NEW YORK — Amy Oldenburg, the head of digital asset strategy at Morgan Stanley (MS), rejected the idea that Wall Street is only now embracing crypto due to fear of missing out, arguing that large banks are acting after years of preparation.

“TradFi is getting FOMO and is now getting involved … it really isn’t accurate,” Oldenburg said during a panel at the Digital Asset Summit in New York on Tuesday. “We’ve been on a journey around the entire modernization of financial infrastructure for years.”

Her comments come as major U.S. banks, long seen as cautious on crypto or latecomers to the industry, begin to expand their offerings. For years, firms like Morgan Stanley restricted activity to indirect exposure, such as offering wealthy clients access to bitcoin BTC$69,522.43 funds.

More recently, that’s included spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on its E*Trade platform and the bank this month even filed to launch its own spot bitcoin ETF.

Broader participation was slowed by regulatory uncertainty and concerns around custody, compliance and market structure. That stance has started to shift, and Morgan Stanley has now outlined a more defined digital asset strategy, with efforts spanning trading, asset management and infrastructure.

Oldenburg said the bank is preparing to support tokenized equities trading on its alternative trading system.

“One of the things that we are planning for the second half of 2026 is turning on our trajectory cross … to support tokenized equities later this year,” she said. The platform already handles equities, ETFs and American depositary receipts (ADRs), which she described as a natural base for expansion.

Inside the firm, the transition requires reworking core systems. “We are having to re-teach ourselves what legacy infrastructure, pipes and plumbing look like,” Oldenburg said, pointing to the challenge of upgrading decades-old financial architecture to support faster settlement and continuous trading.

She also highlighted a gap between crypto startups and large institutions.

“There’s so many other connectivity points that we need to plug in around it,” she said, noting that founders often underestimate how complex bank systems are.

Even so, areas like stablecoins are gaining traction as a way to move money faster and at lower cost than traditional systems.

Adoption, however, depends on coordination across the financial system. “We can’t just modernize on our own,” Oldenburg said. “This is an incredibly complex, integrated global network.”

Despite weak token prices, she said activity continues to build. “It really is very early innings,” Oldenburg said, signaling that Wall Street’s deeper integration with crypto may be gradual, but its underway.

Momentum is building across US states to regulate or restrict prediction markets, with multiple legal actions targeting platforms such as Kalshi.

On March 20, Carson City District Court Judge Jason Woodbury in Nevada made his state the first to issue a temporary ban on prediction market Kalshi from operating. Gaming officials said that the platform violated state gambling laws.

Nearly a dozen other states have also issued various forms of legal proceedings. Most have filed cease-and-desist letters, while Arizona has even brought criminal charges against Kalshi. Other states are considering new legislation for prediction markets.

The patchwork enforcement across states has brought national attention, and regulations at the federal level are looming.

Nevada bans Kalshi while Arizona opens criminal charges 

In 11 states across the US, local authorities have taken legal action against prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.

The state of Nevada managed to initiate a temporary ban, which blocked Kalshi from operating in the state for 14 days. The motion was initially put forward by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. 

The board’s chair, Mike Dreitzer, said that prediction markets “facilitate unlicensed gambling” and are therefore illegal in the state. “We have a statutory duty to protect the public,” he said.

Sports betting and gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach wrote that the order prevents Kalshi from offering “event-based contracts relating to sports, politics and entertainment to people within Nevada without first obtaining all required licenses.”

Just a few days earlier, the neighboring state of Arizona filed criminal charges against the firms behind Kalshi. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office filed a complaint, alleging that Kalshiex LLC and Kalshi Trading LLC were “running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law.”

The announcement claimed Kalshi ”accepted bets from Arizona residents on a wide range of events in violation of Arizona law. These events included professional and college sporting contests, proposition bets on individual player performance, and whether the SAVE Act would become law.”

Betting on sports requires a gaming license, and Arizona law outright bans bets on elections.

Other states have either put forward or are considering new regulations. In Utah, State Representative Joseph Elison put forward HB243, which would define proposition betting as “a gambling bet on an individual action, statistic, occurrence, or non-occurrence.” 

In Pennsylvania, Representative Danilo Burgos announced plans to introduce legislation that would regulate prediction markets and put them under the regulatory purview of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. The bill will propose:

• a 34% state tax and 2% local share assessment on gross revenue, 

• to ban underage users,

• to include self-exclusion lists for user protection, and 

• strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols.

Numerous other states have issued cease-and-desist letters to prediction markets and attempted to block their activities through the courts. Not all of them have been successful. In Tennessee, Judge Aleta Trauger of the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee blocked a state injunction that would prevent Kalshi from operating there. The court concluded that the event contracts were “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which gives the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction.

Kalshi did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment at publishing time. 

Who should regulate prediction markets?

The patchwork of different enforcement actions — and varying reactions to them by different courts — has brought into question who should regulate prediction markets and how. Prediction markets and their proponents believe that the power should lie with the federal government and the CFTC. 

Elison, the sponsor of the law in Utah, told local media, “It’s a huge gray area and there’s lots of lawsuits all over the country right now […] debating this very thing, trying to find out what are the actual definitions.”

“They’re flying under what’s called prediction markets, and prediction markets are regulated by the Federal Commodities Exchange [sic]. That’s why they’re able to do it,” he said. 

A Kalshi spokesperson previously told Cointelegraph, “States like Arizona want to individually regulate a nationwide financial exchange, and are trying every trick in the book to do it. As other courts have recognized and the CFTC affirms, Kalshi is subject to federal jurisdiction.”

“It’s different from what sportsbooks and casinos offer their customers, and it should not be overseen by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws,” they stated.

Aaron Brogan, founder of crypto-focused law firm Brogan Law, wrote, “Prediction markets’ ‘crime,’ the reason that so many states have pursued and will continue to pursue action against them until they win or are stopped, has nothing to do with the merits of these markets.”

Since they are currently regulated under the CEA, and therefore under the oversight of the CFTC, “states will not be able to control them, and more importantly, may not be able to tax them,” Brogan said. According to the American Gaming Association, at stake is billions of dollars in tax revenue across the 40 states where online sports betting is legal.

Some state lawmakers aren’t so shy about this. Burgos wrote that the “regulatory arbitrage” of prediction markets skirting state laws “leaves our constituents vulnerable and deprives the commonwealth of significant tax revenue.”

Speaking to local media, he said that the state should have the ability to tax an activity, particularly when it can harm constituents. “It’s another opportunity to expand the tax base. […] And like everything else that has a potential harm for our community, for our communities. It can create bad habits or worse habits in our communities. That’s one of the dangers that I see.”

There is also pressure at the federal level on prediction markets. Senator John Curtis of Utah introduced a bill called the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act. This would amend the CEA to prevent “event contracts involving sports and casino-style games.”

Curtis told Utah state media that the act would put power back with the states. “Our bipartisan legislation clarifies regulatory jurisdiction, ensuring that states can maintain their authority over sports betting and casino gaming. The Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act is about respecting states’ authority, protecting families and keeping speculative financial products out of spaces where they don’t belong.”

In the meantime, the CFTC is seeking public input on its rulemaking for prediction markets. The CFTC currently has just one sitting commissioner, Chair Michael Selig. He has previously stated the agency would defend prediction markets. 

According to Brogan, if the CFTC further liberalizes prediction markets, and the issue of preemption goes to the Supreme Court, “all that counts, through all the sound and fury, is counting to five.”

Magazine: Banks want to run Vietnam’s crypto exchanges, Boyaa’s $70M BTC plan: Asia Express