Fanatics agreed on July 27 to acquire Water Street Labs and CX Clearinghouse from BGC Group, giving the sports platform a federally regulated exchange and clearinghouse for its prediction markets business. 

Financial terms and a closing date were not disclosed. The deal has been announced but has not been described as completed. 

Once ownership transfers, Fanatics intends to list event contracts through Water Street Labs and settle them through CX Clearinghouse rather than relying entirely on an outside exchange and clearing partner.

Fanatics prediction markets move in-house

Fanatics Markets launched in December 2025 through a partnership with Crypto.com Derivatives North America. Fanatics had also acquired Paragon Global Markets, a CFTC-registered introducing broker and National Futures Association member, in July 2025.

The new transaction would add the remaining core market infrastructure. Fanatics said owning the exchange and clearinghouse would let it directly list and clear contracts across a wider range of events. The service is currently available through mobile apps and the web in 23 states and four U.S. territories.

As previously reported, Fanatics initially explored entering prediction markets through Crypto.com before launching the service in December. The acquisition would reduce its reliance on third-party infrastructure, although existing partner arrangements may continue separately.

The acquired firms hold separate CFTC registrations

The CFTC designated Water Street Labs as a contract market on July 16, eleven days before the acquisition announcement. A designated contract market is a federally supervised exchange that operates under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC rules.

CX Clearinghouse has been registered as a derivatives clearing organisation since April 2010. Its current CFTC order permits it to clear fully collateralised futures, options on futures and swaps. The business was previously known as Cantor Clearinghouse.

Those registrations do not remove product-level oversight. CFTC guidance says designated contract markets must file new contracts and certify that they comply with federal law, or request formal approval where required.

BGC will remain a prediction market data partner

Fanatics and BGC also plan to create data products combining prediction market sentiment with BGC’s traditional financial-market information. The companies did not provide a product name, release schedule or pricing model.

BGC said the arrangement would pair its institutional trading and analytics experience with Fanatics’ retail audience. Fanatics said the combination could connect consumer event trading with institutional participants. These are company objectives rather than completed services.

BGC shares last traded at $11.79, up about 1.2% from the previous close. Fanatics is privately held, so there was no public share-price reaction for the buyer.

Competition and legal risks remain

The acquisition moves Fanatics closer to competitors that control or closely align with regulated exchanges. Coinbase expanded Kalshi-powered prediction markets across all 50 U.S. states, while Robinhood has pursued contracts from several exchanges to broaden its product range.

Owning a CFTC-registered exchange does not settle the dispute between federal derivatives oversight and state gambling laws. In related coverage, Kalshi and Polymarket are fighting a state-by-state legal battle involving cease-and-desist orders, lawsuits and conflicting court decisions.

Fanatics may face similar questions as it expands sports-linked contracts. Its exchange and clearinghouse would remain subject to CFTC supervision, while states could still challenge individual products under gambling and consumer-protection laws.

The next steps are completion of the acquisition, any necessary ownership and rule filings, and the first contracts listed through Water Street Labs. Fanatics and BGC must also develop the proposed market-data products. Neither company announced a launch deadline, and the release did not mention crypto or blockchain integration.

Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced a bipartisan bill that has proposed insider-trading rules for prediction markets while preventing sportsbooks and other gambling companies from supplying liquidity or acting as market makers for those platforms.

The proposal, House Bill 2711, was introduced on July 22 by Democratic Rep. Tarik Khan and referred to the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee. Backed by 24 lawmakers, including 20 Democrats and four Republicans, the measure would regulate prediction markets through conduct standards and consumer protections instead of creating a licensing system or banning the products outright.

Pennsylvania bill targets sportsbook role in prediction markets

At the center of the proposal is a provision that would prevent a prediction market provider from operating in Pennsylvania if its liquidity provider or market maker knowingly conducts gaming activity in the ordinary course of business, regardless of whether that activity occurs inside or outside the state.

The restriction would also extend to parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures, employees, and entities acting for another company’s financial benefit. In addition, prediction market operators would be barred from entering contracts or revenue-sharing arrangements with businesses that ordinarily engage in gaming.

The legislation does not define what constitutes “gaming activity” within the new prediction market chapter. It also leaves unanswered how the restriction would apply to exchanges connected to sportsbook operators, creating uncertainty over how regulators or courts could interpret the provision if the bill becomes law.

The timing is notable because several gambling companies have expanded beyond traditional sports betting into federally regulated event contracts. DraftKings recently launched its proprietary DKeX exchange after acquiring CFTC-registered Railbird Technologies, while both DraftKings and Flutter have pursued market-making operations tied to prediction markets.

If interpreted broadly, the proposal could prevent sportsbook-controlled firms from providing liquidity for prediction contracts offered to Pennsylvania residents. It could also complicate commercial arrangements in which prediction exchanges share revenue with casino operators, sportsbooks, or affiliated gambling businesses.

Unlike bills introduced in several other states that seek to prohibit prediction markets altogether, HB 2711 would regulate their conduct while separating their trading infrastructure from companies engaged in gambling.

Consumer protections accompany the liquidity restriction

Alongside the market-making provision, the legislation would establish several operating requirements for prediction platforms.

Participants would have to be at least 21 years old, while operators would be required to block self-excluded individuals, company employees, employees connected to settlement sources, and anyone possessing material nonpublic information.

Providers would also need commercially reasonable safeguards against fraud, market manipulation, and the misuse of confidential information.

The proposal would prohibit contracts tied to high school sporting events, sporting competitions involving minors, individual health conditions, and so-called “death markets,” which the bill defines as contracts related to a person’s death, assassination, attempted killing, or mass-casualty events.

Athletes, coaches, officials, political candidates, campaign workers, and others capable of influencing an outcome could face liability if they trade contracts connected to those events.

Rather than creating a licensing framework, the bill would give enforcement authority to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, who could investigate violations, seek penalties, and stop platforms operating outside the proposed rules.

Companion proposal would create licensing and taxation

The conduct-focused legislation follows a separate prediction market proposal already pending in the Pennsylvania House.

Earlier this year, Rep. Danilo Burgos introduced House Bill 2497, which would require prediction market operators to obtain licenses from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board instead of relying solely on federal oversight.

HB 2497 would impose a $1 million initial licensing fee, require another $1 million annual renewal payment, and tax gross prediction wagering revenue at 20%, together with a 2% local share assessment.

The combined 22% rate would remain below Pennsylvania’s existing tax rates on licensed gambling businesses, which pay 36% on sports wagering revenue and 54% on online slot revenue.

Burgos has argued that platforms offering event contracts as financial derivatives bypass consumer protections and regulatory requirements already imposed on casinos and sportsbooks.

Although the two bills take different approaches, they have advanced along parallel tracks rather than replacing one another. Burgos circulated his licensing proposal in March, while Khan introduced the conduct-focused legislation in April. Khan is a co-sponsor of both measures, allowing the proposals to complement each other if lawmakers choose to move forward with both.

The approach resembles other recent Pennsylvania legislative efforts involving emerging technologies. In June, Gov. Josh Shapiro introduced the state’s GRID Standards for large data centers, pairing economic incentives with compliance requirements, while previous crypto-related proposals have similarly relied on targeted regulatory measures instead of outright prohibitions.

Neither HB 2711 nor HB 2497 has received a committee hearing or vote.

Federal dispute over prediction markets continues

The latest proposal also arrives while prediction markets remain at the center of a growing conflict between state regulators and federal authorities.

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board told the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in May that sports event contracts amount to illegal gambling under state law and argued that federally regulated exchanges function as unlicensed sportsbooks that remain accessible to people younger than 21.

Pennsylvania also joined a coalition of 40 states urging the CFTC to leave sports event contracts under state gambling oversight.

Federal courts, however, have reached a different conclusion in an important case.

In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 in KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gambling laws when applied to sports event contracts listed on CFTC-registered exchanges. The ruling upheld an injunction preventing New Jersey from enforcing its gambling laws against Kalshi and now serves as binding precedent for federal courts in Pennsylvania.

Judge Jane Roth, writing in dissent, argued that Kalshi’s contracts were “virtually indistinguishable” from products offered by DraftKings and FanDuel, highlighting the overlap between prediction markets and sportsbooks that Pennsylvania’s latest proposal seeks to address through its liquidity restrictions.

The state proposal also follows fresh legal battles elsewhere. As crypto.news previously reported, the CFTC recently asked a federal court to expedite its ruling against Minnesota before that state’s prediction market ban takes effect on Aug. 1, arguing that federally regulated exchanges fall under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than state gambling laws. 

At the same time, the agency has tightened oversight of event-contract listings by requiring exchanges to provide contract-specific disclosures instead of relying on broad self-certification filings.

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

WTI Technical Analysis

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Key takeaways

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

Why “passporting” matters for crypto in ASEAN

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

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

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

ASEAN already uses simplified approvals in other sectors

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

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

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

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

Europe’s MiCA shows how passporting can work in practice

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

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

What changes—and what remains uncertain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalion Fund III targets six blockchain sectors

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

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

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

Singapore records limit the fund to eligible investors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crypto venture capital remains selective

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

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

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

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

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao backed crypto license passporting across ASEAN on July 28 during a fireside discussion at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026.

The session covered digital assets, stablecoins and the future of regional finance.Zhao supported a proposal raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva. Under the idea, a crypto company licensed in one ASEAN jurisdiction could seek simplified approval elsewhere instead of submitting another complete application.

The proposal would still allow host regulators to assess applicants and impose local conditions. It would not automatically permit a company to operate across every ASEAN market.

ASEAN crypto license passport could reduce repeat filings

Crypto companies operating across Southeast Asia currently face separate licensing processes, compliance checks and supervisory requirements. Zhao argued that recognising some work completed by another regulator could reduce duplicated filings and lower market-entry costs.

A common process could also make regional expansion easier for exchanges, custodians and stablecoin payment providers. However, Zhao’s support does not amount to an ASEAN policy decision. No regulator or ASEAN body has announced a formal crypto passporting proposal, consultation or target date.

Binance has direct experience with fragmented licensing. The exchange is seeking more approvals across Asia while working through separate national requirements. Reuters reported in July that Binance planned to expand its regional licensing footprint but had not identified all the markets involved.

ASEAN regulators have already adopted cross-border recognition arrangements for parts of traditional finance. The ASEAN Collective Investment Schemes Framework allows qualifying funds authorised in one participating jurisdiction to seek streamlined approval in another.

Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand launched the framework in 2014. The Philippines later joined through a supplemental memorandum signed by the four national securities regulators.

The ASEAN Capital Markets Forum also operates the ACMF Pass. It allows eligible investment professionals to obtain fast-track registration for advisory work in participating jurisdictions without securing another full license.

Those programmes provide a procedural model, but they do not cover crypto exchanges or stablecoin issuers. They also preserve the power of host regulators to review applicants and enforce domestic rules.

National crypto rules remain the main obstacle

ASEAN members regulate digital assets through different laws, agencies and product classifications. Requirements can involve local incorporation, capital reserves, cybersecurity, custody, disclosures and anti-money-laundering controls.

The Philippines shows how several approvals can apply to one service. Binance and BlockShoals lacked the central bank license required for certain payment and transaction activities, despite participating in a Securities and Exchange Commission sandbox.

The Philippine SEC later allowed BlockShoals to begin sandbox testing using Binance infrastructure. However, the approval did not replace separate Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas requirements. In related coverage, the testing programme included a 90-day integration period before user onboarding could begin.

A regional passport would therefore require regulators to agree which authority acts as the home supervisor and which responsibilities remain with each host country.

Europe provides a broader crypto comparison

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation provides the clearest direct comparison. MiCA allows an authorised crypto-asset service provider to offer services across EU member states after completing the required notification process.

That system relies on a shared legal rulebook, common authorisation standards and cooperation between national regulators. ASEAN does not currently have an equivalent regional crypto law.

Notably, Binance missed the full MiCA licensing deadline and restricted some European services. The case shows that passporting reduces repeated national applications but does not remove scrutiny during the original approval process.

ASEAN’s Digital Economy Framework Agreement may create another venue for regional cooperation. Negotiations have concluded, and the agreement is undergoing legal review before an expected November 2026 signing. Official descriptions cover digital payments, data governance and cybersecurity, but no published document confirms that crypto license passporting forms part of the agreement.

Any crypto passport would still require negotiations among national regulators, common minimum standards and an information-sharing system. For now, Zhao’s proposal remains a recommendation for future regional policy rather than an approved licensing route.