Crypto World
Lawmakers From Gaming States Ask SCOTUS to Hear Kalshi Appeal
US state lawmakers have stepped into the Kalshi prediction-markets dispute, filing an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to address whether state gaming regulators can rein in platforms that offer event-based “contracts” linked to sports and other outcomes.
The filing—submitted by the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) on Tuesday—backs the position of New Jersey’s Attorney General and gaming authorities as they pursue a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court docket in question stems from a Sept. 2 request, which asks justices to consider New Jersey’s legal challenge to Kalshi and to clarify the balance between state authority and federal oversight.
Key takeaways
- NCLGS filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey and state gaming regulators in their dispute with Kalshi over prediction-market activity.
- The lawmakers argue that a ruling for Kalshi would effectively leave states “powerless” to regulate prediction-market sports betting.
- The brief warns that any preemption ruling could force broader changes to the regulated gaming landscape across US jurisdictions.
- Kalshi has not yet filed its official Supreme Court response; the deadline for its brief is Nov. 9.
Why the Supreme Court case matters for state gaming oversight
At the center of the controversy is jurisdiction: New Jersey and gaming authorities are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on whether state governments—or federal agencies—have the legal authority to regulate prediction-market platforms operating through event contracts.
According to the amicus brief, if the Supreme Court rules in a way that limits state regulation of Kalshi’s so-called “sports betting” activities, states would lose the ability to set rules for how such products are marketed and offered within their borders. The NCLGS argues that this would create “substantial harm and confusion,” in part because it would undermine existing regulatory frameworks designed for heavily supervised gaming activities.
The lawmakers also frame the issue as one that should remain a matter for state control over “gaming-related matters.” However, the brief acknowledges a competing argument raised in the dispute: that certain event contracts traded on federally regulated markets could fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. In other words, the underlying fight is not only about whether states want to regulate, but about whether the law allows them to do so in light of federal regulatory authority.
Potential ripple effects beyond one platform
A notable part of the NCLGS filing is its emphasis on what a favorable ruling for Kalshi could trigger across the US gaming industry.
In its argument, the group contends that if Kalshi’s products are treated as beyond state regulation, then other highly regulated operators—such as casinos and pari-mutuel businesses—may seek to restructure offerings to obtain similar legal treatment. The amicus brief warns that this would compel states to reconsider entire regulatory regimes tied to “vice activity” if federal preemption is found in this area.
While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, the way the lawmakers describe downstream consequences highlights a key investor and operator concern: if the legal boundary between state oversight and federal preemption shifts, the compliance costs and product design strategies for companies in regulated gambling ecosystems could change quickly.
How the dispute reached the Supreme Court
New Jersey’s petition for a writ of certiorari is part of an appeal that followed an earlier decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court petition, filed Sept. 2, asks the Court to consider New Jersey’s case against Kalshi and potentially resolve a broader jurisdictional question affecting prediction markets.
The framing of the case is important because it may determine whether state regulators can enforce traditional gaming laws against prediction-market products, or whether federal regulation—particularly the CFTC’s role—dominates in areas where event contracts intersect with federally supervised markets.
At present, the Supreme Court has not announced a decision, and the outcome could hinge on how the Court interprets the relationship between state gaming authority and federal jurisdiction in this specific category of financial-like instruments tied to real-world events.
What happens next in Kalshi’s Supreme Court response
Kalshi has not yet provided an official response to the certiorari petition in the Supreme Court. The company has until Nov. 9 to file its brief stating its position.
In earlier commentary associated with the initial filing, a Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the platform “could not be regulated by 50 different regulators.” That stance reflects a central theme in prediction-market regulation debates: companies argue that fragmented state regimes can create legal uncertainty, while state lawmakers argue that gaming should remain subject to local oversight.
As the case moves forward, attention will likely focus on whether the Court views the relevant contracts as properly falling within federal regulatory authority, and—if not—what standards states may apply to similar products going forward.
For now, market participants, gaming operators, and developers should watch for the Supreme Court’s progress on certiorari and, critically, the arguments Kalshi makes in its upcoming Nov. 9 brief—because the justices’ interpretation of jurisdiction could reshape how prediction markets and related products are offered across US jurisdictions.
The London Company, an investment management company, released its second-quarter 2026 investor letter for its “Small Cap Strategy.” U.S. equities rebounded in the quarter, driven by AI infrastructure spending and positive earnings. The letter can be downloaded here. Despite this optimism, rate outlook uncertainty persisted. Technology, previously weak, surged to lead the market, especially in semiconductors, while energy declined as oil prices fell. Small caps outperformed large caps, with momentum and volatility factors leading, although quality and yield were headwinds for portfolios. The London Company Small Cap portfolio increased 12.9% during the quarter, underperforming the Russell 2000 Index’s 21.5% gain, primarily due to stock selection issues. The firm remains confident in the durable, high-quality businesses for attractive long-term compounding. Please review the Fund’s top five holdings to learn more about its key selections for 2026.
In its second-quarter 2026 investor letter, London Company Small Cap Strategy highlighted Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA). Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) engages in marketing of retail motor fuel products and convenience merchandise. On September 21, 2026, Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) closed at $508.98 per share. Over the past month, Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) declined 6.49%, but its shares are up 29.72% over the past year. Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) has a market capitalization of $9.35 billion, and its stock has traded within a 52-week range of $349.83 to $636.05.
London Company Small Cap Strategy stated the following regarding Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) in its Q2 2026 investor letter:
“Reduced: Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) – We trimmed MUSA after the stock rallied on fuel margin strength, which is inherently cyclical and difficult to sustain at current levels. The core thesis and our long-term conviction remain intact, and we redeployed proceeds into additional opportunities within the portfolio.”
Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) is not on our list of the 40 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. According to our database, 40 hedge fund portfolios held Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) at the end of the second quarter, down from 41 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the potential of Murphy USA Inc. (NYSE:MUSA) as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you’re looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
Need to withdraw a large amount of cash? Be sure you know your bank’s ATM withdrawal limits first. ATM withdrawal limits place a cap on how much money you can take out over a certain period, even when you have plenty of cash in your account.
Knowing how these limits work — and what to do if you need more cash — can help you avoid an inconvenient surprise at the ATM.
What are ATM withdrawal limits?
ATM withdrawal limits are caps on how much cash you can withdraw from an ATM during a certain period. This may be a limit on the total amount per transaction or a limit on the total amount you can withdraw per day.
Withdrawal limits are primarily used as a safeguard against fraud; by limiting how much can be withdrawn, there’s less chance that the money in your account could be wiped out if your banking information falls into the wrong hands.
These limits also ensure that ATMs don’t run out of cash before they can be replenished.
ATM withdrawal limits vary quite a bit, from several hundred to several thousand dollars, depending on the bank and account. For example, a basic free checking account may have a lower limit than a more premium checking account for customers with larger balances.
If you need more cash than your limit permits, your bank may allow you to temporarily increase your limit. In other cases, you may need to request a larger amount in person from a teller at a branch.
How do I find out my bank’s ATM withdrawal limits?
The easiest way to find your bank’s ATM withdrawal limit is to log into your online banking account or mobile app, and look for the ATM limit under your debit card settings, account details, or a section labeled “transaction limits” or “card limits.”
If you can’t find it there, you can also:
-
Review your account or debit card agreement. Banks often disclose ATM withdrawal limits in the documents provided when you open an account or receive your debit card.
-
Call your bank. Use the customer service number on the back of your debit card and ask for your ATM withdrawal limit.
-
Visit a branch. A teller or customer service representative can typically look up your limit.
Keep in mind that your bank’s limit and an individual ATM’s limit aren’t necessarily the same. For example, your bank might allow $1,000 in ATM withdrawals per day, but a particular ATM could cap each transaction at $500. In that case, you may need multiple transactions — or a different ATM — to reach your bank’s daily maximum.
What to do if you’ve reached your ATM withdrawal limit
If you know you need to withdraw a large amount of cash that exceeds your daily limit, your best bet is to visit a local branch and make a withdrawal at the counter from a bank teller. These withdrawals don’t count toward your ATM withdrawal limit.
However, if you aren’t near a branch and need cash quickly, you can often contact customer support via telephone or use your mobile banking app to request an ATM withdrawal limit increase. Your bank will review your request and take into consideration factors such as your account type, available balance, and banking history. While it isn’t guaranteed that your request will be approved, this can be the fastest way to gain access to more cash.
Finally, if you need a smaller amount of cash but have already reached your ATM limit, you can visit a nearby retailer and request cash back after making a purchase. This does mean spending some money you may not have planned on, but it is an option if you’re in a pinch and absolutely need the cash.
Note that ATM withdrawal limits typically reset daily. So, if you can afford to wait until the next day to make a withdrawal, you may want to hold off and let your limit reset to avoid the added headache of getting around it.
Examples of ATM withdrawal limits
Remember, ATM withdrawal limits vary by account, card type, ATM, and sometimes the individual customer. So, there usually isn’t one universal limit for an entire bank.
Even so, you may want to get a ballpark figure of how much you may be allowed to withdraw in one day. Here’s a look at typical ATM withdrawal limits among a few popular banks:
The bottom line
ATM withdrawal limits may not be top of mind when choosing a bank account, but they’re a feature that can become important when you need access to cash.
When comparing account options, consider how often you withdraw cash in large amounts. If you’re a frequent ATM user, you may want to choose an account that offers a higher limit to avoid any potential hiccups.
Be sure to read your deposit agreement carefully to understand what your ATM withdrawal limit is, how often that limit resets, and if it’s possible to request an increase when needed.
A group of US state lawmakers has filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court, urging justices to weigh in on a case between prediction markets platform Kalshi and gaming authorities.
On Tuesday, the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States (NCLGS) filed in the US Supreme Court, supporting New Jersey’s Attorney General and gaming authorities’ petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition, filed on Sept. 2, asked the nation’s highest court to consider New Jersey’s case against Kalshi, potentially resolving whether state authorities or federal agencies have jurisdiction over prediction market companies.
In its amicus curiae filing supporting New Jersey’s position, the NCLGS argued that a ruling favoring Kalshi would “[render] states powerless” to regulate sports betting on prediction markets, causing “substantial harm and confusion.” According to the group, “gaming-related matters” should be left to individual US state authorities, though the filing did not address the competing argument that event contracts traded on federally regulated markets fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
“If Kalshi’s self-described ‘sports betting’ activities are deemed beyond state regulation, then casinos, pari-mutuel operators, and other heavily regulated entities are certain to amend their business and products to seek the same status,” said state lawmakers. “Entire state regulatory regimes surrounding this vice activity will have to be reconsidered in light of any preemption found in this area.”
The Supreme Court petition, filed by New Jersey authorities as part of an appeal following a decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has not received an official response from Kalshi. The company has until Nov. 9 to file a brief stating its position in the case, but a spokesperson told Cointelegraph after the initial filing that it could not be “regulated by 50 different regulators.“
Related: Kalshi joins Coinbase with own filing for US stock perpetual futures
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s new “Innovation Exemption” is carving out a narrow regulatory lane for onchain trading of certain tokenized stocks—and early market reaction suggested traders believe the path is at least partially workable. After the announcement last week, Bitcoin and Ether both rallied by more than 10% while tokens tied to onchain trading infrastructure also jumped, including Uniswap’s UNI rising by over 30% in the days that followed, according to price data tracked by CoinGecko.
Still, the SEC’s relief is not a blanket approval for every form of tokenized equity. The exemption focuses on a particular structure that preserves core shareholder rights and channels trading through permissioned liquidity mechanisms. For many existing products, that means they may need redesign before they can fit through the SEC’s rules.
Key takeaways
- The SEC’s Innovation Exemption provides temporary relief for trading tokenized National Market System (NMS) stocks without registering as a securities exchange, but only under specific conditions.
- Compliance hinges on token design: qualifying tokenized shares must deliver holders the same rights and privileges as the underlying securities.
- Synthetic exposure models are singled out as non-compliant with this exemption, limiting how broadly the market can reuse existing tokenized equity products.
- Permissioned AMM liquidity pools appear central to the SEC’s framework, aligning naturally with trading infrastructure that can enforce compliance onchain.
- Even where infrastructure exists, issuers and venues still face real work to adapt products to the exemption’s exact requirements and the SEC’s broader regulatory posture.
A temporary exemption with a narrow route
The SEC’s September 17 order, published as a press release, grants certain venues temporary relief from having to register as exchanges when they trade tokenized NMS stocks on permissioned AMM liquidity pools. The exemption also contemplates third parties tokenizing stocks, but only if they meet the conditions laid out by the regulator.
A central requirement is that tokenized stockholders must receive the same “rights and privileges” as they would for the underlying shares. That includes protections tied to voting and dividends, along with the way corporate actions flow to holders. If a token tracks the price of a share without carrying those legal or economic rights, it falls into a category the SEC describes as “synthetic,” and therefore outside the exemption’s scope.
The SEC also leaves room for the idea that not every tokenization model will be treated the same way. Commissioner Hester Peirce emphasized that the exemption covers one particular model rather than every conceivable approach to trading tokenized securities, while noting the SEC is open to other models outside the specific tokenized stocks structure referenced in the order.
Who appears closest to the SEC’s framework
Several market participants are effectively being benchmarked against the exemption’s model. Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage highlighted ongoing developments across the tokenized securities landscape, but in this case the SEC’s requirements are what determine who is “close” and who would need major changes.
Coinbase’s tokenized stocks have been positioned publicly as non-synthetic and fully backed, with redemption features and dividends integrated. The company’s current offering, however, is described as aimed at non-U.S. customers, and its exchange infrastructure is built around a central limit order book rather than the permissioned AMM approach the SEC’s exemption is built around.
Ondo, by contrast, has taken steps that more directly map to the rights-and-entitlements theme. The project launched tokenized U.S. securities in June with shares held in traditional custody, while the token represents the investor’s entitlement onchain. Ondo also acquired Oasis Pro, which includes an SEC-registered broker-dealer, an ATS, and a transfer agent, giving it an infrastructure footprint across traditional and onchain market components.
Ondo’s head of global regulatory affairs, Peter Curley, argued in an interview with Magazine that the SEC’s action matters because it moved forward despite uncertainty about Congress finishing the job. Curley’s broader point was that not every tokenization effort will fit the exemption “and that’s fine,” as long as compliant pathways exist for products that do meet the SEC’s standards.
Permissioned AMMs and why Uniswap drew attention
The specific mention of permissioned AMM liquidity pools matters beyond compliance paperwork. It points to a technical design where issuers or regulated operators can enforce trading permissions through onchain mechanisms rather than relying solely on offchain gating.
Uniswap’s own development work may therefore be relevant even if the protocol itself is not a tokenized-stock venue in the same way a compliant intermediary would be. Uniswap introduced Permissioned Pools for v4 in July, aimed at enabling regulated assets to trade through AMMs where compliance can be enforced directly onchain. The key concept is that permissioned access—paired with KYC verification, record keeping, public notice requirements, and transaction transparency—can align the trading layer with regulatory constraints.
That creates a possible framework for how regulated token issuers could connect shareholder-rights systems to liquidity venues that restrict access appropriately. What remains uncertain, however, is whether existing implementations can be integrated end-to-end with the entitlement, corporate action handling, and issuer controls required by the SEC without additional adaptation.
Why some well-known products may be excluded
Not all tokenized equity products currently in circulation are positioned to qualify. Robinhood, for example, has deployed stock tokens on Robinhood Chain described as one-to-one backed and “fully DeFi composable.” But Robinhood’s token design has been a point of contention: analysts argue the SEC’s exemption excludes synthetic exposure and therefore rules out products like Robinhood’s Stock Tokens and Kraken’s xStocks in their present forms.
In Robinhood’s case, the stock tokens are described as tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. That structure means investors receive economic exposure to underlying stocks, but without the same legal or beneficial rights associated with conventional share ownership. Separately, they are not registered under U.S. securities laws and are not available to U.S. persons.
Kraken’s xStocks are also described as fully backed by underlying equities, but the article notes that they likewise may not give holders the same rights as conventional shares—illustrating a broader problem: backing alone is not enough if the exemption requires holders to receive the full set of rights and privileges embedded in ordinary share ownership.
RWA market intelligence platform RWA.xyz suggested in an interview that most tokenized equity products have been third-party sponsored but expects a shift toward issuer-sponsored models within the next 12 months. The logic is straightforward: the exemption framework appears to align token issuers with stock issuers, potentially reducing mismatches between who controls the token and who controls shareholder rights.
Five years to prove the model is worth adopting
The SEC describes the Innovation Exemption as temporary, with the relief lasting five years while the commission evaluates future rulemaking. The SEC’s chair, Paul Atkins, has framed the period as allowing the market to “develop,” but investors are still likely to ask a practical question: will tokenized stocks deliver clear advantages over conventional brokerage positions?
According to Ondo’s Curley, investors ultimately need outcomes that are faster, cheaper, or more useful than existing rails. There are also concerns that liquidity fragmentation for tokenized stock products could translate into less competitive pricing or weaker user experience—particularly if trading venues or token designs limit where liquidity can pool.
If the exemption’s requirements are met, tokenized stocks could theoretically support 24/7 trading, fractional ownership, faster settlement, and onchain composability while preserving shareholder rights and corporate action mechanics. But those benefits only matter if they translate into measurable improvements that users want—and if the industry can redesign products to fit the SEC’s model in the first place.
For now, readers should watch how issuers and trading venues operationalize the exemption’s constraints—especially the exact token rights requirements and the adoption of permissioned AMM liquidity models—and whether any major tokenized equity product teams announce changes aimed at becoming compliant within this five-year window.
This article was originally published as SEC Tokenized Stocks Rules: Key Winners and Losers Defined on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The crypto executive and Dystopia Labs founder previously held senior roles at Stellar and Solana before joining venture capital firm Hack VC.
Paramount Skydance has discussed bringing Elon Musk in as an equity investor, Semafor reported on Wednesday. Its stock, meanwhile, trades near its lowest levels in years.
CEO David Ellison wants wealthy backers to buy new shares, raising fresh cash after the Warner Bros. Discovery takeover.
Why Paramount Wants Elon Musk’s Money
Paramount agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), owner of CNN, HBO, and the Warner Bros. studio, for $30 a share in cash. The offer valued WBD at $108 billion including debt, according to a February company release.
The Ellisons and RedBird Capital Partners committed $43.6 billion in equity, with $54 billion more in loans.
Oracle founder Larry Ellison, David’s father, personally guaranteed more than $40 billion of that equity, Semafor reported. New investors would spread that burden.
Musk has deep ties to the elder Ellison. Larry Ellison put $1 billion into Musk’s 2022 Twitter takeover. He also invested in Tesla in 2018 and sat on its board for years.
Musk, who became the world’s first trillionaire in June, is one of several rich individuals under consideration. The stake size is unknown.
Paramount Stock Nears Multi-Year Lows
Paramount’s Class B shares (PSKY) rose 0.8% to $10.19 on Wednesday afternoon, according to Yahoo Finance. The small gain barely dents a 74.6% slide over the past five years.
The stock sits at less than half its 52-week high of $20.86. Its 52-week low is $7.62.
A weekly TradingView chart shows the shares stuck between roughly $10 and $15 for most of the past three years. In early 2021, under the old ViacomCBS name, they topped $95.
Earlier this week, Paramount settled an antitrust lawsuit brought by state attorneys general, removing a hurdle to the deal. A brief rally on that news has since faded.
Musk Stake Could Draw Scrutiny in Washington
According to a report on Semafor, a Musk check would be a vote of confidence from a billionaire with a devoted retail following.
However, the same report flags a political risk. Democrats raised concerns about Musk’s money and his control of X (Twitter) during the 2024 election.
Even a partial Musk stake in CNN and CBS would likely alarm Washington, the report said, though Musk would probably have no formal say. No commitment has been reported.
The post Paramount Courts Elon Musk for Investment as Stock Nears Multi-Year Lows appeared first on BeInCrypto.
President Donald Trump disclosed that he bought between $50,001 and $100,000 worth of Strategy (Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy) shares in late July, according to a U.S. Office of Government Ethics filing released Tuesday. The disclosure also references earlier purchases of the bitcoin-linked software company, as well as other crypto-adjacent transactions.
In the same disclosure, Trump reported a smaller Strategy buy three days earlier and described additional activity tied to several other crypto-related firms, including stock trades involving Coinbase and sales of bitcoin miner holdings including MARA Holdings and CleanSpark. The Strategy purchase dated July 27 is the largest bitcoin-exposure transaction identified in the document.
Key takeaways
- Trump disclosed a $50,001–$100,000 Strategy share purchase on July 27, following a $1,001–$15,000 buy on July 24.
- Strategy remains one of the most widely followed public corporate bitcoin proxies, holding 846,000 BTC according to BitcoinTreasuries.net data referenced in the filing coverage.
- The filings report transaction values in ranges, not an ongoing share count, so remaining Strategy holdings cannot be directly determined.
- White House guidance to CNBC says Trump’s portfolio is managed independently by third-party financial institutions without input from Trump or his family.
- The disclosures land as U.S. regulators and lawmakers continue working through crypto policy issues amid stalled comprehensive market-structure legislation.
What the disclosure says about Strategy shares
According to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics filing linked in the report, Trump’s July trades included a purchase of Strategy shares valued between $50,001 and $100,000 on July 27, after buying between $1,001 and $15,000 worth on July 24. The document also indicates earlier Strategy activity, including another $50,001–$100,000 purchase disclosed previously on Feb. 12, as tracked by BitcoinTreasuries.net.
While the filings show multiple transactions over time, they do not provide a running total of shares held. Instead, reported activity is expressed in value brackets, meaning it is not possible to calculate how many Strategy shares—if any—remain in Trump’s portfolio based solely on the disclosures.
Strategy is described as the world’s largest publicly traded corporate bitcoin holder, with 846,000 BTC reported by BitcoinTreasuries.net. That fact matters for readers because Strategy’s stock is often treated by markets as a proxy for corporate bitcoin exposure—albeit with equity market dynamics layered on top of bitcoin price movement.
Broader portfolio trades and independent management
The Strategy purchase is presented in the context of a wider set of portfolio transactions reported for July. The filing indicates sales of between $5 million and $25 million each of Microsoft and Amazon stock on July 20, alongside several additional buys and sells in the $1 million to $5 million range.
On Tuesday, the White House told CNBC that Trump’s stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions and that Trump or his family do not provide input into those investment decisions. That characterization is important for interpreting the disclosure: it suggests investors should treat the reported trades as part of a broader managed portfolio process, rather than assuming a single direct investment thesis or immediate reaction to bitcoin market moves.
For traders, the key question is how to connect the disclosure to market pricing. The report notes that Strategy shares have rallied sharply in recent sessions—nearly 30% over the past five trading days and about 37% over the past month according to Yahoo Finance data—highlighting that the stock’s performance has been strong regardless of whether a specific public figure disclosed ownership.
Crypto policy backdrop: stalled legislation, active regulators
Trump’s Strategy disclosure arrives amid continued U.S. government activity around digital-asset regulation—even as comprehensive market structure legislation remains stuck in Congress. The report states that the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15, but that regulators have proceeded using existing authorities.
Two days after the CLARITY Act cloture vote failed, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cleared limited onchain trading of tokenized U.S. stocks under a temporary exemption, according to coverage linked in the report. In parallel, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) eased registration requirements for certain software providers offering access to regulated derivatives markets, as described in the cited coverage.
Separately, the CFTC also sent a broader crypto market rulemaking initiative to the White House for review on Sept. 17. As characterized in the report, the initiative—titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets”—is still in preliminary stages and has not yet become a formal proposal.
For market participants, this regulatory sequencing matters. When omnibus legislation stalls, targeted exemptions and rulemaking under current legal frameworks can still change how tokenized assets, exchange functions, and market-access technology are regulated. Investors watching disclosure stories around publicly traded bitcoin proxies often should also track these regulatory moves, because they can shift demand for crypto-related products and the risk profile of platforms serving those markets.
Bitcoin policy efforts extend beyond markets
The report also ties the broader political context to bitcoin itself. It notes that the House Financial Services Committee voted 28–21 to advance legislation that would codify a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” into law and require bitcoin placed in the reserve to be held for at least 20 years, citing earlier coverage linked in the report.
In addition, the report says the U.S. government currently holds an estimated 324,527 BTC, referencing Arkham Intelligence data. While such estimates can vary by methodology, the figure underscores why bitcoin exposure is increasingly treated as a policy and balance-sheet topic—not only a market-trading theme.
Against that backdrop, disclosures involving corporate bitcoin holders like Strategy can quickly become part of the political narrative around digital assets, even when the disclosed transaction itself is comparatively small relative to broader holdings and portfolio trades.
As more filings surface, readers may want to watch two things next: whether Trump’s disclosed crypto-adjacent trades continue to shift over subsequent quarters, and whether the regulatory groundwork laid after the CLARITY Act setback translates into formal proposals that meaningfully affect tokenized markets and crypto derivatives access.
While announcing his resignation on Sept 8., the now-former Anthropic engineer Jacob Coxon wrote, “I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race” toward superintelligence. We might not be today, but we can change course quickly.
The momentum behind an international ban on developing superintelligence is picking up speed. Over 200 cross-party lawmakers across the UK and Canada have been ahead of the curve on superintelligence risks by recognizing it as a global and national security threat as part of ControlAI’s campaign. In addition to the newly introduced UK bill, Vice President J.D. Vance told AI companies this week, “If you’re building Frankenstein, stop.” Further, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Greg Casar announced in early September that they will introduce a bill prohibiting superintelligence development and calling for international agreements to prohibit it.
And in October 2025, a broad coalition called to prohibit superintelligence internationally. This was signed by the scientific “godfathers” of AI Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, and bipartisan political figures like former President Trump advisor Steve Bannon, Ambassador Susan Rice, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, former President Trump advisor Steve Bannon.
With António Guterres’s nearly decade-long tenure as the Secretary-General of the United Nations drawing to a close amid rising conflict around the globe, the race to succeed him as the leader of the world’s most powerful diplomatic body is already underway.
Guterres this week delivered his final address to the U.N. General Assembly, in which he called for a greater focus on climate change, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, “de-escalation and dialogue” in the Middle East, and regulations for artificial intelligence.
At the end of his speech, Guterres bid goodbye to a crowd filled with many diplomats and world leaders who he has worked with over his two five-year terms.
“So, on January 1st, when I am no longer Secretary-General, be sure of this. Wherever I will be, whatever I will be doing, I will keep championing the conviction that peace is possible,” he said. “I will continue to stand up for the values of the United Nations Charter and I will never, ever give up. Thank you.”
Guterres’s successor is set to step in as Secretary-General at a consequential moment for global diplomacy. Research indicates that last year saw the highest number of active global conflicts since World War II and the greatest number of fatalities since the Rwandan genocide. Tensions in other parts of the world are threatening to boil over. Climate change is exacting a growing toll. AI’s development is prompting increasing alarm. And the U.N. itself is confronting a growing funding crisis.
Read More: Make the U.N. Great Again: The Uphill Struggle Facing the Next Secretary General
Seven candidates are so far in the running to shepherd the U.N. through those challenges. Here’s what to know about the race.
How will the next Secretary-General be chosen?
The process to choose the next Secretary-General began in November, when a joint letter from the presidents of the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council invited the nominations of candidates from member states.
The initiation letter noted “with regret that no woman has ever held the position” and encouraged member states to “strongly consider nominating women as candidates.”
Member states nominate candidates by submitting an application to the U.N. including a personal statement with that candidate’s vision for what they’d do in the role, a resume, and campaign finance disclosures.
The General Assembly then holds “interactive dialogues” in which candidates express their hopes for the position and the U.N. in an opening statement, which is followed by questioning from the assembly. These televised hearings continue as candidates are submitted to the U.N.
Who becomes Secretary-General ultimately comes down to a decision from the U.N.’s 15-person Security Council, which recommends one individual to the General Assembly. The General Assembly then appoints that person to the position.
As part of its selection process, the Security Council holds “straw polls,” in which members of the council select one of three options for each candidate: “encourage,” “discourage,” or “no opinion expressed.” This anonymized process is used to gauge whether candidates would be able to secure the nine votes needed for a formal recommendation by the Security Council.
Who’s in the running?
So far nine candidates have been nominated for the position of Secretary-General. Two of those candidates have withdrawn, leaving seven individuals vying to replace Guterres.
Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett has been Guyana’s permanent representative to the U.N. since 2020 and previously served as foreign minister for her country and held senior roles at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Nominated by Guyana, her vision statement emphasizes refocusing on the U.N.’s core principles and “a more agile and effective United Nations.”
Rebeca Grynspan is the former vice president of Costa Rica, which nominated her for the position, and current secretary-general of trade and development for the U.N. She named three principles that define the mission she would undertake as Secretary-General: making the U.N. “more useful,” “more agile,” and “more accountable.”
Ivonne A-Baki, nominated by Tonga, is a long-time Ecuadorean diplomat who has twice served as the country’s ambassador to the U.S. She has also served as ambassador to countries including Qatar and France. Her platform highlights her involvement in the 1998 Ecuador-Peru peace settlement. “Where others speak of reform, I speak of renewal,” A-Baki’s vision statement reads. “An institution can be indispensable and in need of renewal at the same time, and ours is both. It is failing to live up to its own Charter, not for want of purpose but for want of focus and discipline.”
María Fernanda Espinosa is the former Foreign Minister and Defense Minister of Ecuador and served as President of the 73rd U.N. General Assembly in 2018. She was nominated by Antigua and Barbuda. Her vision consists of five pillars: “peace and security, development, digital and energy transformation, closing the delivery gap, and rebuilding credibility.” Garcés in her statement contended that “what is now in question is not the relevance of the United Nations, but its credibility.”
Rafael Mariano Grossi is an Argentine diplomat who has served as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2019. “The world does not need more declarations. It needs a United Nations capable of responding to the real demands of our time, with impartiality and a results-oriented approach grounded in facts,” Grossi, who was nominated by his country, wrote in his vision statement.
Olara Otunnu was Uganda’s permanent representative to the U.N. for five years and briefly served as the country’s foreign minister. He was also the U.N. under-secretary-general and the special representative for children and armed conflict. “Reform is no longer an optional choice. It is an imperative,” he said.
Macky Sall was the president of Senegal for twelve years and has served as the chair of the Africa Union, a continental organization spanning 55 member states. He expressed a goal to “restore trust in multilateralism” if chosen as Secretary-General and said that “peace, security and development are intrinsically linked.”
Where does the race stand?
“We’re at a moment right now where the race is entering a pretty pivotal phase,” says Daniel Forti, head of U.N. affairs at the International Crisis Group, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preventing deadly crises around the world.
With just over three months remaining in Guterre’s term, it won’t be long before a successor is chosen. The Security Council, though, “is not especially enthusiastic about any of the current contenders,” Forti tells TIME. He cites the last three straw polls, which have favored Greenspan and Birkett, but without “a real consolidation of overwhelming support.”
This lack of consensus, Forti believes, could suggest that other candidates may enter the race late in the game. Although there have been no formal announcements of new candidates, Forti has heard chatter surrounding certain individuals: Nickolay Mladenov, the former Bulgarian foreign minister and former U.N. Middle East envoy who currently serves as the Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza; U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed; and former Mexican Foreign Minister Alicia Bárcena.
“At this late stage, new candidates don’t have the luxury of time to really socialize their candidacies, build out their visions, and elaborate very detailed policy platforms and bring them to U.N. member states, and try and win over the P5,” Forti says, referring to the five permanent members of the Security Council. The support of these members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.
—is the most critical because they have the power to veto candidates before being recommended to the General Assembly.
Regardless of the outcome, Forti asserts that whoever is chosen to replace Guterres will inherit a fraught state of international affairs, and certainly be tested.
“You have a really fragmented global landscape,” he says. “The challenges for whoever takes over the office are going to be immense.”
Visa has released new survey results suggesting that stablecoin adoption among Americans could rise meaningfully if issuers offered protections that resemble the banking system—particularly fraud safeguards and deposit insurance.
In a study of 2,192 US-based consumers conducted by Morning Consult between February and March, Visa found that “adoption intention” for stablecoins could increase from 36% to 56% under a hypothetical scenario that includes bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.
Key takeaways
- Visa/Morning Consult’s survey points to higher stablecoin willingness when consumers associate the product with bank-style fraud safeguards.
- Adoption intention rises from 36% to 56% in Visa’s hypothetical scenario with deposit insurance and fraud protection.
- Trust, in the survey results, is strongly linked to who provides the payment service—not to the underlying technology alone.
- Europe is also debating stablecoin reserve rules under MiCA, with central bank representatives arguing for changes to bank-deposit thresholds.
Why “bank-like” protections could unlock more stablecoin demand
Visa’s findings center on what drives consumer trust and willingness to use stablecoins for cross-border payments. According to the company, the survey asked participants about financial terms such as stablecoins and compared baseline responses with scenarios that introduced traditional safety features.
Visa reported that nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents said trust depends more on the payment provider than on the technology itself. That framing matters because it suggests stablecoins may face adoption friction not only from technical complexity, but from a perceived mismatch with familiar consumer protection norms.
Consistent with that idea, Visa said willingness to use stablecoins increases from 36% to 45% when stablecoins are offered through an existing financial provider—an environment where consumers may expect established safeguards, oversight practices, and recourse.
The US policy backdrop: GENIUS and the question of insurance
Visa’s survey arrives as US regulators prepare for the implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. Visa pointed to the timing of GENIUS rulemaking as companies work toward eventual execution, with finalized guidance from key US financial agencies expected ahead of an effective date targeted for January 2027.
The survey’s “hypothetical scenario” also highlights a real regulatory tension: stablecoins are not currently treated the same way as bank deposits. Unlike traditional bank accounts, stablecoins do not inherently come with protections such as FDIC deposit insurance for consumer funds.
Under GENIUS, the expectation is that US stablecoins will not automatically include FDIC insurance or explicit fraud protection as of January. Instead, the framework is described as including guidelines aimed at addressing illicit activity risk, while still leaving open the broader consumer protection question that Visa’s survey suggests could influence adoption.
For market participants, this distinction is important. If consumer intent is highly sensitive to perceived safety mechanisms, then the effectiveness of stablecoin regulation may depend not just on compliance around reserve management and illicit finance controls, but on whether the final rules produce outcomes that consumers recognize as meaningful safeguards.
Visa’s full study is published through the company’s investor relations site: “Safeguards Could Boost Stablecoin Use Among Americans, Finds Visa Study”.
Europe debates reserve rules for stablecoins under MiCA
While the US focuses on how stablecoins should fit into national rules, Europe is also refining how it expects stablecoin reserves to be structured. On Tuesday, the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) called for changing rules that require stablecoins to back reserves with a specific minimum portion held as bank deposits—30% for most tokens, and 60% for “significant” stablecoins.
Instead of a deposit-heavy requirement, the ESCB proposed shifting the focus toward liquidity thresholds for reserve assets. The rationale, as described in coverage of the ESCB position, is that users could withdraw funds quickly, creating risks tied to deposit composition rather than asset liquidity overall.
The discussion sits within the broader Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which began enforcing stablecoin-related rules in June 2024. MiCA’s implementation has been a central factor in how euro stablecoins structure compliance, issuance, and reserve practices across European markets.
What the US and EU debates suggest for stablecoin adoption
Taken together, Visa’s consumer research and the ESCB’s reserve-rule commentary underline a recurring theme in stablecoins: adoption depends on trust and practical risk management, not only on speed or cost.
Visa’s survey suggests that consumers view the identity of the provider as a key safety signal. In that light, bank-like arrangements—whether through stronger fraud controls, clearer protections, or stablecoin distribution via established financial institutions—may reduce perceived uncertainty for cross-border use cases.
Meanwhile, Europe’s call to adjust deposit-based reserve requirements reflects a different but related concern: stablecoin frameworks must account for fast-moving redemption behavior, and reserve composition should support liquidity when demand spikes.
For readers tracking where the sector is headed, the next critical variable is how regulators operationalize these policy goals. In the US, GENIUS rulemaking and the final shape of requirements around fraud and consumer protections will determine whether stablecoin issuance becomes more “recognizable” to consumers. In Europe, MiCA-linked reserve thresholds could influence how euro stablecoins manage liquidity and risk—and how compliant issuers design their reserve strategies.
As these developments progress, investors and builders should watch for whether regulatory frameworks translate into protections that consumers actually perceive—since Visa’s results imply that intention can shift dramatically when stablecoins look and feel more like an extension of the traditional payments and banking safety net.
8 Netflix Fantasy Shows Without a Single Flaw
Check Point warns of hackers exploiting Security Gateway VPN RCE flaw
I F*cking Hate Them | Financial Audit
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Talbots – Corporette.com
-
Tech3 days agoResearchers escape OpenAI Codex sandbox to run commands on host
-
Crypto World5 days agoCircle launches Arc Studio AI agent for building onchain apps
-
NewsBeat5 days agoTrump says US has reached an agreement to take permanent control of Greenland’s security
-
Crypto World3 days agoWho Needs CLARITY Anyway? ARB Could See 70X Increase: Hodler’s Digest
-
Crypto World5 days agoTrading Bitcoin on Robinhood? Why 2% Spread Has Traders Worried
-
Crypto World6 days agoMortgage and refinance interest rates today, Thursday, September 17, 2026
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin price breaks channel as RSI climbs to 63
-
Crypto World23 hours agoGoldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank Agree: The S&P 500 Rally Isn't Over
-
Crypto World7 days agoUS Charges Robinhood Engineers Over Crypto Listing Trades
-
Tech2 days agoGoogle’s $899 Googlebook is a bet that you’ll buy a new laptop for Gemini
-
Business3 days agoAnalog Devices (ADI) Bets $1.35 Billion on Chips that Let Machines Think for Themselves
-
Crypto World3 days agoCoinbase, Robinhood, Circle Seen as Tokenized-Stock Winners
-
Crypto World5 days agoWorld Money launches in 150+ countries with Stripe
-
Crypto World5 days agoSilver prices recover quickly, hitting weekly high today
-
Tech6 days agoGPT-6 Astra Reached the Nether in Minecraft, Lost Its Stash to a Creeper, and Farmed Potatoes for Hours
-
Tech4 days agoTrump suggests rebranding AI with a new name, says he’s also creating an AI Force
-
Business19 hours agoOil Price Today (September 23): Crude oil below $100 on hopes of US-Iran talks. What did Trump say?
-
NewsBeat5 days agoUS was ‘on brink of war’ with China over false AI report of nukes moving in Middle East
-
Crypto World2 days agoMeta Jumps 11% As Muse Shines and Investors Show an Appetite for Advancing AI
You must be logged in to post a comment Login