The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has sent a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets to the White House for review, moving ahead with rulemaking days after the CLARITY Act failed to advance in the Senate.

According to a filing with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the CFTC submitted a rule titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets” on Sept. 17. OIRA, which sits within the Office of Management and Budget, reviews significant federal regulations before agencies can move toward publication.

Details of the proposal have not been released, and the CFTC declined to comment on its contents. The filing begins an executive review process that could result in changes before the measure is returned to the commission.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig had already instructed staff to prepare a crypto market structure framework that could operate under the agency’s existing authority if Congress failed to pass new legislation.

CFTC crypto rules move forward after Senate vote

The filing came two days after the Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, which would have given the CFTC a central role in regulating digital commodity markets.

The procedural vote ended 49 to 50, falling short of the 60 votes needed to begin debate. Seven Senate Democrats who opposed cloture have since indicated that negotiations could continue, leaving the legislation unresolved following the vote.

As crypto.news previously reported, the failure to advance the bill left the SEC and CFTC with a larger role in developing digital asset rules through their existing statutory powers while Congress remains divided over a federal market structure law.

The CLARITY Act would establish statutory divisions between the SEC and CFTC and create registration requirements for crypto trading platforms and other market participants. Qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities related activity would remain within the SEC’s jurisdiction.

Selig had prepared for the possibility that Congress would not complete the legislation. Speaking at an agency event on Aug. 20, he said he had directed staff to examine how the CFTC could “codify a CFTC market structure for crypto assets” through powers it already holds.

Under the framework described by Selig at the time, existing CFTC registrants and crypto exchanges that are not currently registered could potentially be designated as a form of designated contract market known as a crypto asset market.

“This could enable current registrants as well as non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated by the CFTC” as crypto asset markets, Selig said.

Such venues could then offer leveraged or margined crypto trading under rules administered by the CFTC.

Selig’s August comments had made clear that the agency was preparing crypto rules before the Senate vote. He said the CFTC would use its existing authority to establish a digital asset market regime if the legislation remained stalled.

White House review comes before a CFTC vote

OIRA review represents an early stage of the federal rulemaking process and does not make the proposed framework effective.

Under the Trump administration, independent agencies including the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission have been required to submit significant regulatory actions to the Office of Management and Budget for review before publication.

Once OIRA completes its review, the proposal can be returned to the CFTC with potential revisions. The commission would then have to vote before releasing the proposal for public comment.

Selig is currently the sole commissioner on a body designed to have five members. The vacancies leave him as the only vote at the commission while the agency works through its crypto agenda.

The staffing issue predates the latest proposal. The CFTC operated with roughly 556 employees at the end of fiscal 2025, compared with 708 a year earlier, while Selig has remained the only confirmed commissioner since taking office in December 2025.

Following publication of the proposal, the agency would collect public comments and could revise the framework based on feedback. A final rule would require another commission vote before taking effect.

CFTC uses existing powers as CLARITY talks continue

The White House submission forms part of a series of regulatory steps taken by federal agencies following the Senate vote.

On Sept. 17, CFTC staff issued a no action position covering certain software developers whose products facilitate access to regulated derivatives markets. The relief means staff will not recommend enforcement action against qualifying passive software providers for failing to register as introducing brokers when they meet specified conditions.

Under the CFTC developer relief, qualifying providers must satisfy 10 conditions. Their software can connect users to registered derivatives exchanges, brokers and futures commission merchants without triggering an enforcement recommendation over certain registration requirements.

The treatment of developers has been one of the issues surrounding federal crypto market structure legislation. Sections of the CLARITY Act sought protections for noncustodial software developers, wallet providers and validator operators under specified conditions.

The SEC has been moving through its own crypto rulemaking agenda. On Sept. 17, the securities regulator released its long anticipated innovation exemption for eligible tokenized securities activity, providing a regulatory route for certain onchain trading models.

Former CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo said after the Senate vote that regulators did not need to wait for Congress to continue developing digital asset frameworks. He said Selig and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins could use authority already available to their agencies while lawmakers continued debating legislation.

The comments followed the CLARITY Act vote and came as both agencies pursued separate measures affecting crypto exchanges, developers and tokenized markets.

CLARITY Act negotiations remain open

The Senate setback has not formally ended work on the CLARITY Act.

Seven Democratic senators who voted against cloture said after the vote that negotiations were not over. The measure could return if lawmakers reach an agreement capable of securing the 60 votes required to advance legislation in the Senate.

Ethics provisions involving elected officials and digital asset interests were among the disputed areas during negotiations. Democratic lawmakers had raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto holdings and businesses linked to his family as the administration pursued new digital asset rules.

Developer protections have been another point of contention during negotiations, with lawmakers debating the extent to which people who write or maintain noncustodial software should face financial regulatory requirements.

The bill would establish a federal market structure covering token classification, trading platforms and regulatory responsibilities between the CFTC and SEC. Its House version passed in July 2025 before the legislation moved through the Senate process.

For now, the CFTC proposal remains under White House review. Once OIRA completes that process, the measure can return to the commission for a vote, followed by publication and a public comment period before any final rule can take effect.

Zcash price traded near $1,455 on Sep. 18 after retreating from an intraday high of $1,535, while technical indicators and liquidation data pointed to continued volatility around the $1,500 level.

Zcash price action today

Zcash (ZEC) price rose as high as $1,535.82 before sellers pushed the token back below $1,500, according to the daily chart. ZEC traded at approximately $1,455 at the time of writing, down 0.78% during the current daily session.

The pullback came after an accelerated advance from the $1,100 area. ZEC broke above $1,250 and $1,375 with limited consolidation before testing the $1,500 Murrey Math resistance level.

Price has gained more than 190% since trading near $500 in August. ZEC has also established a sequence of higher highs and higher lows across the daily and 4-hour charts, keeping its wider uptrend intact despite the latest retreat.

The daily Stochastic RSI started recovering from lower levels, with the faster line at 43.69 and the signal line at 30.61. The crossover showed that daily momentum was rebuilding after the indicator cooled during an earlier consolidation.

However, the rejection above $1,500 showed that sellers remained active near the psychological level. ZEC would need a confirmed daily close above that zone to reduce the risk of a deeper pullback.

What is driving the ZEC rally?

The rally followed the Zcash community’s vote on proposals tied to the Network Upgrade 7 roadmap. Nearly 99.9% of participating ZEC reportedly backed reducing the network’s target block time from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, while 98.9% supported keeping its current halving schedule.

The proposed change would shorten transaction confirmation times without increasing daily issuance because the block reward would be adjusted for the faster schedule.

Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang also disclosed the venture firm’s exposure to Zcash in a Sep. 16 post. Huang discussed the network’s development funding and said Paradigm considered the fund important to Zcash’s future.

The disclosure added an institutional element to a rally already supported by the governance vote and renewed interest in privacy-focused cryptocurrencies.

US investors can also access regulated ZEC exposure through Grayscale’s Zcash ETF, which trades on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH. The product gives brokerage customers exposure without requiring them to hold ZEC directly, though its market price can differ from the value of its underlying assets.

Zcash technical indicators remain bullish

The 4-hour chart showed that ZEC’s momentum remained positive even as the token retreated from its latest high.

The moving average convergence divergence indicator stood at 88.30, above its signal line at 76.33. Its positive histogram reading of 11.98 indicated that buyers still controlled the broader momentum trend.

However, the histogram had begun to contract. A continued decline would show that the speed of the rally was slowing, increasing the possibility of consolidation or a short-term correction.

The 4-hour relative strength index stood at 68.35, just below overbought territory. The RSI had also fallen below its moving average at 73.86, showing that short-term buying pressure had eased after the move above $1,500.

ZEC’s immediate resistance sits between $1,500 and the intraday high of $1,535. A 4-hour close above $1,535 could open a move toward the next Murrey Math targets at $1,625 and $1,750.

The first important support lies near $1,420, followed by the former breakout level at $1,375. A close below $1,375 could expose $1,250, which previously acted as a major reversal level.

Liquidation clusters frame the next move

The 24-hour liquidation heatmap showed a dense concentration of leveraged positions around $1,420. The band was the strongest nearby liquidity pool below the market and could attract price if the current pullback continues.

Additional liquidity appeared between $1,440 and $1,460, placing ZEC near an area where forced closures could increase short-term price swings.

Above the market, the largest nearby concentration sat around $1,540 to $1,550. A recovery above $1,500 could push ZEC toward that zone as short positions become vulnerable.

A larger but more distant liquidity area was visible around $1,580. On the downside, notable clusters appeared near $1,400, $1,375 and $1,345.

The distribution leaves ZEC between sizable liquidity pools on both sides. A break below $1,440 would favor a test of $1,420, while reclaiming $1,500 could bring the $1,540–$1,550 area back into focus.

What analysts are saying

Pseudonymous trader Altcoin Sherpa described ZEC as the strongest asset in the market but said the rally could still experience a sharp correction.

“Would like to see some chop and then another leg up to 2K,” the analyst wrote, adding that a 10%–15% decline could offer another entry if the wider trend remained intact.

A correction of that size from $1,500 would place ZEC between approximately $1,275 and $1,350. The range overlaps the $1,250 Murrey Math support and the previous breakout area near $1,375.

Another pseudonymous analyst, Scient, said ZEC was “practically into price discovery” after moving beyond its previous chart resistance. The analyst identified the former highs near $800 as a potential long-term support area if ZEC experiences a much larger correction later in the cycle.

For the shorter-term setup, $1,420 remains the level separating a limited pullback from a possible test of $1,375. Bulls must reclaim $1,500 and clear $1,535 to restore momentum toward $1,625.

Coinbase has filed to list perpetual futures tied to more than 50 major U.S. stocks, including Nvidia, Microsoft and Tesla, with 24/5 trading and no fixed expiration dates.

Coinbase said in a Sep. 18 announcement that it had submitted the proposed contracts for listing on its regulated U.S. derivatives exchange, calling the planned range the first single-stock perpetual futures offering in the country.

“Crypto was first, now it’s time for stocks,” the company said.

The filing covers more than 50 stocks, with Nvidia, Microsoft and Tesla among the names disclosed by the exchange. Coinbase plans to let customers trade the contracts around the clock on weekdays, extending access beyond the regular U.S. stock market session.

Unlike conventional futures, the proposed contracts would have no set expiry date. Traders could maintain a position while meeting the exchange’s margin rules and any funding obligations attached to the product.

Coinbase has not started offering the contracts, and their listing remains subject to the U.S. regulatory process.

Coinbase stock perpetuals would provide price exposure without shares

Single-stock perpetuals track the price of an individual company but do not give the trader ownership of its shares. A customer holding an Nvidia perpetual, for example, would gain exposure to movements in Nvidia’s stock price without becoming a shareholder through the contract.

The distinction matters because shareholders may receive voting rights, dividends, and other corporate benefits. Futures traders instead hold an agreement whose value changes with the referenced stock, subject to the terms set by the exchange.

Perpetual contracts use recurring funding payments to keep their prices close to the underlying market. Depending on market conditions, traders holding long positions may pay short sellers, or short sellers may pay long holders.

Coinbase also plans to permit leverage, allowing customers to open positions larger than the capital posted as margin. Leverage can increase returns when a trade moves in the expected direction, but it also raises losses and may lead to liquidation when a customer’s collateral falls below the required level.

The proposed 24/5 schedule would cover periods when the underlying shares are not trading during the regular session. U.S. stock exchanges generally run their main sessions from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time on weekdays, although brokers may also support premarket and after-hours trading.

Because prices can move when liquidity is lower outside the main session, the contracts’ trading rules, funding system, and reference pricing would affect how closely they follow the underlying shares. Coinbase had not disclosed the full contract specifications, leverage limits or launch timetable in its initial announcement.

US approval would extend Coinbase’s regulated derivatives business

Coinbase already offers cryptocurrency perpetual futures through its regulated U.S. derivatives operation. Its stock filing would extend the same basic contract structure from digital assets to individual public companies if regulators allow the listings.

For American customers, the proposal would place single-stock perpetuals inside a regulated domestic market rather than requiring them to use an offshore exchange or an onchain trading venue. Coinbase described the planned products as a U.S. first, although their availability will depend on the filing review and any conditions attached to approval.

The contracts differ from tokenized equities, another product category that crypto companies have pursued. A perpetual future is a derivative tied to a stock’s price, while a tokenized share can represent ownership or a claim backed by securities, depending on its structure.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong recently argued that tokenized stocks should be backed by real securities and carry the rights associated with the underlying shares. He made the comments as the exchange sought to connect global customers with the U.S. equity market, which he valued at more than $70 trillion.

The proposed perpetuals would not provide that ownership model. Instead, they would give traders a leveraged contract settled under the exchange’s derivatives rules, leaving the underlying company’s shareholder register unchanged.

U.S. regulators have also been considering how blockchain infrastructure could support securities markets. As crypto.news previously reported, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a transfer agent overhaul that would allow approved blockchain systems to serve as official records of securities ownership.

The SEC proposal addresses the ownership register rather than synthetic instruments that only follow an asset’s price. Coinbase’s perpetual filing falls on the derivatives side of the market, where the regulatory review focuses on the contract and the venue offering it.

Nasdaq secured SEC approval in March to test tokenized stock trading, providing another route for applying blockchain-based systems to U.S. equities. Nasdaq’s model involves securities trading, while Coinbase’s proposed contracts would track stocks without transferring the shares themselves.

Coinbase has been adding stocks beyond its crypto business

Outside the United States, Coinbase has started expanding direct access to traditional equities. The company recently began rolling out 24/5 trading in nearly 4,000 U.S. stocks for eligible customers in the United Kingdom.

Coinbase’s U.K. service gives customers access to shares rather than perpetual futures, making it a separate product from the contracts proposed for the U.S. derivatives exchange. The weekday trading schedule, however, follows the company’s plan to make financial markets available beyond standard exchange hours.

The exchange has also added services that place crypto and traditional financial products inside the same platform. Its product range now covers spot crypto trading, regulated derivatives, prediction markets and stock access in selected jurisdictions.

In the Middle East, Coinbase recently received Financial Services Permission from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Abu Dhabi Global Market. The company said it plans to use Abu Dhabi as an international base for developing tokenization services outside the United States.

Abu Dhabi’s approval covers a separate regional operation and does not authorize the proposed U.S. single-stock perpetuals. Coinbase must complete the domestic review before customers can trade the contracts on its American derivatives venue.

The initial stock list includes several of the most actively traded U.S. companies, but Coinbase has not published all the proposed contracts or confirmed which ones would become available first. The exchange also has not provided a launch date, saying the products remain subject to regulatory clearance.

Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi has urged the Zcash community to wind down the protocol’s ZEC development fund after it expires under current rules in 2028, arguing the fund has grown large enough to cover remaining work while also becoming increasingly vulnerable to “politicization” as its size nears $100 million.

The proposal lands amid a broader internal debate over how (and whether) the development fund should be controlled—an issue that has intensified as the ZEC token’s rally boosted the fund’s value. At press time, ZecStats reported the fund held 63,962 Zcash (ZEC) tokens, worth roughly $95 million.

Key takeaways

• Haseeb Qureshi argues the Zcash development fund should be treated as a final “dev fund,” ending when it expires in 2028.
• Based on ZecStats data, the fund’s balance is about $95 million and sits outside circulation until governance disburses it.
• Supporters say the fund is crucial for sustained development amid fast-evolving threats, including AI and quantum risks.
• The community is split not only on whether the fund should continue, but also on whether control should move toward token-holder voting.
• Critics including Maxime Desalle argue that ending the fund could eliminate governance disputes and potential security or dependency risks.

Why Qureshi wants the dev fund to end in 2028

Qureshi’s position, laid out in a Friday post on X, is focused on timing, size, and governance risk. He said the current development fund should be the last one, since it is already large enough to fund remaining Zcash work before the fund expires under existing rules in 2028.

In his view, however, the more the fund grows, the more it risks being drawn into political dynamics rather than purely technical decision-making. That concern is particularly salient as the fund approaches a value threshold of about $100 million, according to the ZecStats-reported balance.

For investors and builders, the core question is whether a large, semi-autonomous treasury mechanism improves continuity for development—or whether it creates governance friction that can slow priorities or erode long-term consensus.

How the Zcash development fund works

The ZEC development fund is designed as a protocol development allocation that accrues 0.1875 ZEC per block. Under the NU6 upgrade, that amount is described as representing 12% of the block subsidy. The fund’s holdings are kept outside normal token circulation, only becoming available when governance processes authorize disbursement.

Because it is built into the protocol’s block subsidy economics, the fund’s size is not simply a matter of community fundraising—it naturally expands with ongoing block production until its rules expire. That structural feature is part of why the current debate has intensified: a rising ZEC price increases the dollar value of locked assets without changing the number of tokens held.

A split on governance: token voting versus hybrid councils

Beyond the timing of any wind-down, Qureshi also challenged how the fund should be governed. He argued that control should not shift to “pure token holder voting,” while still supporting a partial approach in which token holders elect temporary councils.

Paradigm founder Matt Huang supported the broader idea of avoiding purely token-holder-driven control, arguing in a Wednesday post on X that pure token governance may introduce “unpredictability” and reduce long-term trust in Zcash as a monetary asset. Huang’s proposed alternative is a hybrid governance model that combines multiple forms of oversight rather than relying exclusively on token-weighted voting.

These arguments reflect a common tension in protocol treasuries: token-weighted systems can align governance with market incentives, but they may also be vulnerable to volatility-driven shifts in voting behavior. Hybrid systems, by contrast, aim to stabilize decision-making while still preserving a pathway for community influence.

Calls to eliminate the fund altogether

Not everyone agrees the fund should be preserved—even temporarily. Maxime Desalle, an investment analyst at Winklevoss Capital, suggested in a Thursday X post that the Zcash community should “completely get rid” of the development fund. He framed the elimination of the mechanism as a way to resolve governance disputes outright.

Desalle previously argued that the fund could hurt Zcash’s security and recreate the kinds of dependencies and bureaucracies that, in his view, many welfare-state systems face. While his critique focuses on governance structure, it also implies a more fundamental concern: that continuously accumulating value into a locked treasury can create incentives to capture decision-making rather than improve protocol resilience.

On the other side, Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox emphasized the historical role of development governance. In an earlier post on Sept. 1, he pointed to the Zcash Community Grants Committee as a major reason Zcash “has survived and grown to where it is today.” Later, on Sept. 14, Wilcox clarified that the committee accounts for only 40% of the development fund—an important detail for readers trying to map how much of the treasury is actually tied to grants versus other protocol-linked allocations.

What Zcash holders should watch next

The immediate uncertainty is whether Qureshi’s “final dev fund” framing will gain traction, and—separately—what governance model the community ultimately favors for any remaining disbursements before 2028. With the fund’s dollar value near $100 million based on ZecStats, governance decisions are likely to become more contentious, making the next proposals and voting outcomes crucial for anyone tracking Zcash’s long-term development runway.

Bitcoin price surged more than 5% on Sep. 18, breaking above $80,000 as a 4-hour trend reversal and concentrated short liquidations accelerated the recovery from $75,560.

Bitcoin price rebounds from $75,560

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price was trading near $80,600 at the time of writing after opening the daily session at $76,417. The 5.49% advance reversed most of the losses recorded during the earlier decline from the $80,000 area.

The move followed a drop to about $75,560, Bitcoin’s lowest level this month. Buyers first stabilized the price around $76,000 before pushing it through the $78,000 and $80,000 levels in two rapid advances.

Bitcoin briefly touched $81,258 during the rally but pulled back below $81,000, showing that sellers remain active near the upper end of its recent range. Even so, the daily candle remains strongly positive, with its real body covering more than $4,000.

The recovery also returned Bitcoin to the range it held before the Sep. 15 sell-off. Price must now remain above $80,000 to turn the former resistance level into support and reduce the risk of another retreat into the high-$70,000 area.

The rally came after bearish positioning increased during Bitcoin’s fall below $76,000. The supplied market data showed that forced buying from short liquidations helped speed up the rebound once the price began clearing nearby resistance.

Daily indicators support the Bitcoin breakout

Bitcoin has moved above all four moving averages displayed on the daily chart. The 20-day simple moving average sits at $78,150, making it the closest dynamic support following the breakout.

The 50-day SMA stands at $72,498, while the 200-day and 100-day averages are near $70,432 and $67,976, respectively. Bitcoin’s position above those longer-term averages keeps the wider recovery structure intact despite the volatility recorded during September.

The daily relative strength index rose to 62.93, above its moving average of 57.38. An RSI above 50 shows that upward momentum has strengthened, while the current reading remains below the commonly watched overbought level of 70.

Bitcoin is therefore gaining momentum without showing an extreme daily RSI reading. A move above 70 would signal stronger buying pressure, but it could also increase the risk of a short-term pullback if price reaches resistance near $82,000.

The daily structure still leaves Bitcoin below the local May high and the upper boundary of its recent trading range. Bulls need a daily close above approximately $82,000 to establish a higher high and provide stronger evidence that the September correction has ended.

4-hour Bitcoin chart flips bullish

Bitcoin’s 4-hour chart recorded a bullish Supertrend shift during the latest advance. The indicator now places trend support near $77,828, while price has also cleared the previous bearish Supertrend line around $78,597.

A 4-hour close above that former resistance strengthens the breakout because it shows that buyers held control beyond the initial price spike. The $78,600 area could now act as support during any retest.

The Aroon indicator also shows a sharp change in short-term momentum. Aroon Up reached 100%, while Aroon Down fell to 14.29%, indicating that the period’s most recent high occurred much later than its latest low.

Bitcoin remains exposed to a cooling period after its near-vertical 4-hour advance. A pullback that holds between $78,600 and $80,000 would preserve the new bullish structure, while a drop below the Supertrend support at $77,828 would weaken it.

A close below $77,800 could send Bitcoin back toward $76,000 and the monthly low near $75,560. Losing that low would invalidate the immediate recovery setup and reopen the path toward the daily moving-average cluster between $72,500 and $70,400.

Liquidation map puts $82,000 in focus

CoinGlass’ 24-hour Bitcoin liquidation heatmap shows several leveraged-position clusters above the current price. The nearest large concentrations appear around $81,500 and $82,000, with additional liquidity extending toward $84,000.

Leveraged short positions can face forced closure when Bitcoin rises into those zones. Such liquidations create market buy orders, which may add momentum if price breaks above $81,500 with sufficient volume.

The heatmap also shows liquidity below the market around $80,000 and $79,300. Larger bands are visible between roughly $76,000 and $77,500, making that region a possible target if Bitcoin fails to hold its breakout.

Liquidity concentrations do not guarantee that price will reach a given level. They identify areas where leveraged positions may be vulnerable, making volatility more likely when Bitcoin approaches them.

The immediate bullish path requires a break above the intraday high at $81,258, followed by a sustained move through the $81,500–$82,000 liquidity zone. A successful breakout would leave approximately $84,000 as the next visible area of concentrated liquidations.

Analyst sees descending-channel breakout

Crypto analyst Batman said Bitcoin had broken out of a descending-channel formation similar to an earlier setup that preceded a 24% gain. His chart compared the latest September structure with a channel that formed before Bitcoin’s August advance.

“$BTC just broke the same descending channel setup that led to a 24% move last time,” the analyst wrote.

Batman said the latest breakout had further continuation potential, although the earlier 24% move does not guarantee that Bitcoin will repeat the same performance. Confirmation still depends on whether the price can hold above the channel and clear the nearby $82,000 resistance.

For U.S. traders, the next test will also depend on how the rally holds through the next session, when deeper spot and derivatives liquidity can either confirm the breakout or expose it as a short-covering move. Until Bitcoin records a daily close above $82,000, the charts support a short-term bullish reversal rather than a confirmed breakout from the wider range.

Visa and Mastercard ATM cash withdrawals spanning roughly 19 years are part of a class-action lawsuit settlement totaling $167.5 million. 

The case, known as Burke v. Visa Inc., involves independent ATMs often found in convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, hotels, and bars — non-bank locations that often levy surcharges on cash withdrawals.

Here’s who is eligible for a cash payment as part of the settlement.

Read more: Just received a settlement? 5 smart ways to use the money.

What is the class-action lawsuit about?

The legal complaint claimed that cardholders nationwide paid excessive ATM fees that were not fully reimbursed, violating federal and state antitrust laws. The lawsuit covers ATM cash withdrawals over nearly two decades, from Oct. 24, 2007, to Aug. 14, 2026.

Court documents allege that independent ATM operators were not allowed to charge cardholders a lower fee by using card networks other than Visa and Mastercard. 

“If permitted to do so, ATM operators would have an economic incentive to pass on to customers the benefit of using the lower-cost, higher net revenue ‘rival networks’ in the form of lower, or discounted, access fees,” the claim stated.  

Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA) opted to settle the case without admitting liability. 

The settlement also covers separate, state-specific classes of claimants in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Michigan.

Who is eligible to receive the settlement?

Eligibility includes claimants who used a Visa or Mastercard to withdraw cash from a deposit account using an independent ATM (not owned by a financial institution) in the U.S. and were charged a surcharge or access fee that the cardholder’s bank did not fully reimburse. 

Transactions must have been made between Oct. 24, 2007, and Aug. 14, 2026.  

How much will the settlement pay?

The $167.5 million settlement fund will pay attorneys’ fees and expenses, administrative costs, taxes, and payouts to eligible class members. The amount of cash payments to eligible cardholders will depend on the number of valid claims filed. 

Deadline to file a claim

Claim forms may be submitted at www.nonbankatmsurchargesettlement.com. The submission deadline is Feb. 10, 2027. You may also exclude yourself or object to the settlement at the same web address.

Payments will be issued following a final court hearing in early 2027.

A BaFin official has warned that centralized EU crypto supervision could place extra burdens on firms while reducing flexibility in applying MiCA rules.

Centralized MiCA supervision could reduce flexibility

The European Blockchain Convention’s Day 2 briefing attributed the warning to Stephan Mögelin of Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, or BaFin, during a panel on proposed changes to the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework.

Mögelin said centralized supervisors could still depend on knowledge held by national authorities, particularly when dealing with the characteristics of individual markets.

“What we’ve seen, for example, in the application of EMIR, is that with a centralised supervisor, one might assume the application and understanding of specific provisions also becomes somewhat centralised,” he said.

According to Mögelin, centralization could leave crypto-asset service providers with less flexibility when regulators apply individual provisions. Moving responsibility after companies have already completed national authorization procedures could also create additional work.

“Market participants and clients should decide what they consider beneficial, because these firms currently go through an authorisation process, and shifting responsibility to a centralised entity might add burdens regardless of the outcome.”

Under MiCA, a crypto-asset service provider can obtain authorization from a national regulator and use the resulting passport to operate across the European Economic Area. A centralized model would transfer some supervisory responsibility from national authorities to an EU-level body.

MiCA licensing has divided access to the EU market

MiCA has created a common licensing structure for exchanges, custodians and other crypto service providers, although national regulators continue to process applications and supervise licensed firms.

In July, Ripple secured its MiCA authorization from Luxembourg’s Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. The approval permits the company to offer regulated crypto payment services across 30 European Economic Area countries.

As crypto.news previously reported, Ripple paired the crypto-asset service provider license with an electronic money institution license. The combination supports payment services involving crypto assets and stablecoins under the company’s European structure.

MiCA’s passport system can reduce the need for separate approvals in every participating country, but Mögelin’s remarks point to the trade-off between consistent supervision and national discretion. Firms may receive access across the region through one authorization while remaining dependent on how the regulator in their home jurisdiction applies the rules.

The EBC media briefing said the MiCA consultation had been extended to Sep. 30. During the panel, moderator Tommaso Astazi of Blockchain for Europe asked which areas of the framework required changes and whether supervision should move toward a centralized structure.

Private law remains incomplete for crypto assets

Mögelin identified the legal treatment of crypto assets outside financial-services regulation as another unresolved issue.

“From a supervisory and risk-management perspective, what we’ve seen so far is that MiCA and other European frameworks provide only a regulatory framework for financial services.”

“What’s still missing in most member states is a private law framework for specific crypto assets.”

Private law governs questions such as ownership, transfers, contractual claims and the treatment of assets when an intermediary fails. A financial-services license can regulate the conduct of an exchange or custodian without resolving every question about who legally owns a token or how creditors should treat it during insolvency.

Mögelin said the consultation was considering whether a European-level private-law framework could prevent another layer of fragmentation. Without common treatment, the same token could fall under different ownership or insolvency rules depending on the member state handling the dispute.

Similar ownership questions have emerged around tokenized securities. A token can record a transaction on a blockchain, but the legal register, custody agreement and applicable securities law determine whether the holder owns a share, a beneficial interest or only a contractual claim.

The United Kingdom is addressing related questions outside MiCA. In September, the House of Lords backed a digital asset strategy amendment by 194 votes to 138.

The proposed strategy would cover crypto assets, stablecoins, tokenized securities and digital settlement systems. The Treasury would have 12 months after Royal Assent to publish the strategy, although the bill must still pass through the House of Commons before the requirement becomes law.

E-money tokens could support tokenized settlement

During the BaFin panel, Mögelin also discussed the role of e-money tokens, a MiCA category covering crypto assets designed to maintain their value by referencing one official currency.

He said the convergence of crypto service providers and conventional financial institutions had increased interest in using e-money tokens inside traditional market infrastructure. One possible use involves supplying the cash side of transactions in tokenized securities.

Tokenized trades require both the asset and payment legs to settle. If one side moves through blockchain infrastructure while the other remains dependent on conventional bank transfers, the parties can face delays or completion risk.

Mögelin said regulators were discussing whether services involving e-money tokens could extend to credit or lending. In his account, such services could increase efficiency for companies operating across both crypto assets and tokenized financial instruments.

U.S. regulators face a related division between securities oversight and payment regulation. A tokenized stock generally falls within securities rules, while the stablecoin used to settle the trade can raise separate questions involving reserves, redemption rights, banking relationships and federal or state supervision.

Mögelin’s comments did not call for removing national authorities from the MiCA system. He said even a centralized supervisor could benefit from member-state expertise, while firms and their clients should assess whether transferring authorization responsibilities would provide enough value to offset the operational burden.

Democratic leaders sound the alarm on “terribly flawed” bill

If you know anything about filmmaker John Wilson, you’ll intuit that his new documentary The History of Concrete is barely about concrete at all. Earlier this decade, Wilson’s HBO show, How To With John Wilson, provided a sometimes compelling, sometimes aggravating glimpse into the lives of ordinary New Yorkers, as well as into Wilson’s own woolly, discursive mode of thinking. In one episode, Wilson walked around a New York neighborhood until he saw an Italian flag, figuring that the person who’d hung it would know enough about Italian food to help him learn to cook risotto, which he wanted to make as a treat for his elderly, babushka’ed landlady. In another installment, he sought ways to protect his furniture from his beloved yet destructive cat, and in so doing, stumbled upon an anti-circumcision activist, who in turn led him to a musician and inventor who’d developed a foreskin restoration device. (It was called the TLC Tugger.) In Wilson’s world, the phrase “One thing leads to another” takes on heightened meaning. He shifts gears according to who and what he encounters during the filmmaking process, which is how a simple quest to cover a chair can morph into an anxiety-riddled meditation on the possibility that maybe life is better uncut.