Binance is expanding its derivatives offering into foreign exchange with the launch of 24/7 perpetual futures, starting with a US dollar-Brazilian real contract on Monday.

Unlike traditional FX markets, which close for the weekend, Binance’s contracts will trade continuously using a dual-mode pricing system. During regular FX trading hours, prices will track a weighted index from third-party data providers, while weekends and public holidays will use an orderbook-based pricing mechanism.

The USDBRLUSDT contract will go live on Sept. 21, settle in USDT and offer up to 100x leverage, according to a Friday announcement. Binance said the weekend system uses an exponentially weighted moving average of orderbook prices, rather than relying on external price feeds.

Binance trading head Shunyet Jan said the contracts are intended to extend price discovery beyond traditional FX trading hours, while giving traders a venue to hedge or take positions around the clock.

Related: Binance brushes off Lagarde MiCA speculation, reaffirms Europe commitment

Crypto exchanges expand into foreign exchange

The launch comes less than two weeks after Bybit introduced 24/7 perpetuals tracking EUR/USD, GBP/USD and USD/JPY, also settled in USDT and offering up to 100x leverage.

Other crypto exchanges entered the market earlier. Kraken launched FX perpetuals tracking the euro, British pound, Australian dollar, Japanese yen and Swiss franc in April 2025, with up to 50x leverage. The exchange had offered spot FX trading since 2020 and reported $5.7 billion in FX spot volume in the first part of 2025.

The products give crypto traders exposure to currency movements without owning the underlying currencies, tapping into a market that handles more trading than any other financial market. Global OTC FX turnover averaged $9.6 trillion a day in April 2025, according to a report from the Bank for International Settlements.

Magazine: Bitcoin treasury firms can outperform BTC… but is the risk worth taking?

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.

Fake YouTube tutorials promoting AI-powered crypto arbitrage bots have tricked 224 victims into deploying malicious smart contracts that stole 274.6 ETH worth about $517,000.

TRM Labs said in a Sep. 14 report that the operation disguised malicious Ethereum contracts as automated trading tools built with Anthropic’s Claude, allowing the scammers to steal funds without relying on conventional phishing links or suspicious wallet approvals.

The blockchain intelligence firm traced 234 contracts deployed by victims, although the campaign affected 224 people because some participants created more than one contract. Funds taken through the contracts eventually reached six collection addresses controlled by the operators.

Based on ETH’s value when the transfers occurred, the 274.6 ETH stolen was worth approximately $517,000. TRM calculated a median loss of 1 ETH per incident, showing that the total did not depend on a single large victim.

Fake AI trading bot tutorials turned victims into contract deployers

Rather than sending users to a page that immediately requested access to their wallets, the operators presented the scheme as an educational process. Victims found the videos, followed the instructions, and took each onchain step themselves.

TRM identified nine nearly identical YouTube tutorials presented under different creator identities. AI-generated virtual hosts and voiceovers gave the videos the appearance of independent guides, while each tutorial promised to help viewers create a fully automated crypto arbitrage bot using Claude.

During the videos, users were told to copy code and open a compiler website selected by the presenter. Some of the websites copied the design of Remix, a commonly used browser-based development environment for writing and deploying Ethereum smart contracts.

Victims then connected their wallets, compiled what appeared to be trading software, and deployed the resulting contracts. Because the users initiated and approved each action, the transactions looked different from attacks in which a fraudulent site asks for a direct token allowance or an unclear signature.

Funding the newly deployed contracts completed the trap. Users believed they were supplying capital that the bot would use to exploit price differences between trading venues, but TRM found no arbitrage system or AI function in the malicious contract variant it examined.

The malicious contracts drained deposits above 0.05 ETH

In one version of the scheme, a backend script ignored the source code that victims pasted into the compiler. The website instead retrieved a separate contract from a server operated by the scammers and prepared the replacement for deployment.

As a result, the clean code displayed in the browser was never placed onchain. Victims saw one program on their screens while their wallets deployed another, preventing them from verifying the real contract through a visual check of the compiler window alone.

The replacement contract could accept ETH deposits, matching the expected behavior of a trading bot that needed funds to operate. Once its balance exceeded 0.05 ETH, however, the contract was set to transfer the money to an address controlled by the operators when the user selected either the Start or Withdraw function.

Both buttons therefore served the same purpose despite carrying labels associated with normal bot controls. Pressing Start did not activate a trading strategy, while pressing Withdraw did not return the deposited funds to the user.

No AI model interacted with the deployed contract, according to TRM’s findings. The Claude branding formed part of the sales pitch, while the onchain code only received deposits and moved qualifying balances to the scammers.

The method also reduced the chance that common wallet protections would interrupt the process. A wallet could accurately show that its owner was deploying a contract, sending ETH to it and later calling one of its functions, yet still lack the context needed to determine that the tutorial and compiler had misrepresented the code.

AI trading bot scam bypassed common phishing defenses

Traditional crypto phishing campaigns often depend on copied domains, poisoned search results or prompts that request broad token permissions. Blocklists and wallet simulations can sometimes identify a known malicious address, deceptive domain, or transaction that grants an attacker control over existing assets.

The AI trading bot operation used a different path because each victim became the deployer of a newly created contract. A fresh address would not necessarily appear on an existing blacklist, and the wallet owner authorized the deployment and funding transactions without surrendering a seed phrase.

In July, crypto.news explained how drainers commonly abuse legitimate blockchain permissions. Such tools often convince a user to approve a malicious contract, which can then transfer tokens while the blockchain processes the action as authorized.

The campaign described by TRM moved the deception one step earlier by controlling the code-generation and deployment process. Instead of asking victims to trust an existing contract, the tutorials convinced them that they were creating the software themselves.

A separate Hyperliquid phishing case in August showed how online advertising can also direct crypto users toward malicious infrastructure. One user lost about 550,000 USDC after a sponsored Google result led to a fake Hyperliquid website linked by security firm Salus to the Inferno drainer ecosystem.

Salus said the infrastructure in that incident automatically divided stolen funds among addresses connected to the operation. Investigators linked related groups to approximately $52.74 million in losses, showing how backend services can handle theft, swaps, consolidation, and revenue sharing while separate operators focus on attracting victims.

U.S. users can report crypto losses through the FBI

For U.S. users, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center accepts reports involving cryptocurrency fraud and other cyber-enabled crimes. The bureau says complaint data can help investigators identify connected cases, follow emerging methods and, in some situations, freeze stolen funds.

The FBI recorded $16.6 billion in reported internet-crime losses during 2024, up from $12.5 billion in 2023, according to figures published by the center. The agency advises victims to file reports even when they are unsure whether a complaint meets a specific crime category because submissions may be shared with federal, state, local, or international law enforcement agencies.

Onchain security groups have also increased their focus on attacks that use valid user actions to execute theft. In February, the Ethereum Foundation backed a Security Alliance engineer assigned to track and disrupt wallet drainers targeting Ethereum users.

Security Alliance cited data placing drainer-related losses at $84 million in 2025, the lowest level on record. Its security network includes MetaMask, Phantom, WalletConnect, and Backpack, which share threat intelligence designed to identify phishing campaigns and other malicious infrastructure.

AI researcher and investor Leopold Aschenbrenner is suspected of being behind the purchase of $96 million worth of SanDisk, Micron, Intel, and Marvell call options.

Aschenbrenner runs hedge fund Situational Awareness, most famous for losing billions of dollars during a sudden downturn in AI stock prices. It was a wipeout the Financial Times ranked as the largest in hedge fund history.

JPMorgan Chase subsequently terminated its lending relationship with the fund.

Although SEC filings haven’t yet disclosed the name of the buyer, Jim Cramer posted today, “If I didn’t know any better I would say Leopold is back!”

ZeroHedge agreed.

Options provide financial leverage by design, and their short time to maturity makes these contracts even more volatile. All these options expire on October 2.

Situational Awareness previously ran on leverage as high as 400%, growing from $225 million at launch in 2024 and soaring past $45 billion in July before liquidating assets in a fire sale to Ken Griffin’s Citadel. 

ZeroHedge listed four particularly bullish prints of October 2 expiry calls:

• $44 million worth of Micron $1,000 per share strikes
• $41 million worth of SanDisk $1,600 per share calls
• $11 million worth of calls on Intel and Marvell

Read more: Leopold Aschenbrenner is back to losing money in AI stocks

The theory that Aschenbrenner is behind these trades rests on pattern-matching, not definitive proof. Predictions are, after all, one the most popular activities on X.

How ‘back’ is Leopold Aschenbrenner?

First of all, it is true that Aschenbrenner has returned to buying options on AI stocks this month, generally speaking.

He’s previously proven his ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his hedge fund, so the size of his portfolio could easily be sufficient to take on these positions.

Second, he’s fond of the AI industry and short-term financial leverage, so the trades certainly match his profile.

Advertisement

Third, SanDisk and Micron in particular were Aschenbrenner’s two largest positions in his fund’s latest regulatory disclosure, so two matching tickers provides further pattern-matching.

CNBC reported on September 11 that Situational Awareness was also buying options this month, so options are certainly another clue.

After Situational Awareness lost billions of dollars and lost a JPMorgan relationship in July, the fund told investors it would rebuild. It mentioned potentially less risky products like FLEX options.

So far, if Aschenbrenner is actually the person behind these trades, his portfolio is probably doing well this week.

Advertisement

Over the last five trading days, SanDisk is up 6%, Intel is up 3%, Micron is up 2%, and Marvell is up 1%. Although these gains are modest, leveraged products like options trade idiosyncratically, often amplifying losses and gains dramatically.

Situational Awareness’s SEC Form 13F for the third quarter of 2026 is due in mid-November, which might be the next time the public learns about Aschenbrenner’s precise stock picks.

Until then, social media commentators are happy to name the man behind the tape and imagine his day-to-day profitability.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

The SEC has opened a five-year pathway for tokenized U.S. stocks that requires each approved token to carry the economic, voting, dividend, and liquidation rights attached to the underlying share.

Bitget Wallet COO Alvin Kan told crypto.news that the legal rights attached to a stock token will matter more to investors than its trading hours, settlement speed, or country of issuance.

“A token that tracks a stock price is not the same thing as owning the stock. Putting both on a blockchain doesn’t erase that difference,” Kan said.

Under the SEC exemption, a tokenized National Market System stock must grant its holder the same rights and privileges as the matching traditional share. Kan said those protections include an economic interest in the company, dividends, voting power and rights during liquidation.

Synthetic exposure does not qualify under the exemption. An issuer can also object if an unrelated third party tries to tokenize its shares, giving listed companies some control over how their securities appear in blockchain-based markets.

Investor rights separate tokenized stocks from price trackers

Instead of dividing the market into U.S. and offshore products, Kan said investors should examine what each token represents under the law. Two products can track the same listed company while giving their holders very different claims.

One token may represent a direct or beneficial interest in shares held through a regulated structure. Another may function as a contract with an intermediary that promises to follow the stock’s price without making the buyer a shareholder.

The difference can determine whether a holder receives dividends, can vote on company matters or has a claim on assets if the issuer is liquidated. Counterparty exposure may also enter the arrangement when the investor’s claim depends on a platform, custodian or special-purpose entity.

A Sep. 11 examination of tokenized ownership structures found that products can represent direct shares, custodial claims or synthetic contracts. Company rules, securities laws and underwriter restrictions may still limit transfers even when a token moves freely between blockchain addresses.

Kan said many crypto-native products outside the United States provide price exposure or a contractual claim against an intermediary. Under the SEC pathway, an approved NMS stock token must instead preserve the rights carried by the conventional security.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong made a similar distinction on Sep. 14 when he said the exchange’s stock tokens use real securities rather than synthetic assets or debt instruments. Coinbase holds the underlying shares through an offshore special-purpose company and a regulated U.S. broker, according to a report on its fully backed stock tokens.

Verified holders can request redemption of the underlying shares, while dividend proceeds are generally reinvested after taxes and fees. Coinbase’s products, however, remain unavailable to U.S. persons and are not registered under the U.S. Securities Act.

Tokenized stocks can improve access without changing ownership

For eligible users, Kan identified self-custody, fractional ownership, continuous trading and almost immediate settlement as possible benefits. The SEC has also listed such features among the potential gains from moving securities onto blockchain systems.

Trading a stock token around the clock could reduce the limits imposed by regular exchange hours, while fractional units could let investors purchase smaller portions of high-priced shares. Blockchain settlement may also shorten the time between a completed trade and the final transfer of ownership.

Yet Kan cautioned that tokenization alone does not produce a better investment product. A system may use blockchain records while keeping strict permission controls, thin liquidity and several intermediaries between the investor and the underlying share.

“If access remains heavily permissioned, liquidity is shallow and users still face multiple intermediaries, blockchain may mainly modernize the back end without materially changing the front-end experience,” Kan said.

For investors, the practical test is whether the structure reduces the work involved in settlement, record reconciliation and product distribution. Moving a stock record onto a blockchain without removing those costs would change the technology supporting the market but leave the customer experience largely intact.

The ownership record forms another part of the issue. On Sep. 1, the SEC proposed updates to federal transfer-agent rules and forms, which have not received a substantial revision since the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the agency.

A recent report on blockchain ownership records explained that transfer agents could use distributed-ledger systems as an official record under the proposal. The rule would not automatically turn every stock-linked token into a legal share or give its holder shareholder rights.

The SEC exemption gives institutions room to test products

For banks, brokerages, trading venues and blockchain providers, Kan described the exemption as operational clarity rather than permanent legal certainty.

The order expires five years after publication. It also contains limits covering trading symbols and volume, remains subject to modification and is designed to provide information for later SEC rulemaking.

Those terms give institutions enough regulatory space to develop pilot programs, connect existing systems and test modular infrastructure, Kan said. Firms committing capital over longer periods will still distinguish between a temporary exemptive order and requirements placed in final agency rules or federal law.

The distinction matters for U.S. investors because the SEC is using its authority over securities already covered by the Exchange Act. The agency does not have to wait for Congress to settle every dispute over the classification of crypto assets before testing blockchain systems for instruments that are already treated as securities.

Kan said the approach separates statutory reform from agency-led changes to market structure. Congress can write laws covering the treatment of digital assets across several markets, while the SEC can act within its existing securities mandate.

Congress has left the SEC to use its existing authority

The exemption arrived two days after the Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, during a Sep. 15 procedural vote.

The bill sought to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and divide regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its failure did not remove the SEC’s authority over products already classified as securities.

A 50-49 Senate vote left the bill 10 votes short of the 60 required to invoke cloture and open formal debate. Clearing the motion would not have passed the legislation; it would only have allowed senators to begin considering the House-approved measure and possible amendments.

All participating Democrats opposed cloture. Republican Sens. Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis also voted against the motion, with Tillis changing his vote for procedural reasons that preserved the option to request reconsideration.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has submitted a new regulatory action covering crypto asset transactions and markets for White House review, as the agency moves forward with its approach to overseeing the digital asset sector.

According to a filing with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the action, titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets,” was received on Sept. 17 and is listed at the “prerule” stage. The designation indicates the action is at an early stage of the rulemaking process and has not yet been formally proposed.

The filing does not disclose details of the planned regulation, but comes days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, legislation aimed at establishing a federal regulatory framework for crypto markets.

Source: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

A day after the Sept. 15 vote, CFTC Chair Michael Selig posted on X that the agency was “locked in and ready to ship” rules for crypto markets using its existing statutory authority, while SEC Chair Paul Atkins similarly said the securities regulator would move ahead “with or without legislation.”

Both agencies took action the following day. The CFTC issued a no-action position for providers of passive software, while the SEC announced temporary exemptions for certain platforms facilitating onchain trading of tokenized securities.

Source: SEC

CFTC and SEC move ahead without new legislation

The CFTC had been exploring the possibility of advancing crypto rules without new legislation before the Senate vote this week. In remarks at the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee conference on Aug. 20, Selig said the agency was prepared to use its existing authority to establish a crypto asset market regime if the CLARITY Act stalled.

Selig added that he had directed CFTC staff to explore rules that could allow existing registrants and currently unregistered crypto exchanges to become a type of designated contract market called a “crypto asset market,” where leveraged or margined crypto trading could be offered under CFTC oversight.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong also said he expected regulators to move ahead after the vote. In a Sept. 15 post on X, he wrote that the SEC and CFTC had “the tools they need to create clear rules under existing authority” and that he expected them to begin working on the issue “in earnest.”

“So clarity is coming to crypto regardless,” Armstrong wrote.

Source: Brian Armstrong

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.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has submitted a new regulatory action covering how it plans to oversee crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets, with the proposal now moving through the federal rulemaking pipeline for White House review.

According to a filing published through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at reginfo.gov, the action—titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets”—was received on Sept. 17 and is currently listed at the “prerule” stage, meaning it is early in the process and has not yet been formally proposed.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC has initiated a new rulemaking track for crypto-related transactions and markets, but the details have not been released yet.
• OIRA’s “prerule” designation indicates the action is still at an early stage and not a formal notice of proposed rulemaking.
• The move follows the Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act, keeping pressure on regulators to act without new legislation.
• In parallel, both the CFTC and SEC signaled they could proceed using existing authority, including through targeted relief and exemptions.

A CFTC rulemaking filing enters the federal review track

The OIRA entry for the CFTC action provides the clearest public confirmation so far of the agency’s regulatory direction: the filing exists, has been received, and is underway as part of the U.S. government’s rulemaking review process. However, the filing does not outline what specific requirements the CFTC plans to impose or how it intends to define regulated crypto market structures.

For market participants, the practical significance is that rule development is not only being discussed—it is being processed through government channels that typically precede public comments and formal proposals. Still, because the item remains at the prerule stage, the scope, timing, and concrete compliance expectations are not yet available.

After the CLARITY Act setback, regulators show momentum

This CFTC filing comes days after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, a bill intended to establish a federal framework for crypto market regulation.

That failure matters because it reduces the likelihood of Congress providing an immediate, comprehensive structure that could harmonize oversight across agencies. With legislation stalled, the burden shifts to regulators to define roles and boundaries through existing statutory authority—an approach the CFTC and SEC appear prepared to pursue.

CFTC and SEC actions signal “rules with or without legislation”

Shortly after the Sept. 15 Senate vote, CFTC Chair Michael Selig posted on X that the agency was “locked in and ready to ship” rules for crypto markets using its existing authority. SEC Chair Paul Atkins made a similar point, saying the SEC would move ahead “with or without legislation.”

The following day, both regulators took visible steps. The CFTC issued a no-action position for providers of passive software. Separately, the SEC announced temporary exemptions for certain platforms facilitating onchain trading of tokenized securities, as reflected in an SEC communication posted on X.

These actions do not replace broad rulemaking, but they do indicate an interim strategy: provide targeted regulatory relief and clarify operational pathways for specific categories of activity while longer-term frameworks are developed.

What the CFTC has said before: using existing authority to define a market regime

The CFTC’s willingness to move ahead without waiting for legislation has been discussed publicly before. Earlier remarks by Chair Selig at the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee conference on Aug. 20 indicated the agency had been assessing whether it could establish a crypto asset market regime under existing authority if the CLARITY Act stalled.

In those remarks, Selig indicated he directed CFTC staff to explore rule options that could enable existing registrants and currently unregistered crypto exchanges to become a type of designated contract market—referred to as a “crypto asset market”—where leveraged or margined crypto trading could fall under CFTC oversight.

This matters for investors and builders because the classification of trading venues and the treatment of leverage and margin can directly affect which firms can operate, which registrations may be required, and what investor protection frameworks are applied. It also helps determine how market participants structure products and routing of orders.

Industry leaders have echoed the expectation that regulators would proceed. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a Sept. 15 X post that the SEC and CFTC “have the tools they need to create clear rules under existing authority,” adding that he expected regulators to begin working “in earnest.”

What to watch next as the filing moves from prerule to proposal

For now, the key unknown is the substance: the OIRA record confirms the CFTC’s intention to regulate crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets, but it does not provide the operational details firms will need to prepare. The next developments to monitor are when the action advances beyond prerule, whether it is broken into specific proposed rule components, and how it aligns—or potentially conflicts—with concurrent SEC efforts affecting tokenized securities and onchain trading.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.