New warnings circulating among iPhone users link a malicious Safari-based attack to a potential exposure of cryptocurrency wallet secrets, including private keys and seed phrases. However, the threat intelligence firm that analyzed the specific Safari sample says it has not been able to independently confirm an actual theft from a compromised victim tied to that exact code.

In a statement provided to Cointelegraph, SlowMist said the campaign it investigated appears to reuse techniques from an earlier iOS exploit chain known as DarkSword. While multiple reports urged users to update immediately and cited an especially broad iOS window—“iOS 13 through iOS 26.5” in some coverage—SlowMist cautioned that this range should be treated as preliminary until the company can demonstrate reproducible technical evidence for the latest versions.

Key takeaways

• SlowMist has not independently confirmed a real victim compromise or confirmed crypto theft tied to the exact Safari sample it analyzed.
• The strongest technical evidence from SlowMist focuses on iOS 18.4 through 18.6.2.
• SlowMist says the suspected Safari exploit chain reuses techniques from Google-disclosed DarkSword, rather than being the same as the separate FomoPeek incident.
• The analyzed malware includes functionality aimed at reading and decrypting data from Apple Keychain, which can contain sensitive wallet-related information.
• Even without proof of a successful extraction on every targeted device, SlowMist still recommends updating iOS and avoiding suspicious links.

Why the iPhone warnings remain uncertain

Multiple reports this week prompted immediate iOS updates, warning that malicious Safari pages could potentially expose crypto private keys and seed phrases. Some of those reports referenced a wide range of iOS versions, extending from iOS 13 to iOS 26.5.

SlowMist’s assessment is more restrained. The company told Cointelegraph that it has not independently verified a victim device compromised by the particular Safari attack sample it reviewed. It also indicated that the iOS range appearing in public warnings may be broader than what it can technically support right now.

In particular, SlowMist said it “prefer[s] to avoid stating that iOS 26.5 is affected until there is reproducible technical evidence,” and noted its strongest evidence spans iOS 18.4 through 18.6.2. That distinction matters for users and organizations because overbroad impact claims can either create unnecessary fear on unexposed versions or, conversely, obscure where defenses should be prioritized first.

What SlowMist says was reused from DarkSword

The Safari campaign is not being treated by SlowMist as an entirely new exploitation method. According to SlowMist, the attack reuses techniques from DarkSword, an iOS exploit chain disclosed by Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) in March. Google described DarkSword as having been used by multiple threat actors since at least November 2025, and documented the exploit chain publicly in a dedicated threat intelligence post.

SlowMist said its own MistEye threat intelligence team—led by chief information security officer 23pds—first identified relevant activity in early May. Later, SlowMist published its analysis of the “WYINCC” Safari campaign on Sept. 4, describing how the malicious page presented a lure related to a free virtual private server service.

SlowMist reported that when the page was opened in Safari on an iPhone, the exploit code could load without necessarily requiring an additional user click. Apple later patched the vulnerabilities used in the chain, and SlowMist stated that those underlying weaknesses had already been disclosed and fixed.

Importantly, SlowMist also separated this issue from a different investigation it previously ran regarding FomoPeek—an iOS App Store-related incident described in earlier Cointelegraph coverage. SlowMist characterized the Safari attack as distinct from that separate App Store compromise vector.

Targets inside the device: Apple Keychain and wallet exposure

Beyond the exploit mechanism, SlowMist highlighted what the malicious sample was trying to access. In its analysis of the sample, the firm said the code included capabilities to interact with Apple’s Keychain—retrieving and decrypting information stored there. SlowMist added that the code could also access app files and shared app data, which could potentially include sensitive data handled by crypto wallet applications.

At the same time, SlowMist emphasized limits in what can be proven from static or controlled analysis. The company said the sample “demonstrates the collection capability and the intended targets,” but does not automatically prove successful extraction from every wallet or every targeted device.

Critically, SlowMist said it did not execute the full chain on a real victim device, which is why it cannot identify a specific victim whose device it independently confirmed was successfully compromised by that exact sample.

Recommendations: update, avoid links, and move funds if exposed

Even with those uncertainties, SlowMist urged iPhone users to take practical defensive steps. The firm advised updating to the latest iOS security updates available for affected devices and avoiding suspicious links—especially those delivered via unsolicited messages or pages that promise free services.

For users who cannot update immediately or who face elevated risk, SlowMist pointed to Apple’s Lockdown Mode as an additional layer of defense. However, the company cautioned that it has not confirmed Lockdown Mode fully blocks this specific Safari attack.

SlowMist also offered guidance for wallet users who believe their credentials may have been compromised. Its recommendation was to move assets to a newly generated wallet created on a clean device rather than continuing to use potentially exposed private keys or seed phrases.

As more technical details become available, the key question for investors, traders, and wallet users is whether reproducible evidence will narrow the affected iOS versions further—and whether researchers can confirm how often, and under what conditions, the Keychain access successfully results in usable wallet secret extraction on real devices. For now, the safest approach remains the straightforward one highlighted by SlowMist: update promptly, be cautious with Safari links, and treat any suspected seed or key exposure as a reason to rotate credentials immediately.

Summer Mersinger, the former US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) commissioner who led the Blockchain Association, will step down as chief executive as the advocacy group heads into its next chapter. The organization says Mersinger will leave the role on Oct. 16 and will depart the Blockchain Association at the end of the year.

In a move the group framed as a return to familiar leadership, Kristin Smith—Blockchain Association’s former CEO—will take over as interim CEO on Oct. 16 while continuing her existing position as president of the Solana Policy Institute.

Key takeaways

• Summer Mersinger will step down as CEO of the Blockchain Association on Oct. 16.
• Kristin Smith is set to return as interim CEO while remaining president of the Solana Policy Institute.
• The Blockchain Association cited progress on stablecoin policy, including work connected to the GENIUS Act.
• The group’s update did not mention a separate stablecoin/regulatory push in the Senate that failed to advance earlier this month.

Why the CEO transition is happening

The Blockchain Association said Mersinger’s departure follows a setback for one of the organization’s key legislative priorities in Congress. The group’s announcement indicates it sees the leadership change as timed with a period of renewed advocacy, starting with Smith’s interim return.

Mersinger joined the Blockchain Association in June 2025 after leaving the CFTC years earlier than the planned end of her second commissioner term. Her background at the regulator is a core part of the story: the association emphasized that she joined the industry effort to build a unified policy message in Washington.

“I came here from the CFTC because I believed this industry deserved clear rules of the road and a credible, unified voice making the case for them in Washington,” Mersinger said in remarks tied to her departure, according to the Blockchain Association’s announcement.

Legislative focus: GENIUS Act and broader “clarity” goals

In explaining her tenure, the Blockchain Association pointed to Mersinger’s efforts related to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS Act). The organization also credited her work with achieving more regulatory clarity across both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC.

That emphasis matters because US crypto policy remains fragmented between agencies and often depends on how lawmakers define stablecoins and other digital assets. For advocacy groups, demonstrating progress toward a workable regulatory framework—rather than only case-by-case enforcement—can shape how seriously Congress treats proposed bills and how businesses plan compliance strategies.

A Senate setback the association didn’t highlight

While the Blockchain Association highlighted stablecoin-related work around GENIUS, it did not reference a separate Senate measure it had previously urged lawmakers to support. In earlier outreach, the association pushed for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—a bill described in coverage as being under consideration in the Senate.

According to reporting linked in the original announcement’s context, the Senate failed to move the legislation forward. The measure was not able to secure enough votes in a cloture motion earlier this month, with expectations that it could remain stalled until later in the decade—potentially stretching into 2027.

The Blockchain Association did not provide immediate details on what the leadership change means for its plans for 2027, nor did it outline a replacement strategy for the stalled legislation in the information provided with this CEO update.

Leadership change and what to watch next

With Mersinger stepping down on Oct. 16 and Kristin Smith taking over as interim CEO, the next phase of the Blockchain Association’s legislative campaign may hinge on how it reframes its priorities after the Senate cloture result. Investors and builders watching US crypto regulation will want to pay close attention to whether the organization pivots to alternative bills, refines its approach to stablecoin definitions, or focuses more on agency-level guidance given the SEC/CFTC dynamics mentioned by the association.

For now, the key uncertainty is timeline: the stalled Senate effort suggests near-term momentum may be limited, even as internal leadership transitions prepare the advocacy group for the legislative calendar ahead. Readers should watch for updates on the association’s next set of targets in Congress and whether the “clarity” push remains centered on stablecoins—or broadens to other parts of the digital asset market.

The SEC Division of Corporation Finance released new crypto guidance on September 25 covering staking receipt tokens, wrapped assets, buybacks, and functional networks. The update explains how certain crypto activities may not create investment contracts under existing federal securities laws. However, the guidance represents staff views and does not create new legal requirements.

The latest FAQs clarify how SEC staff evaluates different crypto assets and network activities. The document focuses on whether specific actions involve ongoing managerial efforts linked to investment expectations. Therefore, the guidance highlights conditions that may affect how digital assets are treated under securities laws.

The SEC staff explained that some crypto assets can operate as digital tools rather than securities. The analysis also depends on each digital asset’s structure, purpose, and operation.

SEC Explains Staking Receipt Token Treatment Under Crypto Rules

The new guidance addresses staking receipt tokens issued through blockchain-based staking services. These tokens can represent ownership of underlying digital assets while allowing users to track their staking positions. Therefore, the SEC staff said some staking receipt tokens may function as digital commodities.

The guidance also explains that liquid staking providers may issue tokens connected to protocol-based systems. In these cases, the tokens can represent claims linked to staked assets rather than traditional investment contracts. However, the classification depends on the facts surrounding each network and token structure.

Additionally, the SEC staff noted that the agency has not approved or rejected the FAQ responses. Instead, the document provides staff interpretations based on current federal securities law principles. Therefore, crypto projects must still consider their individual operations and structures.

Functional Networks And Crypto Buybacks Receive Updated SEC Views

The SEC staff also guided when crypto networks may move beyond investment contract concerns. The analysis focuses on whether an issuer continues performing essential managerial activities for digital asset holders. Therefore, network development and maintenance alone may not always represent managerial efforts.

The guidance explains that functional networks can continue operating through security improvements, software updates, and community development. Moreover, these activities may support network operations without creating an investment contract. The SEC staff emphasized that decentralization can influence this evaluation.

Crypto buybacks also received attention in the updated FAQs. The staff explained that buybacks involving active networks may not automatically indicate issuer efforts that support an investment contract. However, buybacks promoted as generating returns could receive different consideration depending on the circumstances.

The SEC staff further noted that network functionality plays an important role in evaluating crypto activities. Before a network becomes functional, issuer actions may carry different legal implications. Therefore, project structures and promotional methods remain important factors.

SEC Reviews Crypto Marketing Statements And Platform Promotion Rules

The guidance also covers statements made by crypto companies when promoting their products and services. The SEC staff said general support for existing network utility does not automatically create an investment contract. Therefore, ordinary communications about network use may receive different treatment.

However, promotional statements can create concerns when they connect future issuer actions with expected financial returns. The SEC staff indicated that the details and context of each statement remain important. Consequently, crypto companies must consider how they present plans and developments.

The FAQs also address whether trading platforms automatically become crypto promoters. The SEC staff explained that platforms must meet the existing Securities Act definition of a promoter before receiving that classification. Therefore, operating a crypto marketplace alone does not determine promoter status.

The latest SEC guidance adds further clarity to ongoing discussions around digital assets and securities rules. It outlines how staking tokens, functional networks, buybacks, and promotions may receive different treatment. However, each crypto project requires separate evaluation based on its specific activities and structure.

Former Democratic congressman Tim Ryan has said the CLARITY Act could still pass this year if lawmakers resolve disputes that blocked a 49–50 Senate vote on Sep. 15.

Tim Ryan, a former U.S. Congressman and Shyft Policy Board Member, told crypto.news that lawmakers still have a path to an agreement if they return to negotiations and make concessions. The Senate rejected cloture on a motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Sep. 15, with 49 senators voting yes, 50 voting no, and one not voting. The motion needed 60 votes to advance the bill to debate; it was not a final vote on passage.

Ryan identified unresolved concerns about ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards. In his view, support for clear crypto rules remains bipartisan, even though senators have yet to agree on the details. He said a deal could still be reached in the lame-duck session later this year if both sides are willing to compromise.

“I think there’s still a path,” Ryan said. “The legitimate concerns around ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards need to be addressed.”

CLARITY Act talks could resume after the failed vote

Ryan’s assessment follows a statement from seven Senate Democrats who voted against cloture. As previously covered by crypto.news, the senators described the result as “not the end” of their work on the legislation and pledged to continue bipartisan talks. Their statement came on Sep. 16, one day after the vote.

For Ryan, the distinction between a procedural defeat and a final rejection matters. Senators voted on whether to take up the measure, leaving its provisions open to further negotiation. He said the outstanding issues need answers before the bill can secure enough support to move forward.

The proposed legislation would set federal rules for digital asset markets and divide responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the framework described in earlier CLARITY Act coverage, qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities-related activity would remain with the SEC. The bill would also set registration requirements for crypto trading platforms and other market participants.

Ryan tied the negotiations to decisions being made by American companies. Businesses hiring workers and committing capital, he said, need rules they can rely on beyond a change in administration. He also argued that jobs and investment are at stake in the congressional debate.

SEC and CFTC actions have limits, Ryan says

With the bill stalled, both regulators have taken steps under their existing powers. Ryan said the agencies can make meaningful progress, but he does not believe their actions alone can provide the lasting framework businesses and consumers need.

“Agency action helps, but companies making long-term investments need long-term certainty,” he said. “If you’re building a business, hiring people and investing capital, you need to know the rules are going to last beyond the next administration.”

On Sep. 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional relief for certain venues trading tokenized U.S.-listed stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The order lasts five years after publication and requires eligible stock tokens to give holders the same rights as equivalent traditional shares.

The SEC also placed limits on trading symbols and volume, required trading to stop when the underlying stock is halted, and sought public comment on the exemption. Its tokenized stock order concerns securities already within the SEC’s remit, rather than settling how every crypto asset should be regulated.

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued a separate no-action position that day for qualifying passive software providers. Subject to stated conditions, division staff will not recommend enforcement over a failure to register as an introducing broker, or as an associated person of one, when the software helps users trade with registered derivatives firms and markets. The CFTC developer relief applies to the activities covered by the letter; it does not change the underlying registration law.

The CFTC also submitted a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets for White House review on Sep. 17. That submission begins a review process: the proposal would still need to return to the commission for a vote before publication and public comment. CFTC Chair Michael Selig had previously directed staff to examine what market rules the agency could establish using its existing authority.

Bitcoin, XRP and Solana remain part of the classification debate

Asked whether assets could face conflicting treatment, Ryan said uncertainty remains despite guidance from the two agencies. He pointed to Bitcoin, XRP and Solana as assets for which regulators have provided more clarity, while calling for Congress to establish consistent rules that businesses and consumers can use without resolving classification disputes through individual court cases.

The SEC’s March 17 interpretation, issued with CFTC guidance, listed Bitcoin, XRP and Solana among its examples of digital commodities. The SEC based that assessment on its understanding of the assets’ characteristics, terms and functions at the time. The interpretation also said a crypto asset that is not itself a security can be involved in a transaction subject to securities law, and that the agency may refine its views after public feedback.

For U.S. token holders and platforms, Ryan’s concern is how those distinctions apply when an asset is sold or traded. He said businesses and consumers should have consistent rules instead of having to litigate the treatment of assets case by case.

Update (Sept. 25, 10:20 pm UTC): This article has been updated to clarify Kristin Smith’s role with the Solana Policy Institute.

Summer Mersinger, formerly a commissioner with the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), will step down as CEO of the Blockchain Association and leave the advocacy organization at year’s end after one of the group’s legislative priorities faced a significant setback in Congress.

On Friday, the Blockchain Association (BA) announced that Mersinger would step down as CEO on Oct. 16, when the group’s former chief executive, Kristin Smith, would return to lead the organization as interim CEO in addition to her existing role as president of the Solana Policy Institute. Mersinger joined the Blockchain Association in June 2025 after leaving the CFTC three years before her second term as a commissioner was scheduled to end.

“I came here from the CFTC because I believed this industry deserved clear rules of the road and a credible, unified voice making the case for them in Washington,” said Mersinger on her departure from the BA.

The organization cited Mersinger’s efforts to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, as well as helping to provide “regulatory clarity at the [Securities and Exchange Commission] and CFTC.” 

Notably, the organization did not mention the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act under consideration in the Senate, which the BA repeatedly pushed lawmakers to support. The bill failed to gain enough votes from Democrats and Republicans in a cloture motion earlier this month, which many experts expect will leave the legislation in limbo until 2027.

The Blockchain Association did not immediately respond to questions about Mersinger’s plans for 2027.

Related: CFTC issues warning over risky prediction market ‘mention’ contracts

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Strategy is asking shareholders to approve a structural change to how its preferred stock dividends are paid, moving four series—including STRC—from periodic distributions to daily dividend payments. The company says the switch would not alter the dividend rates or the total amount paid, only the timing and record-date mechanics.

According to an SEC filing released on Friday, Strategy’s board approved the proposal on Thursday and scheduled a virtual special meeting for Oct. 28. If approved, the company would make every calendar day a dividend record date, with dividends paid on the next business day. STRC would be the first to transition, with its initial daily dividend payment expected on Nov. 2.

Key takeaways

• Strategy plans to change four preferred stock series to daily dividend record dates without changing the stated dividend rates or total payout.
• Shareholders will vote on Oct. 28 during a virtual special meeting, following board approval disclosed in an SEC filing.
• STRC would move first; STRF, STRK, and STRD would follow in January, with first daily payments expected on Jan. 4.
• The schedule uses calendar-day record dates, unlike the business-day approach used by a prior “daily dividends” example in the market.
• Strategy’s CEO linked recent STRC volatility to leverage entering the market, saying the company is working to prevent similar unwind dynamics.

What Strategy is proposing to change

In the filing, Strategy states that it is seeking shareholder approval to amend the terms governing its four preferred stocks: STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD. The proposal would shift dividends to a daily schedule while keeping the economics the same—specifically, Strategy emphasizes that it would not change dividend rates or the total amount paid.

Under the amended approach, each calendar day would become a dividend record date, with the payment made on the next business day. Strategy’s filings also outline the implementation timing: STRC would start the daily cadence first, while the other three series would transition later in the year.

Strategy further indicates that the amendments would take effect after it updates preferred stock certificates with the Delaware state authorities.

Timeline for STRC, STRF, STRK, and STRD

If shareholders approve the amendments, STRC would begin issuing dividends on a daily basis first. Strategy expects the initial daily dividend payment for STRC to arrive on Nov. 2.

The remaining series—STRF, STRK, and STRD—would follow in January. Strategy’s filing points to Jan. 4 as the expected first payment date under the daily dividend schedule for those securities.

Strategy’s daily-dividend shift follows Strive’s earlier move

Strategy’s proposal comes months after fellow Bitcoin-treasury company Strive became the first public company to adopt daily dividends for a preferred stock. According to earlier coverage and Strive’s announcements, Strive moved its SATA preferred stock to business-day dividend payments, setting the system to pay dividends every business day at a 13% annual rate starting June 16. Strive also reported it eliminated its outstanding debt in the first quarter.

Strategy’s plan is similar in spirit but different in mechanics. While Strive’s schedule is tied to business days, Strategy’s proposal would treat every calendar day as a dividend record date and then pay on the next business day. That distinction matters for investors because it affects how often new dividend entitlements can accrue and how dividends line up with weekends and holidays.

It also positions Strategy in an increasingly competitive landscape for yield-focused structures tied to Bitcoin treasury strategies, where timing of income distribution can become part of how investors assess convenience and cash flow patterns.

Why the change could matter for investors holding STRC

Strategy has marketed its preferred securities as part of its “digital credit” approach—preferred instruments intended to generate income within a capital structure connected to its Bitcoin treasury. STRC, described as a key component of that strategy, has been the subject of significant market attention this year due to volatility around its $100 stated amount.

As context for investors, Yahoo Finance data shows that in June, STRC fell sharply below its stated $100 level, reaching an intraday low of $71.25 on June 26.

In a recent appearance on Natalie Brunell’s Coin Stories podcast, Strategy CEO Phong Le attributed the decline to leverage building up in the STRC market more than the company anticipated. He described investors borrowing against Bitcoin at lower rates to buy STRC in order to capture the spread between borrowing costs and the preferred dividend yield. When Bitcoin fell, Le said, participants who borrowed against their holdings faced pressure to either add collateral or sell STRC, creating an unwind dynamic.

Le framed this as a lesson for future cycles—saying Strategy “did not expect the amount of leverage that came into the system”—and suggested the company is adjusting how it thinks about risk and investor behavior.

To reduce the odds of another similar unwind, Le said Strategy is aiming to maintain a strong US dollar reserve and has a policy that allows the company to repurchase STRC when it trades below its $100 stated amount. He also indicated an intent to attract more long-term holders, including institutional investors.

Since that June dip, STRC has reportedly recovered to around $98.41, close to Strategy’s stated goal of keeping the security within a $99 to $100 range. The preferred stock currently carries a 12% variable annual dividend rate.

What to watch next

Investors will likely focus on two near-term milestones: the Oct. 28 shareholder vote and the timing of the first daily dividend payments under the new calendar-day record-date system. Beyond logistics, the bigger question is whether moving to daily distributions meaningfully changes the trading and leverage dynamics that Strategy’s CEO said contributed to STRC’s earlier decline.

Polymarket has partnered with OpenWorlds to bring autonomous AI agents to prediction markets covering politics, sports, and thousands of other events.

According to OpenWorlds’ announcement and information shared with crypto.news, the AI lab is working with Polymarket to let agents handle steps that traders would otherwise perform themselves: finding an event market, assessing it, and making a trade. OpenWorlds describes its software as a way to run that process repeatedly across live markets.

The company says it is building personal trading agents for consumers and retail traders. Its proposed workflow gives an agent the ability to search across markets and act on its assessment, rather than presenting a list of possible trades for a person to execute manually. OpenWorlds also compares the process with the research and trading work carried out by investment firms.

How OpenWorlds agents would trade on Polymarket

OpenWorlds describes three linked tasks for its agents: discovery, evaluation, and trading. In practice, an agent searching Polymarket would need to identify a contract tied to a specific event before assessing the available information and deciding whether to take a position. The company says its system is designed to repeat that process as events and markets change.

Polymarket lists contracts tied to outcomes in politics, sports, and other subjects. Prices in those markets move as participants buy and sell positions before an event is resolved. OpenWorlds’ proposal places an automated trader in that existing process, with the agent carrying out the research and execution steps described by the company.

For a retail user, the degree of control given to an agent matters because finding a market and placing an order are different actions. OpenWorlds’ privacy policy says users own their wallets through their chosen wallet provider and that the company does not collect or store private keys. It also says its services may support delegated signing for AI operations.

The policy says OpenWorlds records agent configurations, action logs, and results. When a user enables an integration, requests and related data can be sent to a third-party market platform to execute actions and return results, according to the company. OpenWorlds also says it uses data from AI system activity to train and improve its models and platform features.

The partnership brings the agent workflow to a platform that has been changing how trading information reaches its applications. In September, Polymarket moved its main blockchain indexing system in-house. Vice President of Engineering Josh Stevens said the new setup could surface some onchain events up to 14 blocks, or about 28 seconds, faster, while Goldsky remained available as a backup. The indexing system update covers data behind trades, positions, and balances.

Polymarket integrations have expanded beyond its own app

Other companies have also built ways for users to reach Polymarket markets through separate products. In August, Fortune Protocol integrated Polymarket liquidity into Fortune Markets alongside Predict.fun. Its interface lets users compare liquidity, trading volume, and market probabilities, then choose an outcome and preview a position before trading.

OpenWorlds describes a different set of functions. Its announcement focuses on an agent that searches, evaluates and trades, while Fortune’s integration presents market information and a trading flow to the user. Both arrangements involve outside products interacting with prediction markets, but the companies describe different roles for their software.

Polymarket’s own technology work has also included automated execution tools. As covered in September, the company acquired DeFi infrastructure startup Brahma in March, adding programmable smart-account technology intended to support wallets, deposits, asset routing and redemption of prediction-market outcome tokens. Polymarket had also purchased the registered derivatives exchange QCEX and prediction-market data company Dome.

U.S. access depends on which Polymarket platform is used

For American traders, Polymarket’s international blockchain platform and its regulated U.S. operation are separate. Following a 2022 settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Polymarket agreed to prevent U.S. customers from using its international operation. It later returned to the U.S. market through a CFTC-registered exchange it acquired. An August report on Polymarket’s midterm surveillance described the distinction between the two operations.

Polymarket’s global head of investigations and intelligence, Shana Bautista, told Reuters in August that the company combines machine learning, blockchain analytics and trade surveillance to identify unusual activity. Polymarket said it had referred more than 100 cases to law enforcement. Its monitoring work included preparations for trading tied to the U.S. midterm elections.

State rules present another question for U.S. access to event contracts. On Sep. 24, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Polymarket over sports contracts, alleging that it offered gambling products without a state license and allowed users aged 18 to 20 onto its platform. The state is seeking to stop the alleged unlicensed activity, obtain customer restitution, and impose civil penalties. Polymarket can contest the allegations in court.

The New York petition cites contracts tied to sports outcomes, including a July baseball game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets. State officials argue that federal oversight of event contracts does not remove New York’s authority over sports wagering. Prediction-market operators have argued in related cases that qualifying contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges fall under CFTC jurisdiction.

Cosmos Hub validators have secured 1.23 million ATOM taken in a Neutron governance attack after halting the network for about 24.5 hours and moving the tokens to a recovery wallet.

Cosmos Labs said in a Sep. 25 update that the Hub itself was not attacked and Hub user funds were unaffected. The stolen ATOM came from Neutron, where a malicious governance proposal gave the attacker control over contracts used by Astroport and other protocols.

At the time of the Hub’s halt, 1,227,121 ATOM remained in the attacker’s address. Validators restarted the network on Sep. 23 using Gaia v28.3.0, a software update that moved the balance to a wallet controlled by six community validators. Four of them must approve any transaction from that wallet.

The tokens are being held while the Neutron recovery team prepares a plan. Under the arrangement described by Cosmos Labs, the signers cannot return the funds until a Cosmos Hub governance proposal authorizes the transfer.

Cosmos Hub halt stopped the remaining ATOM from leaving

After the Neutron attack on Sep. 22, the attacker sent stolen assets to several chains and began swapping some of the ATOM through THORChain, according to the Cosmos Labs account. About 1.73 million ATOM reached the Hub, where the attacker could have continued moving it even after Neutron stopped producing blocks.

Neutron contributors and community members alerted Hub validators and Cosmos Labs at about 09:50 UTC. Validators representing more than one-third of the Hub’s voting power then stopped their nodes, bringing the network to a halt at block 33,086,740 by about 11:18 UTC.

During the pause, Cosmos Labs prepared a one-time software change at the validators’ request. Its written plan identified the attacker’s address, the destination wallet, the six proposed signers and the single account that the update would affect. Validators received that plan before the patched software was distributed.

Nansen, Keplr, Enigma, Silknodes, Kiln and Polkachu agreed to hold the six signing keys. Cosmos Labs said the signers independently checked the wallet address and verified it with a test transaction before developers added it to the update.

By the time of the scheduled restart, validators representing more than two-thirds of voting power had installed v28.3.0. Block production resumed at 12:00 UTC on Sep. 23, and the 1,227,121.37 ATOM transfer took effect about six minutes later. Cosmos Labs said 174 of the Hub’s 180 validators were online by the end of that day.

The participating validators included Coinbase and Kraken, according to the update. Their role was part of the Hub’s coordinated software restart; Cosmos Labs said exchanges and other operators were subsequently told that deposits and withdrawals could resume once the network was stable.

Some ATOM left before and after the restart

The secured balance represents only the ATOM still in the attacker’s Hub address when validators halted the chain. Cosmos Labs said roughly 500,000 ATOM had already been swapped for ETH through THORChain before the halt and could not be recovered through the Hub update.

A separate THORChain transaction returned 168,990.9 ATOM to the attacker’s address shortly after block production resumed. The attacker moved that balance to Osmosis and sold it, according to the forum post.

Cosmos Labs said the possible refund was identified while validators were preparing to restart, after the patched software had been distributed and installed by many operators. The update authorized a single transfer of the balance present at the halt height. It did not block later transactions from the attacker’s address or move funds that arrived after the restart.

The Hub response also did not cover assets sent to other networks. Cosmos Labs identified stolen funds that had moved through dYdX, Noble, Osmosis, Axelar and EVM chains, as well as assets still on Neutron. Teams handling those networks are coordinating their own recovery efforts, the company said.

An earlier, separate incident affected software used by other Cosmos networks. In August, crypto.news reported that attackers exploited a Cosmos EVM flaw across six chains and converted stolen tokens into about $5.72 million in other assets. Cosmos Labs’ account of the Neutron case describes a governance attack on Neutron, not that Cosmos EVM flaw.

ATOM return depends on a Hub governance vote

The six signers have agreed to hold the recovered ATOM without staking, lending or trading it, Cosmos Labs said. They describe their role as carrying out an authorized return, rather than deciding for themselves which affected accounts should receive funds.

A Cosmos Hub governance proposal must pass before the wallet can make that transfer. The Neutron recovery team expects to submit a proposal in the coming week, once it has set out the proposed destination and return process. Neutron’s maintainers also expect to publish their account of the attack early next week.

The governance requirement gives ATOM holders a direct role in the next step. Cosmos Hub governance has previously decided other matters affecting the token: a March Osmosis proposal sought to convert OSMO to ATOM and place unclaimed tokens in the Hub community pool, though a later Hub vote rejected that plan.

For the Neutron recovery, Cosmos Labs said the secured ATOM remains in the validator wallet while the proposal is prepared. The company has shared the attacker’s addresses with more than 30 exchanges, bridges, and custodians, and said several have confirmed that they blocked the addresses.

OG.com Markets has filed with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to seek permission to offer cash-settled perpetual futures tied to individual stocks—an attempt to bring “perps” to U.S. equity derivatives.

In a filing submitted Thursday, the company proposed rules for single-stock futures that do not expire and can be traded continuously, 24 hours a day, five days a week. If approved, the structure could give traders an alternative to dated futures contracts by allowing them to maintain exposure without periodically rolling into new contracts.

Key takeaways

• OG.com Markets is seeking CFTC approval for cash-settled, perpetual single-stock futures that never expire.
• The proposed contracts would run 24/5, aiming to extend around-the-clock derivatives trading to U.S. equities.
• OG.com emerged as an independent platform after being spun out of Crypto.com, and it has since drawn attention from established market participants.
• The filing arrives amid broader efforts by other U.S. derivatives venues—including Coinbase, Kraken’s Bitnomial, and prediction market operator Kalshi—to pursue similar products.
• Regulators have been gradually creating pathways for perpetual-style crypto derivatives, setting the stage for further expansion into traditional markets.

OG.com Markets seeks CFTC rules for stock-linked perps

The core of OG.com Markets’ request is regulatory authority to list cash-settled single-stock futures with perpetual terms. Unlike traditional futures—where contracts have defined expiration dates—perpetual futures are designed to keep positions open across contract cycles without requiring traders to roll into a new instrument.

According to OG.com’s Thursday CFTC filing, the company is asking for permission to trade these instruments on a nearly continuous schedule: 24 hours per day, five days per week. That trading window is aligned with how crypto markets often operate, and it reflects the industry’s push to match derivatives trading to the real-time nature of financial flows.

How OG.com got here: spin-off and partnerships

OG.com was recently spun out of the crypto exchange Crypto.com and re-established as an independent prediction markets and derivatives platform valued at $5 billion, as previously reported by Cointelegraph.

At the time of the spin-off, CEO Kris Marszalek said the platform planned to expand beyond prediction markets into futures and perpetual contracts. Shortly after the restructuring, Cointelegraph also reported that Robinhood took an equity stake in OG.com as part of a multi-year deal. The agreement includes plans to use OG.com’s CFTC-regulated derivatives exchange and clearinghouse for prediction markets.

While the current filing focuses on stock-linked perps, the sequence matters: OG.com is positioning itself as a venue where existing regulatory infrastructure used for derivatives and prediction markets could extend into single-stock futures.

Why perps are attracting equity market attention

OG.com’s application is part of a wider trend: trading platforms and prediction market firms are increasingly exploring whether the perpetual futures model can be adapted to U.S. equities.

In the same general push, Cointelegraph previously reported that on Sept. 18, Coinbase, Kraken’s parent through its Bitnomial exchange, and Kalshi filed applications to offer perpetual futures tied to individual U.S. stocks. The wave of filings underscores that the regulatory pathway is no longer seen as purely speculative by major market players.

At the policy level, the timing came after U.S. congressional efforts to advance the CLARITY Act stalled in the Senate on Sept. 15, according to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph. Still, regulators continued moving on targeted crypto initiatives. Just days after the vote, the SEC cleared limited onchain trading of tokenized U.S. stocks under its Innovation Exemption, while the CFTC expanded regulatory relief for software providers connecting users to regulated derivatives platforms, including those that support perpetual contracts—also previously covered by Cointelegraph.

Taken together, these steps suggest a partial but growing willingness to carve out permission structures for specific use cases, even as broader, comprehensive crypto legislation has not advanced.

CFTC groundwork for perpetual contracts

OG.com’s filing fits into work the CFTC began earlier to clarify how perpetual contracts can be reviewed. According to CFTC press materials referenced by Cointelegraph, the agency established a case-by-case review process for perpetual contracts in May, then approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual futures product.

In June, the CFTC also issued temporary relief that allowed certain registered exchanges to convert existing crypto futures into contracts without expiration dates. That matters for stock-linked perps because it indicates regulators have already been willing—at least under defined conditions—to treat perpetual structures as something beyond the initial crypto derivatives experimentation cycle.

For investors and traders, the practical question now becomes what changes once equity becomes the underlying asset. Perpetual stock futures would bring the derivative form closer to the mechanics many crypto traders know, but the economic drivers—such as stock-specific market dynamics, hedging costs, and settlement rules—could differ substantially from crypto benchmarks.

What to watch next

OG.com’s CFTC filing is a step toward making perpetual, stock-linked derivatives available in the U.S., but approval is not guaranteed. Market participants should track how the CFTC evaluates perpetual contract mechanics for single stocks—especially around settlement design and the regulatory boundaries between traditional securities markets and crypto-style trading infrastructure.

States have tried to wrangle prediction markets offering sports-related contracts under their regulatory frameworks since they started taking off after the 2024 election, arguing that these markets are competing with state gambling platforms and offering identical products to gambling sites and apps. For many states, the issue is that federally regulated platforms do not pay state taxes, while still competing with state-regulated platforms. Another major point of contention is the fact that prediction markets often offer their products to people as young as 18, rather than 21, like most state gambling operators.

In Friday’s ruling, the three-judge panel said it agreed that Kalshi did have the right to bring a case, but disagreed that the products in question were federally regulated swaps.

“While we agree with Kalshi that its sports-event contracts are conditioned on the occurrence of ‘event[s],’ we conclude that Kalshi’s contracts do not depend on events that are ‘associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence’ within the meaning of the statute,” the ruling said.

The ruling used the New York Giants winning a Super Bowl as an example case, saying the result could depend on how the “event” in question is defined. If the event is the Giants winning, then that victory would be described as “that event having occurred.”