Four U.S. financial regulators have proposed new third-party risk guidelines that would let banks and credit unions tailor oversight to each outside relationship while replacing existing guidance.

Proposed bank guidelines favor risk-based oversight

The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced the proposal on Sep. 11, saying financial institutions should match their controls to the risks posed by each third-party relationship.

Under the proposal, banks and credit unions would consider both the possible harm from an outside provider and the likelihood of the harm occurring. Institutions could use less detailed checks, standard contracts, or less frequent monitoring when a relationship carries limited risk.

The framework would also let a financial institution accept some residual risk after considering its risk appetite, tolerance, and ability to operate safely. According to the agencies, the principles would not impose enforceable requirements, and a bank would not face supervisory action solely for failing to follow the guidance.

Comments will remain open for 60 days after the proposal appears in the Federal Register. Once finalized, the agencies plan to withdraw the current third-party risk framework and replace it with the revised version.

Federal Reserve staff said existing guidance has sometimes been applied too broadly, encouraged process-heavy reviews, and failed to give enough weight to differences among vendors. Staff also said banks have read the current framework as discouraging work with newer service providers.

As technology has become more central to banking, institutions have outsourced more functions to vendors that can lower costs or improve efficiency. Outside providers may handle payment processing, cybersecurity, online banking, fraud detection, card programs, and anti-money laundering systems, leaving banks responsible for risks tied to services they do not operate themselves.

Community banks would receive a separate guide

Alongside the main proposal, the Federal Reserve has requested comments on a companion guide for traditional community banking organizations under its supervision. The central bank defines eligible institutions as locally focused banks with less than $30 billion in assets.

The proposed guide covers four main areas: operational resilience, information security, legal compliance, and financial resilience. It also explains how banks could assess eight common vendor groups, including core service providers, payment processors, digital banking companies, cybersecurity firms, and financial-crime platforms.

For each category, the document sets out issues that smaller banks may consider during due diligence, contract negotiations, monitoring, and a possible move to another provider. Federal Reserve staff said smaller institutions had asked for more practical information than the high-level principles in the existing framework provided.

Complex bank-fintech arrangements would not fall under the community bank guide. The Federal Reserve memo identifies such arrangements as cases in which one or more fintech companies market, distribute, or provide access to a bank’s products.

A separate statement on core providers addresses vendors that supply systems needed for transaction processing, account management, payments, compliance, customer relations, and online banking. The Fed, FDIC, and OCC said a small number of large companies control much of this market, limiting the negotiating power of community banks.

According to the statement, banks have reported difficulty obtaining due diligence records, negotiating suitable contract terms, and monitoring vendors. Regulators said they may consider a provider’s transparency, contract practices and technology investment when deciding the scope and frequency of examinations.

The agencies may also examine whether providers disclose security incidents on time, supply audit and security records, maintain aging technology, and allow clients to connect services from other companies. Opaque pricing, retroactive billing, and undefined fees for leaving a platform may also influence supervisory decisions.

Barr warns the proposal could leave oversight gaps

Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr opposed the two proposals, arguing that their wording could weaken oversight rather than help institutions manage vendor risks.

Barr objected to a proposed “material financial risk” standard for supervisory action. According to his dissenting statement, the threshold could make banks less likely to correct problems before they become material to the institution.

The governor also questioned language saying regulators would give due consideration to a bank’s reasonable decisions. Barr said institutions could interpret the passage as requiring supervisors to defer to a bank’s judgment instead of making an independent assessment.

Consumer compliance presents another concern, according to Barr. He said the proposals could result in existing guidance being removed without a clear replacement for consumer-protection issues, or force banks to follow two sets of standards.

Barr also noted that the community bank guide excludes institutions with complex business models and vendor relationships, including some bank-fintech partnerships. In his view, banks using such structures may have an especially strong need for detailed third-party risk instructions.

“I dissent,” Barr said.

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook supported reviewing the current framework but requested feedback on whether the final version should say more about cybersecurity, record management, consumer protection and the division of anti-money laundering duties in bank-fintech partnerships.

Cook also backed the separate guide for traditional community banks, describing it as a resource for institutions dealing with complex and critical vendor relationships. She asked community banks to comment on any extra resources they may need when evaluating technology companies and core providers.

Crypto service providers could fall within bank reviews

Although the proposal does not create rules written only for digital assets, its scope can cover technology companies that provide crypto custody, stablecoin, payment, or blockchain services to regulated banks. The agencies’ framework requires institutions to evaluate third parties according to the service and risk involved, regardless of the technology used.

The proposal follows earlier U.S. regulatory action that gave banks more room to conduct permitted digital-asset business. In April 2025, crypto.news reported that the Federal Reserve had removed prior-notification expectations for certain crypto and dollar-token activities.

Federal regulators later issued a July 2025 statement explaining how existing risk-management principles apply when banks safeguard crypto assets. The OCC’s related bulletin said banks should assess outside service providers before offering custody, while noting that the statement created no new supervisory expectations.

The new all-bank proposal permits institutions to use shared due diligence through consortia, standard contracts, certification bodies, and outside consultants. Federal Reserve staff presented such methods as possible ways for banks to gain expertise or reduce repeated work when evaluating service providers.

Consumer compliance issues are not directly covered by the proposed framework, according to the Fed memo, though third-party relationships may still create duties under existing consumer laws. The traditional community bank guide likewise states that consumer compliance falls outside its scope.

• U.S.

  Open follow modal

  Follow this section to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.

  FollowGo to your personalized feed

  Advertisement

  WHY FOLLOW?

  • Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
  • Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.

• video

  Open follow modal

  Follow this tag to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.

  Advertisement

  FollowGo to your personalized feed

  WHY FOLLOW?

  • Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
  • Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.

Sep 11, 2026 9:19 PM UTC

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.

Regulation is emerging as the most significant risk for Hyperliquid, the layer-1 network behind one of the largest decentralized perpetual futures venues, according to Crypto Banter founder Ran Neuner. Speaking on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast, Neuner argued that governments will likely turn their attention from centralized exchanges to decentralized platforms once current centralized frameworks are in place.

Hyperliquid is already deeply positioned in derivatives liquidity: DeFiLlama data cited by Neuner shows the network has led perpetual DEXs by trading volume over the past 30 days, with roughly $223 billion in that period. Still, Neuner suggested that high activity may not fully shield decentralized venues if regulators decide to apply similar compliance expectations.

Key takeaways

• Ran Neuner called regulatory uncertainty the biggest risk for Hyperliquid, warning that decentralized exchanges could face stricter scrutiny after centralized rules take hold.
• Neuner believes Hyperliquid’s network effects create durable advantages that competitors can’t simply replicate by copying features.
• He argued traders naturally concentrate on venues with deeper liquidity, reinforcing the “best node” effect for decentralized trading platforms.
• US officials have suggested Hyperliquid may pursue a “fully compliant and legal” path to US access, though details have remained unclear.

Why Neuner sees decentralization as a regulatory target

In the podcast appearance, Neuner focused on a basic problem: decentralized exchanges operate without the same centralized intermediaries that regulators have started to license and supervise. He suggested that this difference may not prevent oversight—rather, it could determine how the next wave of regulation is shaped.

“The biggest issue is that we don’t know how regulators are going to treat the decentralized exchanges.”

Neuner pointed to the current state of rulemaking around centralized exchanges, referencing licensing frameworks such as MiCA. His view was that once centralized platforms are covered by defined regimes, regulators may then extend comparable pressure toward decentralized venues.

For Hyperliquid specifically, the concern is less about whether a platform is technologically decentralized and more about how regulators decide to classify the activity taking place there—especially when a venue functions as a trading marketplace and users rely on it for execution and liquidity.

Network effects and liquidity may blunt competitive threats

While Neuner highlighted regulation as a key vulnerability, he remained more optimistic about Hyperliquid’s competitive durability. His argument centered on network effects—both for the underlying blockchain ecosystem and for trading behavior at the exchange layer.

Neuner compared the dynamic to consumer platforms: even if thousands of competitors try to copy a successful model, only a fraction capture meaningful traction. “You can’t copy a network,” he said, framing competition as an uphill battle when users and counterparties have already clustered around one dominant venue.

He extended the point to traders’ decisions. According to Neuner, liquidity depth influences where users choose to trade because deeper liquidity can make it easier to enter and exit positions—reducing friction and improving execution. As a result, users tend to migrate toward the “busiest or the best node,” which can keep reinforcing the leader.

This matters for Hyperliquid because the derivatives market is particularly sensitive to liquidity and execution quality. If traders keep prioritizing venues with stronger liquidity, the platform’s most competitive advantage may be self-reinforcing, even as competitors offer alternative interfaces or parallel features.

US access signals, but the compliance blueprint remains unclear

Separate from Neuner’s concerns, US officials have previously suggested that Hyperliquid could pursue a more compliant pathway to operate in the United States. In August, Cointelegraph reported that President Donald Trump said CFTC Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid into the US in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.”

The token’s price moved sharply around those remarks, with HYPE jumping about 20% over the 24-hour period cited in earlier coverage, where it traded around $70. However, as of the August announcement, neither the CFTC nor Hyperliquid had published a formal proposal outlining how US access would work, whether an application had been filed, or when any compliant service could launch.

That uncertainty remains important for market participants because regulation, market access, and product design are tightly linked. If regulators require specific structures—such as licensing, restricted interfaces, or other compliance mechanisms—the operational implications for a decentralized derivatives venue could be significant. Neuner’s comments fit into that broader uncertainty: until regulators clarify how they treat decentralized trading, platforms may be forced to operate without full visibility into their long-term compliance endpoints.

Where HYPE stands as traders price in future optionality

In the market reaction after the August signal, HYPE continued to see strong momentum. According to CoinGecko data referenced in the source material, as of Friday HYPE traded around $82—up more than 220% year-to-date. The report also cited a market capitalization of about $18.2 billion and a fully diluted valuation of roughly $78.4 billion.

These figures underscore how quickly traders can reposition when regulatory access to a major jurisdiction is perceived as possible—even if details are still missing. For investors, the key question is whether any future US-focused framework translates into concrete operational changes, or whether the market’s expectations outrun what regulators ultimately require.

With Hyperliquid facing both the upside of liquidity-driven network effects and the downside risk of regulatory uncertainty, the next phase to watch is straightforward: any official regulatory guidance that clarifies how decentralized exchanges are treated, and any public disclosure that explains how “fully compliant” US access would practically work for the platform.

Perishables at the grocery store

Robinhood has reported a 61% monthly rise in notional crypto trading volume to $17.5 billion in August, led by activity on its Bitstamp exchange.

Robinhood’s August operating data, released Thursday, showed that crypto activity recovered from a quiet July but remained below the level recorded a year earlier.

Robinhood crypto volume rebounds from July slowdown

At $17.5 billion, August crypto trading volume increased by $6.6 billion from the previous month’s $10.9 billion. Robinhood defines notional volume as the total dollar value of crypto assets bought and sold across its platforms.

Compared with August 2025, however, trading activity fell 38% from $28.1 billion. The figures show that the monthly recovery has not returned crypto turnover to last year’s level.

Bitstamp accounted for most of the August total, processing $10.1 billion. Activity on the exchange rose 53% from July after Robinhood completed its acquisition of the trading venue in 2025.

Robinhood’s main app generated another $7.4 billion in crypto volume, a 72% increase from July but a 46% decline from the same month last year. Combined activity across the app and Bitstamp averaged approximately $565 million per day during August.

The split also shows how Bitstamp has expanded Robinhood’s crypto operations beyond its retail brokerage app. Starting in June 2025, the company began including crypto held on Bitstamp in its reported platform assets, according to its financial disclosures.

Despite the August recovery, crypto remains one part of a platform that also covers stocks, options, futures, margin lending, cash products, and event contracts. Robinhood reported $384 billion in total platform assets at the end of August, up 26% from a year earlier.

Funded customers reached 28.6 million, while margin balances climbed to $21.5 billion. The amount customers borrowed for trading increased by 72% year over year, providing another source of revenue through interest payments.

Prediction markets remain Robinhood’s faster-growing product

While crypto recorded the larger monthly gain, Robinhood’s event-contract business continued to show much stronger annual growth.

Customers traded 4.7 billion event contracts during August, down 23% from July but about 15 times the 300 million contracts processed in August 2025. Products available through the platform cover outcomes such as Federal Reserve decisions, elections, and sporting events.

An event contract generally settles at either $1 or zero, depending on whether the selected outcome occurs. A customer who buys a “yes” contract pays the market price and receives $1 at settlement if the event happens; an incorrect position expires without a payout.

Robinhood offers the products through exchanges including Kalshi and ForecastEx, as well as Rothera, a joint venture launched in June. According to the company’s earlier disclosures, Rothera had processed more than 3.5 billion contracts by the time Robinhood released its second-quarter results.

In July, crypto.news previously reported that Robinhood posted record quarterly revenue of $1.31 billion. Event-contract revenue climbed more than tenfold from a year earlier to $156 million, surpassing the $100 million generated by crypto transactions during the quarter.

Crypto transaction revenue fell 38% year over year in the same period, even though Robinhood had added Bitstamp’s operations to its reporting. The difference placed prediction markets ahead of crypto as a source of transaction-based income for the quarter.

US lawmakers examine event-contract trading

Rapid growth in prediction markets has brought the products under closer review in Washington and several states, where officials continue to debate whether some contracts should be treated as federally regulated derivatives or gambling products.

Members of Congress have introduced more than 10 prediction-market bills since January, according to the supplied report. One proposal, the PREDICT Act, would prevent members of Congress, the president, and other senior federal officials from trading contracts linked to political events.

The proposed restriction addresses concerns that public officials could trade while holding information unavailable to other market participants. Debate has also focused on whether contracts involving sports and politics belong inside an app used for stocks, retirement investments, and other financial products.

For U.S. users, Robinhood presents event contracts as products traded through regulated exchanges rather than conventional sportsbook wagers. State authorities and market operators have still disputed which regulators hold authority over certain sports contracts, leaving the legal treatment unsettled across several jurisdictions.

The regulatory issue carries direct relevance for HOOD investors because event contracts generated more transaction revenue than crypto in the second quarter. Any limits on available contracts, eligible customers or distribution could affect a business line that has expanded rapidly over the past year, although Robinhood has not provided an estimate of the possible financial impact.

Robinhood Chain activity rises despite network risks

Robinhood has also pushed further into blockchain-based trading through Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum layer-2 network designed to process transactions away from Ethereum’s main execution layer before posting data back to it.

As of Sept. 1, decentralized exchanges on the network recorded approximately $1.6 billion in daily volume, representing a 61% rise over four days. The activity came after the chain launched its public mainnet on July 1 with tokenized stocks and access through Robinhood Wallet in more than 120 countries.

Network growth has not been free of operational problems. On Sept. 4, Robinhood Chain suffered a 14-minute network outage that stopped block production and left transfers and smart-contract calls waiting for confirmation.

Block production later resumed, but Robinhood had not released a detailed cause at the time of the report. Available records did not indicate that customer balances were lost, and the interruption did not affect stocks, ETFs or other assets held through Robinhood’s conventional brokerage accounts.

Robinhood Chain also carries a separate U.S. access issue because its stock tokens are not offered to American customers. Company documents describe the products as tokenized debt securities issued in Jersey, with each token tracking a stock or exchange-traded fund without granting the holder ownership or voting rights in the referenced company.

A recent dispute with AMC brought that structure under added attention after the theater chain objected to a token linked to its shares. Robinhood’s filings state that the stock tokens have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and cannot be offered, sold or delivered in the United States or to U.S. persons.

Following Thursday’s operating update, Robinhood shares closed 0.83% lower. The decline came during a week in which analysts at Mizuho and StoneX raised their price targets for HOOD, while Robinhood’s next quarterly earnings report is expected on Nov. 4.