Kalshi filed two product submissions with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Aug. 18, seeking permission to launch perpetual futures tied to a broad U.S. stock index and copper.

The exchange submitted both products through the voluntary approval process under CFTC Regulation 40.3. Kalshi said it plans to list the contracts shortly after approval, meaning neither product can begin trading based on the filings alone.

The applications extend Kalshi’s perpetual futures expansion beyond digital assets. They also arrive while CME Group challenges the CFTC’s authority to classify no expiry contracts as futures rather than swaps.

Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 18 to create a regulatory framework for pre IPO perpetual contracts.

The SEC added the joint submission to its public IPO modernization docket. Posting the letter confirms its receipt but does not mean the agency supports its recommendations or has approved the products.

The groups call the proposed instrument an IPOP. It would provide cash settled price exposure to a company approaching a public listing without conveying shares, voting rights, IPO allocations or claims against the issuer.

Hyperliquid proposal seeks five regulatory pillars

The 15 page letter asks the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission to determine whether equity linked perpetuals are security futures or security based swaps. The classification would decide which registration, trading venue, clearing and margin requirements apply.

The groups also proposed rules covering product disclosures, listing eligibility, investor access and market integrity. They recommended disclosures addressing funding rates, leverage, liquidations, pricing methods, settlement and contract conversion rather than treating holders as equity owners.

Listing rules could limit an IPOP to a defined period after a company publicly files registration documents. Oracle and settlement procedures would be announced in advance, while changes would need disclosure.

Market integrity provisions could include audit trails, conflict controls and restrictions on deployers or affiliates trading while holding material nonpublic information. A phased rollout could also impose leverage and position limits before expanding access to retail investors.

Five markets underpin the price discovery argument

Trade[XYZ] told the SEC it had completed five IPOP markets tied to Cerebras, Quantinuum, SpaceX, SK Hynix and ChangXin Memory Technologies. The products operated for between one and 25 days before the referenced listings.

According to the applicants’ data, each contract’s final price before trading began was within 0.44% to 7.23% of the relevant stock’s opening price. Four U.S. offerings priced between 10.8% and 38.4% below the IPOP level recorded one day earlier.

Those figures support the groups’ claim that continuously traded derivatives “could” provide issuers and underwriters with an independent measure of demand. They do not establish how the products would perform across a larger or less active group of listings.

The SEC has not independently endorsed those performance claims. A five market sample is also too limited to establish that similar contracts would consistently improve IPO pricing.

As previously reported, the SpaceX product exposed a regulatory gray zone around private markets. SpaceX had not authorized the contract and received no proceeds from its trading.

Oracle risk remains central to investor protection

Pre IPO perpetuals depend on pricing and settlement rules designed by market deployers. Unlike listed stocks, private companies may lack a continuous, authoritative market price before their public debut.

Trade[XYZ] experienced a related problem after one unusually low SK Hynix share transaction entered its oracle inputs. As crypto.news reported, the SK Hynix pricing anomaly pushed the perpetual’s mark price down about 18% and triggered liquidations.

Trade[XYZ] later agreed to cover eligible losses as a discretionary measure. The company said its oracle followed its published design, although the external transaction involved only one share in a thin trading session.

The episode supports the letter’s call for disclosed oracle rules and market controls. It also shows why an accurate technical process may still produce a price that does not represent a deep or durable market.

SEC and CFTC must settle product classification

Trade[XYZ] currently operates these markets offshore and excludes U.S. persons. No approved U.S. pre IPO perpetual framework presently gives American retail traders access to the products described in the letter.

The CFTC’s May 29 policy established case by case review for perpetual contracts outside the Bitcoin product it approved for KalshiEX. The related policy text said equity based perpetuals would benefit from coordinated SEC and CFTC review.

The agencies have separately asked whether a cash settled perpetual referencing an equity security could qualify as a security future. Their eventual answer would determine whether current security futures rules can accommodate an instrument tied to a company whose shares have not yet started trading.

No response deadline applies to the Hyperliquid submission, and the SEC does not have to adopt its recommendations. Further steps could include staff discussions, another request for comment, joint agency guidance or formal rulemaking.

Short seller James Chanos described Strategy and Bitcoin as an “$80 billion actionable spread” on Aug. 18, reviving debate over the valuation of Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin treasury company.

Chanos called the relationship one of the largest “pure arbitrage opportunities” he had seen. His earlier trade involved shorting Strategy’s MSTR shares while taking a long position in Bitcoin.

The latest claim requires context. Strategy no longer holds the 847,363 BTC cited in some reports. Recent company disclosures place its balance at 840,447 BTC following several sales during July and August.

At Bitcoin’s Tuesday price of approximately $64,188, those holdings were worth about $53.95 billion. MSTR had a market capitalization of roughly $34.4 billion, while its shares gained close to 5% to $97.68.

The $19.5 billion difference between those two figures is not a direct arbitrage profit. It excludes debt, preferred stock, cash, software operations, taxes and the costs required to maintain a hedged position.

Chanos’s $80 billion figure is not a simple market gap

Chanos did not publish a complete calculation showing how he reached the “$80 billion actionable spread.” The figure therefore remains his characterization of the opportunity rather than a directly verifiable difference between two market prices.

Strategy’s own dashboard placed its modified net asset value multiple, or mNAV, near 1.04 on Tuesday. That measure compares enterprise value with the value of its Bitcoin after accounting for parts of the capital structure.

An mNAV of 1.04 indicates a premium of approximately 4%, based on the company’s methodology. It does not show MSTR trading at the wide premium that supported Chanos’s original trade in 2025.

Comparing common equity market capitalization directly with Bitcoin holdings produces a discount because common shareholders rank behind creditors and preferred shareholders. Strategy has issued several preferred securities carrying dividend obligations and also has outstanding debt.

The company’s software operation, dollar reserve and other assets must also be included. As a result, buying MSTR does not provide the same economic exposure as holding an equivalent dollar amount of Bitcoin.

Strategy’s Bitcoin balance has declined from its peak

A June 29 SEC filing showed that Strategy held 847,363 BTC at the end of June. The company had spent $64.1 billion acquiring the coins at an average price of $75,651.

Strategy subsequently sold Bitcoin under a board authorized monetization program. The program allows sales to fund its dollar reserve, interest expenses, preferred dividends and security repurchases.

As previously reported, the company sold 1,690 BTC and used the proceeds for preferred share repurchases during the week ending Aug. 9.

Those sales reduced the balance to 840,447 BTC. The remaining tokens carried an aggregate acquisition cost of approximately $63.36 billion and an average cost of $75,385 per coin.

At Tuesday’s Bitcoin price, the position was approximately $9.4 billion below its disclosed purchase cost. That is an unrealized accounting difference rather than a realized loss unless the coins are sold.

The same filing series showed that the company raised cash by issuing additional MSTR shares. Common stock issuance increases liquidity but also expands the number of shares participating in the Bitcoin exposure.

MSTR and Bitcoin carry different financial risks

Direct Bitcoin ownership exposes an investor mainly to changes in Bitcoin’s market price and the security of their custody arrangement. MSTR adds corporate financing and management risks.

Strategy has issued STRC, STRF, STRD and STRK preferred shares. These securities sit ahead of common shareholders and carry dividend rates ranging from 8% to 12%, subject to their respective terms.

The company has also established a dollar reserve to meet preferred dividends and interest obligations. In related coverage, the reserve reached $4.65 billion after further common stock sales.

Strategy’s board authorized up to $1.25 billion of additional Bitcoin sales to help fund that reserve. It also approved separate $1 billion repurchase programs for preferred securities and MSTR common stock.

These layers prevent the trade from being risk free. A short seller must borrow MSTR shares, pay borrowing costs and manage the possibility that the stock rises faster than Bitcoin.

The long side also requires financing. If Bitcoin falls while MSTR rises because of short covering, new financing or changing investor demand, both parts of the trade can lose money temporarily.

Chanos previously exited after the premium contracted

Chanos began constructing his earlier position in late 2024, when MSTR traded at a large premium to the value of Strategy’s Bitcoin. The premium exceeded three times the Bitcoin value at points during November 2024.

He publicly described the trade in 2025 as long Bitcoin and short MSTR. Chanos argued that investors were paying too much for Bitcoin exposure available directly or through lower cost exchange traded products.

As Reuters reported, Strategy’s market value stood around 1.74 times its Bitcoin holdings when Chanos renewed his criticism in June 2025.

The gap later narrowed. Chanos said his firm closed the hedged position on Nov. 7, 2025, after the trade gained more than 50%. He described the remaining opportunity as too small to justify keeping the position open.

His latest statement does not confirm that he has reopened the trade. It also does not disclose position size, entry prices, borrowing costs or the instruments that would be used.

Future SEC filings will show whether Strategy continues selling Bitcoin, issuing MSTR shares or repurchasing preferred securities. Those decisions, together with Bitcoin’s price and changes in financing costs, will determine whether the company trades at a premium or discount to its adjusted asset value.

Investigators may have given U.S. authorities information capable of identifying an attacker responsible for the first Coldcard theft wave, Bitcoin Magazine reported on Aug. 18.

Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn said the first wave attacker’s identity “may be known to law enforcement.” His statement was cautious, and the FBI has not publicly confirmed identifying a suspect, opening a case, making an arrest or recovering any stolen Bitcoin.

The first wave removed 1,082.65 BTC from wallets generated using vulnerable Coldcard firmware. At Bitcoin’s recent price near $64,000, those coins would be worth approximately $69 million, not $11.8 million.

Block found an offchain trail from the first sweep

Block engineering lead Clay Garrett said investigators found an unusual pattern in the attacker’s onchain sweeps. The operator allegedly used a paid account at an unnamed blockchain data provider to query source addresses and perform related activity.

The Blockchain Association has backed a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to repeal two market rules adopted in 2005, arguing that their removal could make it easier for tokenized securities to trade on public blockchains.

The Blockchain Association said in an Aug. 17 comment letter that the SEC should move ahead with plans to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e) of Regulation National Market System, or Regulation NMS, as the existing requirements no longer fit the way modern securities markets operate.

The filing arrived on the final day of the SEC’s public comment period for the proposal, which was first issued on June 11. The agency is considering removing the two rules along with related definitions in Rule 600 and making corresponding changes to other provisions of Regulation NMS.

“Rules 611 and 610(e) have failed to achieve their stated purposes and have instead imposed substantial, unnecessary costs on market participants for the past two decades,” the association said.

SEC proposal would remove two Regulation NMS rules

Adopted as part of Regulation NMS in 2005, Rule 611 prevents a trading venue from executing certain stock orders at an inferior price when a protected, better-priced quotation is available on another market.

Rule 610(e), meanwhile, restricts national securities exchanges and other covered markets from displaying quotations that lock or cross protected quotations elsewhere. A locked market occurs when the best bid and offer are equal, while a crossed market occurs when the best bid exceeds the best offer.

When the SEC proposed removing both requirements in June, Chair Paul Atkins said two decades of experience with Rule 611 had given the regulator reason to examine its unintended consequences. The proposal is designed to simplify U.S. equity market structure and lower costs while allowing competition and technology to play a larger role in how orders are executed, according to the agency.

The Blockchain Association made a similar argument in its filing, saying trading technology has changed substantially since the rules were introduced.

Markets have become faster, more automated and more connected, the group said in a series of posts accompanying the filing, while blockchain-based financial infrastructure has introduced another way to issue, transfer and settle securities.

“Today’s markets have evolved dramatically since 2005, and a revolutionary shift is now underway: the representation of traditional assets on public blockchains,” the association said.

Tokenized securities could benefit from the SEC rule changes

Tokenization formed a key part of the group’s case for repealing the two rules, with the association arguing that existing Regulation NMS requirements can interfere with the development of markets that execute and settle securities on public blockchain networks.

According to the filing, the reasoning behind removing the rules also supports giving market participants more flexibility when assessing tokenized securities transactions. The group said execution quality should account for more than the quoted price when blockchain-based markets can provide other features.

“[The] logic underlying the rules’ rescission points to the benefits of enabling tokenized securities markets generally,” the association said. “Specifically, that logic favors weighing multiple factors when evaluating securities transactions, including the benefits of tokenized securities.”

The comments come as the SEC has been considering separate ways to bring blockchain-based versions of conventional securities within U.S. market rules.

In May, an SEC proposal was reported to be under development that could allow blockchain platforms to offer tokenized versions of publicly traded shares through an innovation exemption. The framework was expected to cover tokens representing existing public equities while setting conditions for how the products could be issued and traded.

SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce later narrowed expectations around the plan, saying any exemption she envisioned would be limited to digital representations of equity securities that investors can already purchase in public secondary markets.

By June, Ondo Finance had also sought SEC clearance for a model that records securities interests as tokens on Ethereum while keeping the underlying assets within existing broker-dealer custody arrangements.

Ondo’s request asked SEC staff to confirm that they would not recommend enforcement action over the structure used by Ondo Global Markets. Under the model, blockchain tokens represent interests connected to securities held through regulated U.S. financial infrastructure instead of replacing the underlying custody arrangement.

Blockchain Association wants onchain execution recognized

Alongside its support for repealing Rules 611 and 610(e), the Blockchain Association asked the SEC to update its approach to best execution, an obligation that requires broker-dealers to seek favorable terms for customer orders.

The group argued that execution standards should account for the features available through blockchain infrastructure and asked the regulator to acknowledge that transactions completed through public networks can comply with securities requirements.

“The SEC should recognize employing an onchain execution mechanism as a compliant means of achieving fair and efficient execution,” the filing said.

The request puts execution rules alongside a separate regulatory question facing tokenized markets: whether blockchain records can operate inside the existing securities system without changing the legal rights attached to the underlying asset.

Several projects have begun testing that model. In July, Ondo put U.S. securities onchain through a structure that kept the underlying assets in regulated custody while issuing blockchain-based representations through a registered transfer agent.

The initial deployment included BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and Micron Technology shares on Ethereum. Ondo said the tokens were backed 1:1 while the underlying securities remained within conventional U.S. custody infrastructure.

Around the same time, BlackRock-backed Securitize tokenized its common stock on Solana and Avalanche when the company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Securitize said the blockchain-based SECZ tokens represented the same common shares instead of creating a separate class of equity.

SEC comment period has now closed

The SEC’s Regulation NMS proposal was published in the Federal Register on June 17 under file number S7-2026-20, with Aug. 17 set as the deadline for public comments.

Besides repealing Rule 611’s trade-through prohibition and Rule 610(e)’s restrictions on locked and crossed quotations, the proposal would remove definitions in Rule 600 that would no longer be needed and amend provisions that currently refer to the two rules.

SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said when the proposal was introduced that removing Rule 611 could raise questions involving best execution, transparency, trading mechanics and investor confidence, areas the agency asked market participants to address during the comment process.

Peirce also supported putting the rules under review, arguing in June that changes in trading technology had reduced the market-connectivity concerns that led regulators to adopt Rule 611 more than two decades ago.

The Blockchain Association’s Aug. 17 filing asked the SEC to consider those execution questions alongside the development of blockchain-based markets and to recognize public blockchains as a possible compliant venue for fair and efficient securities execution.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed new U.S. accounting guidance on Aug. 18 that would clarify when companies may present certain stablecoins as cash equivalents.

The proposed Accounting Standards Update would add examples to Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows. It would not change the existing definition of cash equivalents under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

FASB opened the proposal for public comment through Nov. 19. The board will decide whether to issue a final standard and set its effective date after reviewing responses.

FASB would apply three stablecoin conditions

A digital asset could qualify only if its holder has an on demand contractual right to redeem it for cash. The right must allow direct redemption with the issuer for a known amount.

The issuer must also hold at least one to one reserves in segregated accounts. Those reserves would need to consist of short term, highly liquid assets that are readily convertible into known cash amounts.

Meeting those conditions would not force a company to classify the token as a cash equivalent. Companies would retain the option to use that presentation and would need to consider applicable laws and regulations.

The proposal is not final guidance. FASB said the examples are intended to “promote more consistent application” after stakeholders reported uncertainty and different accounting treatments during its 2025 agenda consultation.

Secondary trading would not replace redemption rights

One proposed example examines a token that trades actively on secondary markets but does not give the holder a direct right to redeem with its issuer. FASB concluded that market liquidity alone would not satisfy the existing cash equivalent definition.

A liquid exchange market can allow a company to sell a token quickly. However, its market price can move away from the promised value during periods of stress. Direct redemption provides a separate contractual route to receive a known cash amount.

Another example rejects cash equivalent treatment when reserves include crypto assets and gold. FASB said price changes in those assets could prevent the holder from receiving a known amount of cash.

These examples would exclude algorithmic tokens, overcollateralized crypto backed products and other assets without direct issuer redemption, even when they use the stablecoin label.

U.S. companies currently use different treatments

FASB began the project because companies have reached different conclusions under existing GAAP. Some public companies already classify selected payment stablecoins as cash equivalents based on their redemption and reserve arrangements.

Coinbase voluntarily changed its accounting method effective Dec. 31, 2025. Its SEC filing says USDC, EURC and PYUSD are redeemable one to one and backed by cash equivalents in segregated accounts.

The company applied the change retrospectively. Coinbase said it did not alter previously reported assets, liabilities, equity, net income or earnings per share, although it changed portions of its cash flow presentation.

A final FASB standard could make those assessments more comparable across U.S. companies. It would not determine whether an issuer may legally offer a token or whether reserves comply with federal rules.

Proposal arrives before federal rules take effect

The accounting proposal arrives as agencies implement the GENIUS Act, which created the first federal framework for U.S. payment stablecoins. As previously reported, the law established new federal payment rules covering licensing, reserves, redemption and disclosures.

The GENIUS Act generally takes effect in January 2027. Regulators have continued developing its operating requirements after missing the original rulemaking deadline.

The Treasury Department also recently opened consultation on when tokens are issued, offered or sold in the United States. In related coverage, crypto.news examined Treasury’s latest licensing proposal.

FASB’s process remains separate from those regulatory proceedings. A token could satisfy federal issuance rules but still fail the accounting test if a particular holder lacks direct redemption rights or the reserves contain volatile assets.

The proposal would also require every entity reporting cash equivalents to disclose their major components and corresponding amounts. That requirement would apply even when no digital assets are included.

Stakeholders may submit written responses until Nov. 19. FASB will then consider revisions, decide whether to adopt the update and determine when companies must begin applying it.

Decentrawood is positioning DEOD at the intersection of AI and web3, with a new exchange reveal, Task AI Agent, and DEOD DAO launches planned for August 23–24.

Every crypto bull market has its biggest winners. In past cycles, meme coins, DeFi, NFTs, and metaverse tokens delivered 10x, 50x, and even 100x gains as new trends captured investor attention.

Many believe AI could be the next major crypto narrative in 2026. While nothing is guaranteed, projects building real AI infrastructure are attracting growing interest. One of them is Decentrawood.

With the launch of DEOD AI, an expanding ecosystem, multiple exchange listings, and several major catalysts approaching on 23–24 August, Decentrawood is positioning itself at the intersection of AI and Web3.

The upcoming milestones include a new exchange reveal on 23 August, followed by the Task AI Agent launch and DEOD DAO governance launch on 24 August. As these developments approach, crypto investors are watching to see whether DEOD can continue building momentum.

What is Decentrawood?

DEOD AI: Moving beyond traditional AI tools

The latest addition to the ecosystem is DEOD AI, an Agentic AI platform designed to help users build intelligent AI agents without requiring advanced technical knowledge.

The platform enables users to:

• Create AI agents
• Verify AI agents through blockchain technology
• Deploy autonomous agents
• Monetize AI agents
• Build multi-agent systems Additional capabilities include:
• No-Code AI Agent Builder
• Know Your Agent (KYA) Verification
• Blockchain Identity Layer
• Trust Score System
• AI-to-AI Communication
• Enterprise Deployment
• Agent Marketplace
• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Knowledge Systems

The goal is to create trusted AI agents that businesses and individuals can use for automation, customer support, research, content creation, and digital workflows.

Growing adoption across the ecosystem

A major 24 August catalyst for DEOD

23 August — New exchange reveal

24 August — DEOD DAO Governance Launch

Expanding utility for the DEOD token

Exchange expansion continues

Why investors are paying attention

What could the 24 August catalyst mean for DEOD?

Looking ahead