Senate vote.
Recent comments from Schwartz have kept the old SEC litigation in public view. In July, he said the Commission’s original complaint frequently used language describing XRP as the security, while critics of that reading argued the court’s ultimate focus remained on specific offers and sales.
As previously reported, the final Ripple judgment preserved restrictions on direct institutional XRP sales while leaving exchange-based transactions outside the court’s securities finding.
Ripple executives have separately described how disruptive the case became internally. CEO Brad Garlinghouse said this year that the company seriously considered shutting down after the SEC sued in 2020. Schwartz said outside lawyers at one stage viewed the business as difficult to save, accounts that describe Ripple executives’ recollections and do not establish the SEC’s intent.
The Connecticut litigation now has its own immediate procedural timetable. Glock must complete service by Sept. 24, Connecticut’s defendants must file their response to the requested preliminary injunction by Sept. 28, and Judge Dooley is scheduled to hear arguments Sept. 29 before Public Act 26-41 takes effect Oct. 1.
Kalshi has pushed back against reports that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is reviewing a suspicious pattern of trading in its Ether perpetual futures market. The exchange says it has not been contacted by regulators and doubts there is any formal examination underway.
The controversy centers on a reported cluster of rapid, nearly identical trades around roughly $5,500 each, allegations that some observers are framing as potential wash trading. The dispute comes as Kalshi’s perpetual futures business has expanded quickly since its May launch.
Key takeaways
- Kalshi says it has not received contact from the CFTC and does not believe a formal review is taking place.
- The CFTC scrutiny described by the Wall Street Journal relates to a repeated $5,500 trade-size pattern in Ether perpetual futures.
- Kalshi attributes repeated order sizes to liquidity incentive programs that reward makers for resting orders within a price band—not to rewards for executed trade volume.
- Kalshi argues the activity reflects normal market-making dynamics with many takers hitting a fixed-size resting order, rather than wash trading.
- The Journal also reported equity-linked incentives tied to trading-volume targets, which Kalshi’s response did not directly address.
CFTC review report meets Kalshi denial
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500 in Kalshi’s Ether perpetual futures. The report cited a person familiar with the matter and said the trading behavior has sparked allegations of wash trading.
Kalshi responded by disputing the premise of any regulatory action. Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, told Cointelegraph that the company “has not been contacted by the CFTC” and “doesn’t believe there is any formal examination.” She further characterized the chatter as “rumors seeded by competitors,” adding that the behavior is consistent with liquidity incentive programs common in financial markets.
Diana urged people not to rely on social media claims, stating: “Don’t believe everything you read on X.”
What the reported trade pattern suggests
The trades described by the Journal occurred within one of Kalshi’s perpetual futures markets, where participants speculate on the price of an underlying asset without taking spot ownership. In this case, the underlying is Ether.
According to the Journal, trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for more than $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month. The scale of the repeated-size activity is important because wash trading allegations typically emerge when volume appears to rise without genuine economic risk transfer between independent parties.
The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets. It said the incentives included waived trading fees and monthly cash payments designed to encourage large traders to provide liquidity.
While those incentive structures may be familiar in traditional markets, the details matter in crypto derivatives—particularly when regulators or market observers are trying to determine whether activity is driven by genuine hedging and price discovery or by self-referential execution designed to simulate demand.
Kalshi’s explanation: liquidity programs and market-maker resting orders
In a blog post published on Wednesday, Kalshi sought to clarify why trade sizes appeared repeatedly similar. The company said the recurring $5,500-sized trades reflect programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and within set price ranges.
Kalshi’s central claim is that incentives reward the availability of resting orders rather than the volume of trades that ultimately execute. In other words, the firm argues that the structure of its liquidity mechanism can naturally produce repeated execution sizes when many takers interact with a maker’s fixed quotes.
However, Kalshi’s post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading-volume targets as described by the Wall Street Journal. That omission leaves an open question for readers: even if the trade-size pattern can be explained by market-making design, how equity- or cash-linked targets influence participant behavior remains a separate issue worth watching.
Market-making dynamics vs. wash trading allegations
Kalshi’s response leaned heavily on how derivatives markets function. The company noted that market makers support trading by continuously quoting prices they are willing to buy and sell at, offering other traders ready counterparties. In that framework, market makers can earn from spreads but face losses if prices move against their quoted levels.
In contrast, “takers” are the traders who accept the resting prices offered by market makers. Kalshi argued that the reported fixed-size executions align with a market maker posting orders of a consistent size, then being hit by many takers.
Kalshi also said traders could profit when prices moved on other exchanges, by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price. The company further claimed that the activity involved “hundreds of distinct traders,” with takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”
On that basis, Kalshi characterized the pattern as evidence of “genuine economic activity rather than wash,” explaining that wash trading typically shows volume increase without either side taking meaningful profit or loss in the way expected from independent risk-taking.
In essence, Kalshi is arguing that the direction of outcomes—rather than the repetition of trade sizes alone—helps distinguish real liquidity provision from trades that are structured to look active without reflecting true trading interest.
What to watch next
If regulators pursue inquiries, the key remaining uncertainty is whether investigators focus on the liquidity mechanism itself or on the broader incentive ecosystem—especially any elements tied to trading volume targets and equity access. Market participants will likely watch for additional clarification from the CFTC, further documentation from Kalshi, and whether similar patterns appear consistently as perpetual futures markets mature.
Crypto World
How Is Gen Digital’s Stock Performance Compared to Other Software – Infrastructure Stocks?
Valued at a market cap of $17.4 billion, Tempe, Arizona-based Gen Digital Inc. (GEN) is a global company focused on enabling Digital Freedom through trusted consumer brands including Norton, Avast, LifeLock, and MoneyLion. The company provides products and services spanning cybersecurity, online privacy, identity protection, and financial wellness.
Companies valued at $10 billion or more are generally classified as “large-cap” stocks, and Gen Digital fits this criterion perfectly, exceeding the mark. Gen Digital serves nearly 500 million users across more than 150 countries, helping consumers live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently.
More News from Barchart
Shares of Gen Digital have dipped 9.9% from its 52-week high of $31.65. The stock has increased 25% over the past three months, outperforming the broader iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF’s (IGV) return of 22.4% during the same period.
Gen Digital’s shares have risen 5.8% on a YTD basis, outpacing IGV’s 1.1% gain. The stock has declined marginally over the past 52 weeks, compared to IGV’s 9.3% drop over the same time frame.
GEN stock has been trading above its 50-day moving average since May.
Gen Digital shares rose 3.8% following its Q1 2027 results on Aug. 6 as adjusted revenue increased 11% to $1.34 billion, bookings grew 11% to $1.28 billion, and adjusted EPS jumped 19% to $0.71, reflecting broad-based growth across both segments. The company also generated $430 million in free cash flow and delivered $668 million in adjusted operating income, up 9%, including EPS surged 65% to $0.36.
In addition, Gen Digital raised its fiscal 2027 revenue guidance to $5.38 billion – $5.48 billion and adjusted EPS guidance to $2.87 – $2.97.
In comparison, rival Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) has underperformed GEN stock. Shares of Microsoft have gained 3% on a YTD basis and declined 3.2% over the past 52 weeks.
Despite the stock’s outperformance relative to its industry peers, analysts are cautiously optimistic, with a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” from 10 analysts. The mean price target of $33.60 suggests a premium of 17.6% to current levels.
On the date of publication, Sohini Mondal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com
Prediction markets operator Kalshi said it has not been contacted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and does not believe there is any formal examination, after a report that the regulator was reviewing a flurry of trading activity in its Ether perpetual futures market.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500, citing a person familiar with the matter. The trading pattern has prompted allegations of wash trading.
The scrutiny comes as Kalshi has reported rapid growth in its perpetual futures business. A week after launching its perpetual futures markets in May, the company told CNBC that trading volume had surpassed $1 billion.
Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, described the discourse as “rumors seeded by competitors.”
“We have not been contacted by the CFTC and don’t believe there is any formal examination,” Diana told Cointelegraph. “As we’ve said, these data patterns are typical of liquidity incentive programs and common in financial markets. Don’t believe everything you read on X.”
Cluster of trades on Ether perpetual futures
The trades took place in one of Kalshi’s markets for perpetual futures, where users speculate on the price of an asset without buying it; in this case, the price of Ether.
The trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for over $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month, according to the Journal.
The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets, citing people familiar with the arrangements. It also said the company waived trading fees and provided monthly cash payments to encourage large traders to provide liquidity.
In a blog post on Wednesday, Kalshi attributed the repeated trade sizes to programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and at a set price range. It said those payments reward the availability of orders, not the volume of trades executed.
The post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading volume targets as reported by the Journal.
Kalshi denies wash trading claims
Market makers help financial markets function by continuously quoting prices at which they are willing to buy and sell an asset, giving other traders ready counterparties to trade with. Market makers can profit from the difference between their buying and selling prices, but risk losses if prices move against them. Traders who accept their quoted prices are known as takers.
Related: Kalshi joins Coinbase with own filing for US stock perpetual futures
Kalshi said traders could profit when prices changed on other exchanges by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price.
“The fixed size trades are entirely consistent with a single maker putting up resting orders of a fixed size and getting traded against by many takers,” Kalshi said.
It said the trades involved hundreds of distinct traders taking a market maker’s orders, with the takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”
“This is a sign of genuine economic activity rather than wash (where you’d expect volume to increase without either side taking a profit/loss),” Kalshi said.
Magazine: Winners and losers of the SEC’s new tokenized stocks rules
The US Treasury paid its highest yield on a 5-year note since June 2006, a sign that demand for government debt is weakening even as yields stay elevated across the board.
Rising yields raise borrowing costs across the economy. They also tend to pressure stocks, bonds, and other risk assets as investors demand more compensation for holding debt.
Rising Yield, Dropping Interest
Wednesday’s $70 billion auction priced at 5.033%, above the 5.002% when-issued level, according to Dow Jones. That is up from 4.393% at the prior sale in August.
The bid-to-cover ratio measures how many bids came in for each note sold. It fell to 2.212, the lowest since December 2018.
Indirect bidders, a group that includes foreign central banks, took just 54.3% of the sale. That is down from 61.5% at the last auction and the lowest share since March 2020.
Yields Are Rising Across the Curve
The pressure was not limited to 5-year debt. The 10-year Treasury yield also climbed to 5.12% on Wednesday, its highest level since 2007, while the 30-year touched 5.37%.
CNBC’s Rick Santelli called the 5-year results weak, saying traders had little time to adjust before the sale. Business activity accelerated at its fastest pace since July 2021, according to flash survey data, adding to the pressure on yields that morning.
Federal Reserve governor Michael Barr said Wednesday that further rate hikes are still needed to bring down inflation. Traders have since pushed the odds of an October hike to 70%.
Santelli noted 10-year Treasury yields have averaged roughly 5.5% since 1980. That history suggests current levels are less extreme than they appear. Still, he flagged the next resistance level for 5-year yields near 5.19%.
What It Means for Bitcoin
Higher long-term yields raise the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like bitcoin (BTC). Bitcoin already fell below $84,000 after a separate hot data print pushed the 10-year yield above 5%.
A soft 5-year auction adds to that pressure. Bitcoin has increasingly traded in step with tech stocks, making it sensitive to shifts in the rate outlook.
The sell-off follows a broader pattern of global bond yields surging to multi-decade highs across major economies this year.
Traders will now watch whether yields keep grinding higher across the curve. Santelli still expects the current sell-off to prove temporary rather than the start of a deeper repricing.
The post Treasury's 5-Year Auction Hits 20-Year Yield High: What This Means for Bitcoin appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has begun preparing financial markets for what Chair Michael Selig called “mass tokenization,” as the agency works to adapt existing rules for blockchain, artificial intelligence and onchain finance.
Summary
- CFTC Chair Michael Selig said financial markets should prepare for mass tokenization, with real world assets potentially settling almost instantly on blockchain based infrastructure.
- Selig said tokenized collateral could move in real time between clearinghouses, intermediaries and users as the CFTC adapts existing rules for onchain markets.
- The CFTC is moving ahead with crypto regulation under its existing authority after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15.
- The SEC has taken a parallel step by granting a five year exemption that allows qualifying platforms to trade tokenized versions of US listed stocks under specific conditions.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said during the U.S. Treasury Market Conference on Sept. 22 that regulators need to prepare existing market structures for tokenized real world assets, 24/7 trading and technologies that could operate across traditional financial infrastructure.
Selig described tokenization as one of the technologies that could change how assets and collateral move through financial markets. High quality tokenized collateral, he said, could make liquidity more dynamic while allowing assets to move between clearinghouses, intermediaries and end users in real time.
Blockchain based financial infrastructure could eventually support near instantaneous settlement alongside that movement of collateral, according to Selig. He compared the potential change with the transition from trading through hand signals to electronic markets.
“Just as the transition from hand signals to electronic trading advanced our financial system, I believe tokenization can do the same for all asset classes,” Selig said.
CFTC sees tokenization reaching multiple asset classes
Preparing markets for “mass tokenization” will require regulators to adjust older frameworks so blockchain and AI can be used at scale, Selig said. His remarks covered real world asset tokenization alongside onchain finance and markets that could operate around the clock.
Stablecoins are part of that work. Earlier in 2026, the CFTC expanded the types of eligible tokenized collateral to include certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks and published guidance covering the use of crypto assets and blockchain technology by regulated entities.
Selig said the commission plans to continue looking for ways to support stablecoin use by market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses. The agency intends to rely on principles based regulation as tokenization develops, while maintaining its existing market integrity responsibilities.
Around the clock trading is being treated separately depending on the asset involved. Selig said crypto and precious metals may currently be suited to 24/7 markets, while agricultural products, energy contracts and some financial products may not be ready for the same structure.
The CFTC has already sought public feedback on expanding trading hours and issued staff guidance covering 24/7 trading, clearing and settlement. Selig said surveillance systems, margin frameworks and operational safeguards would need to function continuously if markets move toward that model.
The tokenization push is unfolding while the agency is working on a separate regulatory framework for crypto markets using powers it already has.
As crypto.news previously reported, the CFTC submitted its crypto market framework to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Sept. 17, two days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act.
The filing, titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets,” remains at the prerule stage. Proposed regulatory text has not been released, and the filing itself does not create new trading or registration requirements.
Selig had already said in August that the agency was prepared to pursue digital asset market rules even if Congress did not complete the CLARITY Act. The proposals under consideration included rules for leveraged or margined crypto transactions through regulated markets and possible regulatory routes for developers building onchain financial products.
CLARITY Act setback leaves agencies working under existing powers
The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 in a 49 to 50 vote, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to advance.
The failed procedural vote did not end work on the legislation. Seven Democratic senators who voted against cloture later said negotiations could continue, leaving open the possibility of another attempt if lawmakers reach an agreement on outstanding provisions. Talks over the CLARITY Act resumed after the vote, although no new Senate vote has been scheduled.
While Congress continues negotiations, both the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission have taken regulatory steps under their current statutory powers.
The CFTC’s Market Participants Division on Sept. 17 issued a no action position covering qualifying passive software providers that connect users with registered derivatives exchanges, brokers and futures commission merchants. Under the relief, staff will not recommend enforcement for certain failures to register as introducing brokers or associated persons when providers meet 10 specified conditions. The conditional registration relief applies only to activities covered by the staff letter.
SEC opens a five year route for tokenized US stocks
The SEC has moved further into tokenized markets through a temporary exemption that gives qualifying platforms a regulatory route for trading digital versions of US listed stocks.
On Sept. 17, the commission granted Tokenized Securities Venues temporary conditional relief from the definition of an exchange under the Securities Exchange Act. The exemption permits eligible venues to use permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools to facilitate trading in tokenized National Market System stocks.
The five year tokenized stock exemption carries several conditions. Tokens traded under the framework must give holders the same rights and privileges as the corresponding traditional shares, while synthetic products that provide only price exposure do not qualify.
Venues must give the underlying company notice and an opportunity to object when an unaffiliated third party tokenizes its shares. Smart contracts used by participating venues must be public and auditable, while trading in a tokenized stock must stop when trading in the underlying stock is halted on its primary exchange.
The SEC placed limits on the number of symbols and trading volume permitted under the framework. Qualifying venues are required to disclose information about their operations and trading activity, while certain liquidity providers can receive temporary conditional relief from the Exchange Act’s dealer definition.
The exemption is scheduled to expire five years after publication, with the commission requesting public feedback while it considers longer term rules for onchain securities markets. SEC Chair Paul Atkins described the framework as an interim measure that would allow tokenized stock trading in a permissioned environment while regulators evaluate further changes.
US regulators prepare existing market rules for onchain finance
SEC Division of Trading and Markets Director Jamie Selway has said tokenization and crypto have become politically contentious even though he does not view market technology as inherently political. He said US development of the technology should be capable of drawing support across party lines.
The SEC’s September order puts part of that approach into practice by letting qualifying venues experiment with tokenized listed stocks without removing the underlying securities from federal securities law.
Commissioner Mark Uyeda said tokenization could be used across issuance, trading, transfer, settlement and ownership records. Under the temporary framework, regulators will be able to observe trading venues and market participants while considering permanent rules, he said.
CFTC policy is developing along a parallel track in derivatives markets. Selig said the agency expects blockchain, tokenized assets and continuous trading to become a larger part of financial infrastructure, but he rejected a single approach for every market.
The commission has instead tied potential 24/7 trading to the characteristics of individual asset classes. Selig said its role would include ensuring surveillance, margin systems and operational safeguards can work continuously where markets adopt round the clock trading.
For tokenized collateral, the agency has already permitted certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks to qualify under its collateral framework. Selig said the CFTC plans to continue examining additional uses for stablecoins across regulated market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses.
Palantir Technologies shares climbed above $190 on September 23, 2026. That marked its highest level in nearly a year, extending a rally built on three separate catalysts.
The stock advanced more than 3.5% intraday, reflecting renewed confidence in both its government and commercial growth engines.
What’s Fueling Palantir’s Rally This Week
A catalyst refers to a specific event or announcement that triggers a noticeable shift in a stock’s price. For Palantir, three distinct catalysts converged within days of each other.
CEO Alex Karp met with Polish President Karol Nawrocki and Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda in New York this week.
They discussed expanded investment and potential technology hubs supporting NATO’s eastern flank. Lithuanian officials described their country as a potential regional hub for defense and security technology.
Separately, the U.S. Army awarded Palantir a $48.1 million contract to build an enterprise ammunition management system. The platform will replace nine legacy systems with one unified view. That view spans planning, storage, and distribution across the full munitions lifecycle.
Chipotle also confirmed it is piloting a food safety platform built on Palantir’s Foundry software. The system aggregates inspection scores and health data to flag risk at individual restaurant locations.
Can Palantir’s Momentum Push Past $200?
Recent momentum extends beyond these three deals. Palantir also announced fresh partnerships with NVIDIA, Nebius, and Method Security this week. It also expanded its deployment, together with Fujitsu, across enterprise networks in Japan.
Wall Street took notice. Both DA Davidson and UBS raised their price targets on the stock. Both firms cited the accelerating adoption of Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform and the strengthening of US sovereign AI demand.
Together, these developments paint a picture of Palantir deepening its relevance across defense, government, and everyday commercial operations simultaneously. Geopolitical engagement in Europe, a concrete logistics contract, and tangible retail adoption all point in the same direction.
Whether that combined momentum carries the stock toward $200 remains an open question. Much depends on how these partnerships translate into revenue over the coming quarters.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
For now, investors appear willing to reward Palantir’s broadening footprint. That footprint now spans markets that, until recently, seemed unrelated to its core business.
The post Palantir Stock Hits Yearly High at $190. What’s Driving the Price? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has withdrawn several civil enforcement actions targeting cryptocurrency companies that were initiated under the prior administration, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said. Speaking at a Wednesday panel at the Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy’s Financial Markets Quality Conference, Uyeda framed the decision as part of a broader shift in how the agency plans to approach rulemaking and litigation.
Uyeda, who served as acting SEC chair from January to April 2025 before Paul Atkins’s confirmation, said the SEC dropped cases brought earlier in 2025 because pursuing them could conflict with the agency’s impending policy direction. He also suggested that keeping litigators committed to arguments made under the earlier framework would undermine the SEC’s credibility if the commission’s positions effectively changed.
Key takeaways
- SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said the agency stopped crypto-related civil cases in early 2025 to avoid credibility problems tied to forthcoming rulemaking changes.
- Uyeda argued it would be damaging for SEC litigators to defend interpretations in court that would later be reversed through a “180-degree” policy shift.
- The withdrawn matters included actions involving Kraken, Ripple Labs, Coinbase, and others, according to earlier coverage referenced by Uyeda.
- The SEC’s leadership structure is expected to narrow further after Commissioner Hester Peirce’s planned departure in November, leaving fewer members to shape enforcement priorities.
Why the SEC moved to drop crypto cases
On the Psaros Center panel, Uyeda described the decision as a response to an expected policy turnaround. He said the SEC was preparing a “180-degree change” in rulemaking, making it strategically and reputationally risky to continue pursuing cases that would require the agency to argue positions that the commission planned to abandon.
Uyeda said the SEC could not justify asking its legal team to stand in court on arguments authorized under the prior administration while the agency simultaneously issued a fundamentally different interpretation. In his remarks, he linked the move directly to institutional credibility—arguing that the commission’s effectiveness depends on consistency between litigation positions and the SEC’s evolving stance.
He emphasized that there were “significant concerns” about whether the earlier crypto company cases were truly defensible under law, particularly given how the agency’s approach was expected to change. The implication for market participants is that enforcement risk may be as much about where the SEC’s policy is heading as it is about individual company conduct.
Link to earlier enforcement and the political context
The SEC’s decision follows a period when crypto firms were repeatedly targeted through civil cases associated with the prior leadership. Under Uyeda’s acting chairmanship, the SEC dropped cases filed against Kraken, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and others, according to earlier reporting cited in the article describing his comments.
That earlier reporting characterized the withdrawals as reflecting broader tensions between the crypto industry and the SEC during the prior administration. It also tied the enforcement push to the general environment surrounding U.S. political leadership changes, including former SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s resignation after President Donald Trump took office.
Notably, the shift described by Uyeda is not presented as a narrow case-by-case retreat, but rather as a decision shaped by the SEC’s planned regulatory pivot. For investors and compliance teams, that distinction matters: a litigation strategy driven by anticipated rulemaking changes may affect how future enforcement decisions are evaluated, even for companies not directly covered by the withdrawn suits.
What “rulemaking change” could mean for crypto policy
Uyeda’s remarks connect litigation strategy to a planned transformation in how the SEC intends to develop and apply rules. By describing a “180-degree change,” he signaled that the SEC’s future stance may not simply refine the agency’s current arguments—it could overturn core assumptions underpinning the earlier cases.
While he did not specify the precise contours of the forthcoming approach in the remarks summarized here, the practical takeaway is that the SEC is attempting to align courtroom positions with policy direction. That alignment can influence how quickly regulated firms expect clarity, and it can also affect the perceived durability of legal theories used previously in enforcement actions.
For market participants, the key watch point is whether the agency’s changed posture results in new regulatory frameworks, revised interpretations of existing statutes, or both. Until those details are established, the SEC’s broader enforcement stance may remain difficult to predict—especially for companies whose compliance strategies were built around litigation risk tied to the previous administration’s approach.
Leadership reshuffle and the SEC’s enforcement calculus
Uyeda’s comments came as the SEC’s internal composition is expected to change again. Uyeda has been a commissioner since 2022 and currently serves in leadership alongside Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce. However, Peirce’s departure is expected in November, leaving only two of the SEC’s five members on the leadership panel at that time.
The SEC has not announced nominations for replacements, according to the context provided alongside Uyeda’s remarks. A smaller leadership group can affect institutional priorities, since fewer commissioners may be responsible for setting the direction of enforcement and policy initiatives during the transition period.
In practice, leadership concentration can accelerate strategic shifts—either by enabling faster decision-making or by increasing the impact of a narrower set of views on whether and how to bring future cases. Combined with Uyeda’s stated rationale for dropping earlier matters, the leadership transition could further shape how crypto-related enforcement risk is assessed over the coming months.
What to watch next
Investors and builders should watch for how the SEC translates Uyeda’s stated rulemaking pivot into concrete policy signals—whether through new proposals, updated guidance, or further enforcement decisions that reflect the agency’s changing litigation posture. The next developments will reveal how far the shift goes and whether it produces clearer standards for crypto companies or simply changes the SEC’s enforcement tactics.
The Trump administration is considering a push to expand US dollar stablecoins overseas, according to Bloomberg. The idea could bring more foreign money into US government debt while making digital dollars easier to use around the world.
The timing is important as US national debt passed $40 trillion last month.
The Plan: Get More of the World Using Digital Dollars
Bloomberg reports that officials are discussing public-private partnerships to expand dollar-backed stablecoins abroad. Treasury, the State Department and the US International Development Finance Corporation could potentially play roles. No countries, companies or funding commitments have been announced.
The broader policy is already public. Trump ordered his administration in 2025 to promote the growth of legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins worldwide.
The logic is simple.
Someone abroad buys $1,000 of a reserve-backed stablecoin. The issuer then needs assets backing those tokens. For major stablecoins such as USDC and USDT, those reserves include US government securities and related dollar assets.
More stablecoins can therefore mean more buyers for Treasury debt.
Will This Help Americans?
It would not erase America’s $40 trillion debt. But it could make that debt easier and potentially cheaper to finance.
The Richmond Fed found that wider adoption of reserve-backed stablecoins increases demand for Treasuries and can put downward pressure on interest rates. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has similarly said stablecoin growth could create a surge in Treasury demand.
Even modestly lower borrowing costs matter when Washington owes tens of trillions of dollars.
Lower government interest costs could eventually leave more fiscal room elsewhere, although there is no guaranteed or immediate saving for households.
New Opportunity For USDT and USDC Stablecoin Holders?
For holders worldwide, the bigger opportunity is access.
If Washington helps build regulated stablecoin infrastructure abroad, USDC and potentially USDT could gain more banking connections, fiat on-ramps, payment integrations and merchant acceptance.
That could make digital dollars easier to use for remittances, international payments and savings in countries where accessing actual US dollars is difficult.
There is historical precedent for the broader strategy. In the 1970s, Washington encouraged Saudi oil surpluses to flow back into US government securities. US records say Saudi institutions eventually placed more than $8 billion in US government debt.
Stablecoins could create a modern version of that recycling system — except the dollars could come from millions of ordinary users around the world.
The post Trump Has a New Crypto Plan to Reduce America’s $40 Trillion Debt appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Thailand is taking the lead in discussions to boost investment between ASEAN and Hong Kong
Huawei Is Ramping Up to New Chips in 2027. What That Means for Nvidia Stock Now.
Hayley Williams Pays Tribute To Ex-Husband Chad Gilbert
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Talbots – Corporette.com
-
Tech3 days agoResearchers escape OpenAI Codex sandbox to run commands on host
-
Crypto World5 days agoCircle launches Arc Studio AI agent for building onchain apps
-
Crypto World3 days agoWho Needs CLARITY Anyway? ARB Could See 70X Increase: Hodler’s Digest
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTrump says US has reached an agreement to take permanent control of Greenland’s security
-
Crypto World5 days agoTrading Bitcoin on Robinhood? Why 2% Spread Has Traders Worried
-
Crypto World1 day agoGoldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank Agree: The S&P 500 Rally Isn't Over
-
Crypto World6 days agoMortgage and refinance interest rates today, Thursday, September 17, 2026
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin price breaks channel as RSI climbs to 63
-
Tech2 days agoGoogle’s $899 Googlebook is a bet that you’ll buy a new laptop for Gemini
-
Business3 days agoAnalog Devices (ADI) Bets $1.35 Billion on Chips that Let Machines Think for Themselves
-
Crypto World3 days agoCoinbase, Robinhood, Circle Seen as Tokenized-Stock Winners
-
Crypto World5 days agoWorld Money launches in 150+ countries with Stripe
-
Tech4 days agoTrump suggests rebranding AI with a new name, says he’s also creating an AI Force
-
Crypto World6 days agoSilver prices recover quickly, hitting weekly high today
-
Business23 hours agoOil Price Today (September 23): Crude oil below $100 on hopes of US-Iran talks. What did Trump say?
-
Tech6 days agoGPT-6 Astra Reached the Nether in Minecraft, Lost Its Stash to a Creeper, and Farmed Potatoes for Hours
-
NewsBeat5 days agoUS was ‘on brink of war’ with China over false AI report of nukes moving in Middle East
-
Crypto World2 days agoMeta Jumps 11% As Muse Shines and Investors Show an Appetite for Advancing AI
-
Crypto World5 days agoCFTC sends crypto market structure rulemaking to White House
You must be logged in to post a comment Login