Solana’s Alpenglow upgrade has reached its public developer network, letting application teams test a system designed to cut transaction finality from about 12.8 seconds to roughly 150 milliseconds.

According to the Solana Foundation’s upgrade page, Alpenglow is now active on devnet and testnet but has not been activated on mainnet. Anza, which develops Solana’s core validator software, announced the devnet switch on Sept. 25, one day after testnet completed its transition.

The two networks serve different parts of the rollout. Application teams can use devnet to check how their software behaves with tokens that have no real value, while testnet gives validators and infrastructure operators a place to test the network software under more demanding conditions.

For developers, the new devnet stage means they can check applications against Alpenglow without waiting for the system to reach the blockchain that handles users’ funds. Solana’s mainnet continues to use TowerBFT, so the 150-millisecond figure remains a target for the planned upgrade rather than a finality time available to users today.

Solana’s Alpenglow changes how validators finalize blocks

Under TowerBFT, validators submit votes as transactions that appear inside blocks. Enough votes must accumulate across 32 slots before a block becomes final, which currently takes about 12.8 seconds, according to the Foundation.

Alpenglow’s first phase, called Votor, has validators send votes directly to one another instead. The Foundation says a block can reach finality after one voting round if validators representing at least 80% of stake vote to accept it. A second round provides another path when the first does not meet that threshold.

Finality is the point at which the network has agreed on a transaction strongly enough that it can no longer be reversed under its consensus rules. A faster result could matter to a U.S. exchange deciding when to credit a Solana deposit or to a payment provider deciding when to treat a merchant’s sale as complete. Each service may still apply its own checks before releasing funds or confirming a payment to a customer.

The Foundation separates finality from the time it takes to produce a block. In September, Solana reduced its target slot time from 300 milliseconds to 250 milliseconds, with a further reduction to 200 milliseconds planned under a separate upgrade. Shorter slots change how often the network can produce them; Alpenglow changes how validators agree that a block is final.

A previous crypto.news report covered the testnet preparations on Sept. 23, when developers were preparing Agave 4.3 for the public test. The move to devnet now gives application teams access to the upgraded consensus system in the network they commonly use for development.

Block-data services face changes before mainnet

For an application that sends transactions and reads account balances, the Foundation says Alpenglow requires no migration. Transaction execution, fees, and the formats used to send transactions remain the same under the consensus upgrade.

Services that build transaction histories have more work to do. Alpenglow can expose competing candidate blocks for the same slot before the network selects one. The Foundation tells data providers to keep those candidates separate, then retain the block that reaches confirmation. Combining transactions from different candidates could leave an explorer or other service with an incorrect record.

Validator votes will also disappear from blocks because they will no longer be submitted as transactions. As a result, a chart that counts both user transactions and validator votes will show a lower transaction total after activation even if users make the same number of payments and trades. The Foundation has told data providers to reset comparisons and alerts built on the old figures.

Some services also read validator participation from vote transactions. Under Alpenglow, the Foundation says that information moves to certificates attached to block data, requiring those services to change where they obtain it. Operators using Solana’s Geyser or gRPC data streams must also account for the identifiers that distinguish candidate blocks within a slot.

The changes make devnet testing relevant to exchanges, explorers and other firms that rely on transaction records, including U.S. services connected to Solana. Their deposit rules remain their own operational decision; the network upgrade does not automatically change when a platform makes funds available.

Mainnet activation still has no firm date

Solana’s earlier Alpenglow roadmap tied the proposed mainnet rollout to Agave 4.3 and an October target. Neither the testnet transition nor the devnet activation sets a confirmed date for the live-network switch.

Anza’s software schedule tentatively allows mainnet feature activations to resume on Sept. 28. The schedule does not identify that day as Alpenglow’s activation date, and the Foundation’s status page still lists the upgrade as inactive on mainnet.

The Foundation describes Votor as the first phase of Alpenglow. A later phase, Rotor, is planned to replace the system used to spread blocks across the network. The current rollout concerns the voting and finality changes, while the roughly 150-millisecond target comes from testing and simulations rather than transactions settled under live-market conditions.

Bitcoin has gained about 3.8% over seven days as U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have drawn $2.39 billion this week, while Quant, Ethena and Bitway have led the 100 largest crypto assets by weekly price gain.

According to CoinGecko, Bitcoin traded near $84,077 on Sep. 26, and the total crypto market value stood near $2.98 trillion. Quant (QNT) ranked first among the top 100 seven-day gainers at 61.8%, followed by Ethena (ENA) at 54.1% and Bitway (BTW) at 48.0%. The rankings use rolling seven-day price changes, so the figures can change during the weekend.

Bitcoin ETF inflows set the market backdrop

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net inflows on all five trading days from Sep. 21 through Sep. 25, according to Farside Investors. The funds drew $999 million on Monday and $714.7 million on Tuesday, followed by $346.9 million, $190.7 million and $134.5 million over the next three sessions. Combined inflows reached about $2.39 billion.

Bitcoin reached $87,392 on Sep. 21 before retreating toward $84,000. In a report on ETF demand published Sep. 24, crypto.news quoted BTCS S.A. strategy adviser Wojciech Kaszycki, who said cash entering spot funds supported the initial price rise while futures positions also increased. He put the next major test near $90,000 if buying continued.

CoinGecko’s seven-day figures showed a much larger move in the three leading tokens than in Bitcoin. Each also had a separate development or trading pattern behind its advance, leaving different price levels in focus for the coming week.

Quant tests $106 after clearing $100

Quant traded near $104.48 in the CoinGecko snapshot, giving it the strongest seven-day return among the 100 largest assets. On Sep. 24, The Clearing House announced that it had selected Quant to power its On-Chain Money Initiative in the United States.

Quant will provide technology to connect banks and coordinate the clearing and settlement of tokenized-deposit transactions. The Clearing House said the network will also connect with payment systems already used by financial institutions, including RTP and CHIPS. It expects the service to become available to participating banks in the first half of 2027.

The U.S. selection follows Quant’s work on a separate British bank project. On Sep. 24, six UK institutions completed live customer transactions through the Great British Tokenised Deposit initiative, which Quant supported alongside EY and Linklaters. The British project tested payments involving customers at different banks.

On the TradingView daily chart, QNT rose through the Murrey Math $100 level and traded around $104.57. Its Average Directional Index stood at 39.13, indicating a strong trend after the steep advance. Price reached $108 during the session before easing below the chart’s $106.25 overshoot level.

A move back above $106.25 would put $112.50 in focus, followed by $118.75 if buyers sustain the advance. If QNT falls below $100, the breakout would face a more demanding test at $93.75, the next marked level on the daily chart.

Ethena approaches $0.28 with RSI near 80

Ethena’s ENA traded near $0.2781 on CoinGecko after gaining 54.1% over seven days. On Sep. 25, the protocol said it would add tokenized U.S. stocks and corresponding equity perpetual futures on Binance to part of the strategy used to back its USDe synthetic dollar.

As reported on Sep. 25, Ethena plans to hold Binance bStocks for stock exposure and take offsetting positions in equity perpetuals. Ethena said Binance’s equity perpetual market had more than $2.9 billion in open interest. The stock-linked positions add another market for a strategy the protocol has also used with crypto assets.

Ethena Labs founder Guy Young called it “the most significant expansion of USDe’s funding mechanism since we started.” The company said its Risk Committee had approved a framework for the stock-based trades.

The strategy involves tokenized U.S. equities, but Binance’s bStocks offering is available to eligible users where permitted by local law. Binance’s original bStocks launch included tokens linked to Nvidia, Tesla, Circle, Micron, and Sandisk shares. The tokens provide stock-linked exposure without the voting rights held by direct shareholders.

On the TradingView daily chart, ENA traded around $0.2756 after touching $0.2807. Price stood above its 20-day moving average at $0.1808, its 50-day average at $0.1491, its 100-day average at $0.1160, and its 200-day average at $0.1082. Daily RSI reached 79.85, above the commonly watched 70 level.

A move above $0.2807 would extend the latest breakout. The day’s $0.2632 low is the first level to watch on a pullback; below it, the earlier $0.22–$0.23 trading area would come back into view. Ethena’s fee-switch proposal links future ENA buybacks to USDe supply thresholds, starting at $7.5 billion, rather than providing an immediate buyback at the supply level cited in the proposal.

Bitway’s reversal puts $0.76 in focus

Bitway traded near $0.9032 on CoinGecko, up 48.0% for the rolling seven-day period. Its daily TradingView chart showed a much sharper move within that window: BTW reached $1.3661 before falling to about $0.9033, with the session’s low at $0.7620.

Earlier in the week, on-chain analyst Ai Yi reported that a new address withdrew 5 million BTW, worth about $3.71 million at the time, from Gate. Other reports of the analyst’s findings put the combined withdrawals by three new addresses at 15 million BTW within three hours. The transfers occurred during the rally, but the transactions alone do not establish who controlled the wallets or why BTW’s price rose.

Bitway also has a staking program running from Sep. 1 to Oct. 1, with an 8% stated annual rate on USDT and an additional 3% offered in BW Points. Its earlier incentive programs were covered in an August Bitway price report after the token rose sharply that month.

The latest daily candle leaves BTW below the Bollinger upper band near $1.1513 but above its middle band near $0.7121. Regaining $1.00 and then $1.1513 would bring the $1.30–$1.37 area back into focus. A fall through the $0.7620 daily low would put the $0.7121 middle band next on the chart.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce has submitted her formal resignation, effective Oct. 2, according to a letter she posted to X. Peirce—often dubbed “Crypto Mom” for her consistent calls for clearer, rules-based crypto regulation—has spent roughly eight years on the commission.

Peirce’s departure comes as the SEC’s leadership and regulatory posture toward digital assets has shifted under the current administration. With her resignation, the commission’s membership will again be shaped by the remaining Republican commissioners, Paul Atkins (chairman) and Mark Uyeda.

Key takeaways

• SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s resignation is effective Oct. 2, with the letter posted on her X account.
• Peirce served on the SEC for about eight years and has been director of the agency’s Crypto Task Force since Feb. 4, 2025.
• Her SEC term had already expired in June 2025, but commissioners can continue serving for up to about 18 months if replacement nominations are not made.
• Peirce is expected to join Regent University’s law school as an associate professor in November, per earlier reporting.
• The SEC’s stance toward crypto has changed since Trump took office in January 2025, including reductions in certain enforcement actions and investigations involving crypto firms.

Resignation letter and SEC staffing expectations

Peirce posted a copy of her resignation letter to X on Friday. In the letter, she expressed gratitude for “the honor of her professional lifetime” serving as a commissioner. She also said she would be leaving the SEC under the “excellent leadership” of Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda, the two remaining members.

Peirce’s letter also fits into a broader SEC timeline. While her official term expired in June 2025, the SEC’s structure allows commissioners to remain in office for approximately 18 months after their term ends if they are not replaced before then. This is part of the reason her role continued despite the expiration date.

There is an additional staffing factor: Caroline Crenshaw, the prior Democratic commissioner, left the SEC in January—18 months after her term ended—without any new nomination yet made by President Donald Trump to fill her seat.

Role in the SEC’s Crypto Task Force

Beyond her commissioner duties, Peirce has been director of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. According to Peirce’s designation letter on the SEC website, she assumed that role on Feb. 4, 2025.

The Crypto Task Force has focused on how existing securities laws could apply to digital assets and decentralized systems. For investors and builders, that work matters because it influences how the SEC interprets “securities” questions in contexts that may not map cleanly onto traditional financial products.

Peirce has repeatedly emphasized the need for clearer, more predictable frameworks. In June 2025, Cointelegraph reported on remarks she made regarding decentralized finance and developer liability, including an argument that publishing open-source code should not automatically subject software developers to federal securities regulations. Her position touches a long-running debate in crypto: whether and how legal risk should attach to developers contributing software that others may use in decentralized networks.

Academic move signals a shift in influence

Peirce’s resignation does not appear to mark a retreat from crypto policy and legal issues. In May 2025, Cointelegraph reported that she planned to join the law school of Regent University in Virginia as an associate professor in November.

Regent University’s academic plan, as described in that reporting, would include strengthening focus areas such as federal litigation, securities regulation, and digital assets. For market participants, this matters because Peirce’s perspective has been closely watched in policy circles—both for its critique of regulatory uncertainty and for its emphasis on how legal doctrines apply to decentralized technology.

Still, the practical impact of her exit remains tied to how her responsibilities are redistributed at the SEC. With her resignation effective Oct. 2 and no immediate indication of a replacement commissioner in the supplied material, the SEC’s internal balance and external messaging could continue to reflect the views of the two remaining Republican commissioners.

A SEC regulator’s approach in transition

Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the SEC has “radically changed” its approach to crypto regulation and enforcement, according to Cointelegraph’s coverage referenced in the source text. That reporting noted that the SEC dropped several enforcement actions and investigations tied to crypto companies, including those connected to Trump and his family.

The SEC leadership’s direction has been a central part of the crypto industry’s expectations. In remarks earlier referenced by Cointelegraph, Chairman Paul Atkins characterized the previous era of enforcement as “regulation by enforcement.” In that context, Peirce’s own arguments—particularly on how rules should apply to decentralized systems and developers—can be read as consistent with a broader push toward clearer standards rather than case-by-case enforcement.

However, much will depend on what comes next: whether the Crypto Task Force’s work accelerates, how it is framed under the remaining commissioners, and whether the SEC’s enforcement posture toward crypto will continue to shift in the absence of a fully staffed leadership lineup.

As Peirce prepares to step away from the SEC, investors and builders should watch two things closely: how the Crypto Task Force continues its work without her direct leadership, and whether the commission’s membership changes before— or after—Oct. 2 alters how the SEC signals its interpretation of securities laws for digital assets.

Backpack CEO Armani Ferrante has laid out a plan to expand tokenized stock access on Solana from about 200 symbols to 10,000, with shares moving between brokerage accounts and decentralized finance through one API.

According to a post shared by Solana on Sep. 26, Ferrante wants to make the full stock market available through a system that connects conventional securities accounts with DeFi applications.

“Not 10 stocks, not 100 stocks. We want to bring the entire stock market to Solana,” Ferrante said in the clip shared by Solana.

He described a single API through which a real share could move from a brokerage account into DeFi and back. Ferrante called the move from 200 to 10,000 symbols “the next leap,” though the post did not identify a launch date or set out which stocks would be added first.

The 200-symbol figure comes from Ferrante’s description of the starting point. The post does not establish that Backpack Securities has already issued 200 separate tokenized stocks on Solana, so the proposed expansion should not be read as a count of tokens currently in circulation.

How Backpack moves stocks onto Solana

Backpack introduced its securities platform in June, saying customers could hold U.S. stocks and exchange-traded funds through a brokerage service and convert eligible holdings into tokenized securities. Depositing a supported token through Backpack Exchange converts it back into a traditional security entitlement, according to the company.

The company says its brokerage holdings are security entitlements governed by New York’s Uniform Commercial Code Article 8. Backpack also says the service supports cash dividends, corporate actions and transfers involving established brokerage infrastructure, including ACATS and Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation systems.

On Solana, Backpack-issued tokens can be held in compatible wallets and transferred between users. The company says they can also be used in DeFi applications, subject to the features and rules of the particular product and service.

A June report on SPCX covered Backpack Securities’ first tokenized SpaceX product, issued with Sunrise on Solana. Backpack said eligible holders could convert the token into the corresponding share through its brokerage route, while Sunrise provided infrastructure for issuing and distributing the token.

Backpack subsequently added tokenized versions of other U.S.-listed companies. In July, crypto.news covered its continuous trading for a group of equities available to users outside the United States, including products tied to SpaceX, Micron and SanDisk. The company said users could redeem supported Solana tokens one-for-one for the corresponding shares through its platform.

The conversion process is also described in Backpack’s Sep. 23 CoreWeave announcement. A customer can withdraw a CoreWeave holding from Backpack Exchange as a CRWV token on Solana, then deposit the token to convert it back into a brokerage holding, the company said. Backpack identified decentralized exchanges, wallets and other Solana applications where the token could be accessed.

What ownership rights Backpack describes

Backpack draws a distinction between a brokerage holding and its tokenized form, even when it says the two can be converted one-for-one. In its Micron product description, the company says brokerage holders receive cash dividends and corporate actions through traditional securities infrastructure.

For holders of its tokenized Micron security, Backpack says dividend payments are reinvested into additional tokens. It says applicable corporate actions are handled through proportional changes to token balances intended to preserve the economic value of the underlying holding.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has warned that tokenized securities created by third parties do not all give holders the same rights. In a January staff statement, the agency said the rights attached to a token depend on its structure and may differ from those attached to the underlying security. The statement also distinguished tokens backed by securities held through custody arrangements from synthetic products that create different claims.

For American readers, those differences matter when comparing stock tokens with conventional brokerage positions. Backpack’s descriptions of redemption, dividends and corporate actions apply to its stated product structure; they should not be assumed to apply to every token carrying a familiar stock ticker.

Where U.S. tokenized stock rules stand

On Sep. 17, the SEC granted conditional relief for certain venues to trade tokenized National Market System stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The five-year framework places limits on the number of symbols and trading volume a qualifying venue may handle.

Under the SEC’s published conditions, a venue must verify that a tokenized stock gives its holder the same rights and privileges as the equivalent traditional share. When an unaffiliated third party tokenizes a company’s stock, the venue must notify the issuer and give it an opportunity to object.

The SEC also requires public, auditable smart contracts and a halt in token trading whenever the underlying stock is halted on its primary exchange. The agency’s announcement does not identify Backpack as a participating venue or state that its current products operate under the exemption.

Backpack’s U.S. plans have involved a separate corporate step as well. In September, the company’s U.S. arm appointed Kyle Samani to its board. Backpack said the former Multicoin Capital executive would support its work across regulated U.S. financial services and onchain markets; the appointment did not include a timetable for expanding its U.S. stock or tokenized asset services.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has submitted her formal resignation from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, effective Oct. 2.

Peirce, also known as “Crypto Mom” amid her advocacy of clear, rules-based regulation of the crypto industry, posted a copy of her resignation letter on her X account Friday.

In the letter, she thanked the president for the “honor of her professional lifetime” serving as a commissioner and said she was leaving the SEC under the excellent leadership of Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda, the two remaining members, who are both Republicans.

Peirce served on the commission for about eight years. Since Feb. 4, 2025, she was also director of the agency’s Crypto Task Force. Her term at the SEC officially expired in June 2025, but commissioners “may continue to serve up to approximately 18 months after terms expire if they are not replaced before then,” according to the agency.

Peirce will join law school as associate professor

Cointelegraph reported in May that Peirce planned to join the law school of Regent University in Virginia as an associate professor in November. Peirce is expected to help the law school bolster its academic focus in several areas, including federal litigation, securities regulation and digital assets, according to the university.

Peirce’s seat may not be filled immediately. Caroline Crenshaw, the agency’s previous Democratic commissioner, departed in January, 18 months after her term ended and no nominations to fill that seat have been made by President Donald Trump.

Since Trump took office in January 2025, the SEC has radically changed its approach to crypto regulation and enforcement. The agency dropped several enforcement actions and investigations into crypto companies, including those tied to Trump and his family.”

Related: SEC’s ‘Crypto Mom’ calls for simpler disclosure rules, flags tokenization debate

Since its formation, the Crypto Task Force has been examining how existing securities laws should apply to digital assets and decentralized systems.

Cointelegraph reported in June that Peirce said publishing open-source code should not subject software developers to federal securities regulations, weighing in on a longstanding debate over developer liability in decentralized finance.

Peirce’s remarks aligned with the SEC’s broader shift away from what Atkins has described as “regulation by enforcement.”
Magazine: Exchanges reporting crypto gains to IRS becomes tax nightmare

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has submitted her formal resignation from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a letter she posted to her X account. The resignation takes effect Oct. 2.

Peirce—widely dubbed “Crypto Mom” for her push for clearer, rules-based regulation of digital assets—said she was grateful for the “honor of her professional lifetime” serving as a commissioner. In the same message, she indicated she would be leaving the agency under the leadership of Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda, the remaining Republican members of the five-person commission.

Key takeaways

• Peirce’s resignation is effective Oct. 2, ending an approximately eight-year tenure at the SEC.
• She also served as director of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, a role she held starting Feb. 4, 2025.
• Her commissioner term had expired in June 2025, but the SEC notes commissioners may remain for up to about 18 months if not replaced earlier.
• The SEC’s crypto posture has shifted since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, including reduced enforcement activity in some crypto matters.
• Peirce is expected to move into academia, with prior reporting tying her to Regent University’s law school in Virginia as an associate professor.

Departure from the SEC after an “expired but extendable” term

Peirce’s resignation follows a period of transition around her official SEC term. Her stint as commissioner had already reached its scheduled end in June 2025, but the SEC’s rules allow members to continue serving for up to approximately 18 months after their term expires if they are not replaced before then.

She joined the commission for about eight years, and during the latter part of her service she also took on a more direct operational role related to digital-asset policy. Since Feb. 4, 2025, Peirce has been director of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, according to a designation letter posted by the SEC.

What Peirce leaves behind in SEC crypto policy

The SEC’s Crypto Task Force has focused on how existing securities laws should apply to digital assets and decentralized systems. Peirce’s role as director placed her at the center of the agency’s internal work on those questions.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph reported that in June Peirce argued that publishing open-source code should not automatically subject software developers to federal securities laws—an issue that has been debated for years, particularly in the context of decentralized finance and the question of where liability should attach when code is publicly available.

Her approach has been broadly consistent with the regulatory direction that SEC leadership has described publicly. In remarks covered by the SEC, Chairman Paul Atkins has characterized enforcement-heavy regulation as “regulation by enforcement,” reflecting a shift in emphasis away from pursuing violations first and clarifying boundaries later.

A changing commission and an opening seat that may linger

Peirce’s exit could affect how quickly the SEC’s composition changes for crypto-related oversight. The seat she vacates may not be filled immediately.

The SEC already has one less member because Caroline Crenshaw—Peirce’s predecessor on the commission—left in January, about 18 months after her term ended. As of the information in the reporting, President Donald Trump had not made nominations to fill Crenshaw’s seat.

With Peirce resigning effective Oct. 2, the commission will continue to be shaped by its two remaining Republican members, Atkins and Uyeda, at least until new appointments are confirmed.

Next steps: law school appointment expected

Peirce’s next move appears to be in academia. Cointelegraph reported in May that she planned to join Regent University’s law school in Virginia as an associate professor in November. The university was described as expecting her to help strengthen academic coverage in areas including federal litigation, securities regulation, and digital assets.

That planned shift matters for the industry because Peirce has been one of the most visible SEC voices advocating for more structured regulatory clarity—often emphasizing that market participants benefit from clearer rules rather than enforcement after the fact.

Why her resignation matters now for the crypto community

Peirce’s departure comes at a moment when the SEC’s crypto strategy has been changing. Since Trump took office in January 2025, reporting cited by Cointelegraph says the agency has dropped or reduced certain enforcement actions and investigations involving crypto firms, including matters connected to Trump and his family. The broader implication is that digital-asset compliance may increasingly hinge on whether regulators articulate testable expectations—rather than relying primarily on enforcement to define the boundaries.

With Peirce leaving both as commissioner and as Crypto Task Force director, investors, developers, and exchanges will likely be watching closely for what—if any—new leadership brings to the SEC’s internal approach to decentralized systems, developer responsibility, and disclosures. The question for the next phase of policy is whether the SEC will maintain the trajectory toward clearer guidance while still enforcing securities laws when it believes violations occur.

Readers should watch for two near-term developments: whether the SEC moves quickly to appoint Peirce’s replacement, and how the Crypto Task Force’s work evolves under new leadership in the lead-up to any future public regulatory signals.

The Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi in Ohio and Tennessee a month after another appeals court sided with Nevada. New Jersey still has a conflicting ruling. The question for a national market is now practical as well as legal: can an exchange offer the same sports contract across state lines when its federal registration does not necessarily protect it from state gambling law?

An Ohio resident who wants to buy a Kalshi contract on a basketball game faces a different legal position from a New Jersey resident buying the same contract. The exchange and the payoff can be identical. The state line is what changes. On Sept. 25, the federal appeals court covering Ohio and Tennessee concluded that Kalshi had not shown its sports products were protected from those states’ gambling laws.

The 49-page Sixth Circuit opinion, in the consolidated cases KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler and KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel, contains two separate reasons. Its three judges said Kalshi had not shown that the sports contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act. They then assumed, for the sake of argument, that the contracts were swaps and still found that the federal statute did not displace Ohio’s and Tennessee’s gambling rules. One answer concerns the product. The other concerns the boundary between two governments.

Neither holding is a final nationwide ban on sports prediction markets. Both cases concern preliminary injunctions, meaning orders that would stop state officials from enforcing their laws while litigation proceeds. The panel kept Ohio’s denial in place, removed Tennessee’s protection for Kalshi and returned both cases to lower courts. Kalshi remains a federally registered exchange. Registration alone did not win these particular motions.

Two states entered the appeal with opposite answers

Kalshi registered as a designated contract market with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2020. On Jan. 22, 2025, it self-certified sports event contracts and began listing them. The opinion describes markets covering tournament results, golf, soccer statistics and combinations of player and game outcomes. A trader buys a yes or no position that pays according to the specified result. Kalshi had previously offered contracts on climate, economics, elections and crypto. The September decision concerns sports.

Ohio’s Casino Control Commission warned Kalshi that it was offering sports products without a state license. The regulator raised its 21-year minimum and alleged that people below that age could use the exchange. Those are the commission’s allegations, set out in the court record, not an independent finding here that a particular underage customer traded. Kalshi answered that its federal exchange status entitled it to offer contracts nationally. It sued to prevent enforcement, and an Ohio district judge refused a preliminary injunction.

Tennessee’s Sports Wagering Council sent its own cease-and-desist letter. Kalshi again sued, but a Tennessee district judge granted protection against state officials. The state appealed. In one federal circuit, then, the same legal theory had produced one order allowing enforcement and another restraining it. The appellate panel heard the cases together and resolved both on Sept. 25. Its decision affirmed Ohio’s refusal and vacated Tennessee’s injunction.

The distinction between an injunction and the eventual merits matters. The panel evaluated whether Kalshi had shown a likelihood of success sufficient to stop the states now. The underlying suits have been remanded. An operator seeking guidance today cannot treat a ruling on temporary protection as a completed trial judgment, yet a state that is no longer restrained can try to enforce its existing rules. A later appeal, rehearing or Supreme Court decision could alter the position.

Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever told Reuters that the company expected the ruling to face further review and argued that different rules at state borders undermine a national market. The company has a concrete point: a single electronic order book is easier to operate when eligibility for a contract does not change according to each customer’s location. The appellate judges accepted that compliance could cost money. They did not accept that cost as proof that federal law forbids state restrictions.

A sports wager does not become a swap because it trades on an exchange

The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over certain transactions, including swaps traded on designated contract markets. Its definition of a swap includes payments tied to events or contingencies associated with potential financial, economic or commercial consequences. Kalshi says its sports contracts fit that definition and the exchange sits inside the federal regulatory system. If both propositions hold, it argues, states cannot regulate the product as gambling.

The Sixth Circuit focused on what happens when the game ends. A change in interest rates or a debt default has an economic consequence inherent in the event. A tennis result may affect sponsorship, television revenue or nearby restaurants, but those effects follow later decisions by other people. The panel regarded them as too indirect to turn the sporting result itself into the kind of financial contingency contemplated by the swap definition. It considered the terms of the product, not just the federally registered venue where customers trade it.

The opinion points to a problem with defining every event that affects somebody’s money as a swap. Under that definition, an ordinary sportsbook wager could qualify simply because the customer receives money if a team wins. Federal law restricts where swaps can be transacted. Applying its definition to every wager could pull conventional sports bets, including bets made outside registered exchanges, into a regime Congress did not clearly write for them. That consequence informed the judges’ reading of the statutory text; it was not a finding that all wagers actually violate federal law.

Kalshi has a serious textual reply. Congress gave the CFTC a special procedure for event contracts involving gaming. Why give the federal agency a way to prohibit such contracts if it has no jurisdiction over them? The panel answered that the special rule covers agreements, contracts, transactions or swaps. Federal authority to review a gaming-related event product therefore does not prove that every such product meets the narrower swap definition. A regulator can have a review power without possessing exclusive authority over every state-law aspect of the activity.

This is where the product’s label stops doing the work. An event contract can be a derivative in ordinary usage and still fail the particular statutory test Kalshi invoked for exclusive federal protection. The distinction explains why a CFTC filing or exchange listing is evidence of federal oversight without automatically settling a separate state’s licensing question. Crypto.news has explained how self-certification lets an exchange list an event contract without receiving advance approval for every new market. That process is one step in the federal system. It is not a court judgment that every listed market overrides gambling law.

Even a swap may face state gambling law

The second holding makes the opinion more consequential than a dispute over definitions alone. The judges assumed that Kalshi could win the swap argument and asked whether the federal statute would then block Ohio and Tennessee. They still said no. A higher court could disagree on the classification and leave this separate dispute alive.

Federal preemption comes in several forms. Congress can state that state law is displaced. State law can be blocked when it is impossible to comply with both systems. It can be displaced if it obstructs the federal law’s purpose, or if Congress occupied the whole regulatory field. The Sixth Circuit considered these routes and found that Kalshi had not shown the conditions for any of them at this stage.

Kalshi relied heavily on the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over swaps on federal exchanges. The panel read that phrase as allocating federal regulatory authority, not as an explicit repeal of every state rule that might apply to an exchange operator. Congress used unmistakable preemption language elsewhere in commodities law, the judges observed, including provisions on some state gaming rules and insurance. They saw no equivalent broad command in the clause on which Kalshi relied.

The panel also pointed to the special rule that permits the CFTC to consider event contracts involving activities unlawful under state law. That reference would be odd, it reasoned, if Congress intended to erase the relevance of state law altogether. Federal review and state gambling enforcement can coexist under the panel’s reading. This interpretation differs sharply from the argument that federal authorization itself guarantees nationwide access.

The consequence is narrower than a claim that states control all event contracts. The decision addresses Ohio and Tennessee’s sports wagering laws as applied to Kalshi’s sports products. A weather contract, an election contract and a Bitcoin price contract can raise different classification and regulatory questions. Courts have not adopted a single rule for all of them. Treating the September ruling as a ban on prediction markets generally would erase the distinction the judges spent much of the opinion drawing.

The state border is an engineering problem as well as a legal one

One passage of the opinion does work that many discussions of jurisdiction skip. Kalshi argued that CFTC rules require impartial access to its exchange and that a state-by-state restriction would make compliance with both federal and state law impossible. The Sixth Circuit examined the rule itself. It said impartial access governs how an exchange treats eligible participants in the markets it offers; it does not oblige the exchange to offer every particular market in every state.

The judges then identified a concrete alternative: restrict access to certain contracts according to customer location. They noted that other companies have used geofencing while allowing eligible participants impartial access in the permitted area. Kalshi argued that this was technically challenging, time-consuming and expensive. The panel agreed that it could be difficult but said difficulty did not make compliance impossible. It cited Sporttrade as an example raised in the related New Jersey litigation.

Trace the operational result. The exchange could keep a sports contract unavailable to an Ohio customer while offering another contract to that customer and selling the sports contract elsewhere. It would need location checks at account opening and when orders are entered, rules for open positions if a customer’s location changes, and a way to prevent a restricted user from reaching the product through another interface. The opinion does not require this exact design or certify that any particular design would satisfy state officials. The steps are the practical implications of its conclusion that geography can matter within a national electronic venue.

Another route would be a state gaming license where available. That changes the product’s regulatory economics. Ohio and Tennessee laws, as summarized by the court, require sports customers to be at least 21 and impose licensing, tax and consumer protection duties. Tennessee requires its sports customers to be physically present in the state. A license also entails oversight by a regulator whose mandate differs from that of the CFTC. A company choosing this route would have to determine whether its existing exchange structure, customers and clearing arrangements could meet those requirements. The court did not order Kalshi to apply for a license or decide that an application would succeed.

Here is the part that a simple court scoreboard misses. If an exchange geofences states where it cannot offer sports markets, liquidity on the national order book may change even for users elsewhere. If it instead seeks multiple state permissions, trading eligibility and compliance costs vary across its customer base. The premise of one federal venue remains intact, but nationwide access to one specific product no longer follows automatically from that premise. Kalshi’s complaint about fragmentation is therefore more than a slogan. It describes a real cost that the Sixth Circuit judged legally bearable.

New Jersey gives Kalshi its strongest opposing case

The federal appellate courts disagree. In April, a divided Third Circuit panel affirmed a preliminary injunction protecting Kalshi from New Jersey enforcement. It found that the sports contracts qualified as swaps on a CFTC-registered exchange and that Kalshi had shown a reasonable chance of proving federal preemption. That is the strongest available judicial support for Kalshi’s position, not a stray quote from a company filing.

The Third Circuit saw the statute’s national market structure as deliberate. Congress created a federal regulator and an exchange designation process precisely to prevent incompatible rules from intruding on trading in covered products. It treated New Jersey’s attempt to bar particular sports contracts as interference with federally regulated exchange trading. The court’s conclusion gave Kalshi temporary protection while the New Jersey case proceeds. It did not issue a final judgment that every sports market is immune from every state law.

The competing reading has costs too. If a state can prohibit a federally listed contract by calling it gambling, a national derivatives venue may face a patchwork of local restrictions. The question then becomes how to distinguish a state regulating gambling from a state indirectly regulating the substance of a federal derivatives market. Kalshi’s concern about uncertainty is strongest at that boundary, where the same trade could be lawful to one participant and unavailable to another.

In August, the Ninth Circuit allowed Nevada to enforce its gaming rules during litigation. The Sixth Circuit has now reached a result favorable to Ohio and Tennessee. That produces three appellate circuits, two directions and no final nationwide rule. The Fourth Circuit still has a related Maryland appeal pending, according to the Sixth Circuit opinion. Calling the split a guaranteed Supreme Court case would go further than the evidence allows. A petition, an order granting review and a merits decision are separate events.