Ondo Finance has asked US regulators to bring perpetual futures tied to individual stocks onshore after its offshore platform recorded $8 billion in cumulative trading volume within roughly six weeks.

Ondo Finance, in three Aug. 24 comment letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said the agencies could accommodate stock perpetual futures through the existing security futures framework.

The company’s proposal covers product classification, margin requirements and the use of onchain market data. Instead of asking Congress or federal agencies to create a separate regulatory category, Ondo wants the SEC and CFTC to apply rules already used for futures tied to individual securities.

According to its product-classification letter, the lack of a fixed expiration date does not prevent a perpetual contract from qualifying as a security futures product.

“Nothing in the statutory definition of a security futures product requires a fixed expiration date,” Ondo said.

Ondo says funding payments can replace expiration

Traditional futures expire on a set date, when the contract settles against the value of its underlying asset. Perpetual futures have no scheduled expiry and use recurring funding payments to keep their market prices close to the assets they track.

When a perpetual trades above its reference price, traders holding long positions generally pay traders holding short positions. Payments move in the opposite direction when the contract trades below the reference price, creating an incentive for both prices to converge.

Ondo told regulators that the funding mechanism performs a function similar to expiration in a dated futures contract. Under its interpretation, the economic structure of the product matters more than whether the contract ends on a predetermined date.

The filing also addresses updated margin systems and blockchain-based pricing data. Ondo argued that regulators could account for such features within current law, although the SEC and CFTC would still need to decide how individual products satisfy listing, trading, and investor-protection requirements.

A similar request reached both agencies on Aug. 24, when the Hyperliquid Policy Center proposed treating equity perpetuals with futures-like characteristics as security futures. The group said Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 markets had processed more than $480 billion in cumulative notional volume during their first 10 months.

Under that proposal, regulators would first examine how a contract is structured and traded before considering the asset it tracks. A futures-style contract tied to an individual stock would then fall under the security futures system jointly administered by the SEC and CFTC.

Security futures combine features of securities and futures law. A CFTC-regulated designated contract market can list them after notice-registering with the SEC, while a national securities exchange can use a parallel registration route with the CFTC.

Offshore stock perpetuals have processed $8B

Through a Panama-based affiliate, Ondo already offers stablecoin-settled perpetual futures referencing individual US-listed stocks to eligible users outside the United States.

The platform had generated $8 billion in cumulative trading volume by Aug. 14, according to the company’s SEC submission. Ondo said the total was reached about six weeks after the product launched.

Many referenced shares principally trade on US exchanges, even though American users cannot access the offshore contracts. The arrangement allows eligible non-US traders to gain price exposure to individual stocks while settling their positions with stablecoins instead of using a conventional brokerage account.

“Bringing that activity back to the U.S. should not be an open question; it’s something both agencies should actively pursue,” the company said.

Ondo’s request would not automatically authorize every stock perpetual. Exchanges, brokers, and clearing organizations would still need to comply with the registration, listing, margin, and customer-protection requirements that apply to security futures.

The proposal could nonetheless give US investors a regulated route to products that are already available through offshore venues. American access would depend on the agencies accepting Ondo’s classification and determining how current security futures standards apply to perpetual contracts.

Former SEC counsel Ashley Ebersole recently told crypto.news that creating a US regulatory pathway for onchain perpetuals could take 10 to 12 months if the agencies pursue rulemaking, public comments and implementation. Ebersole said the process could move faster if regulators rely heavily on existing authority or exemptions.

Ondo expands its tokenized securities business

Alongside its derivatives proposal, Ondo operates one of the largest tokenized real-world asset businesses. RWA.xyz ranked the company fourth among RWA managers, with approximately $2.6 billion in distributed asset value as of Wednesday.

Ondo Stocks listed more than 440 tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds across Ethereum, BNB Chain and Solana as of Aug. 13. The platform reported around $1.02 billion in asset value at the time, according to earlier Ondo coverage.

The company says each tokenized security is backed by the related stock, ETF, or cash held with US-registered broker-dealers. An independent verification agent checks the asset backing, while a security agent holds an interest in the collateral.

Ondo’s disclosures state that buyers receive economic exposure to price movements and reinvested dividends after applicable tax withholding. Holders do not own the referenced stock or ETF directly and do not receive the same rights as registered shareholders.

Late in July, Ondo secured FINRA authorization connected to its US tokenized-equity operations. The company said at the time that its tokenized products had exceeded $2.5 billion in total value locked, while Ondo Stocks had processed more than $7 billion in cumulative volume.

Such tokenized products differ from the perpetual futures covered by the latest letters. Stock tokens provide an indirect economic interest backed by securities or cash, while perpetuals are derivative contracts designed to track the price of a referenced share without transferring ownership.

SEC and CFTC coordination could shape access

Ondo submitted its letters while federal agencies were reconsidering how securities and derivatives rules should apply to blockchain-based markets.

In March, the SEC and CFTC signed a memorandum of understanding to coordinate work in areas where their authority overlaps. The agreement created a formal process for sharing information, developing policy, and resolving questions involving products that may fall under both securities and commodities law.

Security futures require such coordination because the SEC oversees securities markets and the CFTC regulates US futures and derivatives venues. A perpetual tied to an individual stock could therefore require approval or supervision from both agencies.

Political attention has also turned toward bringing offshore perpetual markets into the country. President Donald Trump said in August that CFTC Chair Michael Selig was working to bring Hyperliquid to the United States in a “fully compliant and legal fashion.”

Neither the CFTC nor Hyperliquid has publicly explained how access would operate. Hyperliquid is best known for onchain perpetual futures, while its HYPE token climbed more than 20% after Trump’s comments and gained nearly 49% over the following month to trade around $81 on Wednesday, according to CoinGecko.

Regulators are separately examining the infrastructure needed to support tokenized securities. On Tuesday, the SEC proposed updating transfer-agent rules covering registration, recordkeeping, transfer processing, cybersecurity, and the protection of securities and customer funds.

Most existing transfer-agent requirements date from the late 1970s and early 1980s, when paper certificates and manual ownership records remained common. Under the proposed rules, onchain transfer agents would need controls protecting digital records from unauthorized changes, deletion, and operational failures.

The SEC said the amendments would remain technology-neutral and would not require companies to use blockchain systems. Public comments will remain open for 60 days after the proposal appears in the Federal Register, after which SEC staff may revise the text before commissioners consider a final rule.

Thailand’s financial regulator has moved to formalize tighter oversight of crypto transfers, aiming to bring local rules closer to the international “Travel Rule” framework used to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The Thailand Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said its new regulations require digital asset operators to collect and transmit information about parties involved in certain crypto transfers.

In an announcement made Wednesday, the SEC set Feb. 27, 2027 as the compliance start date. That timeline gives regulated crypto businesses nearly six months to build or upgrade systems needed to transmit, receive, and monitor transaction-related data.

Key takeaways

• Thailand’s SEC has issued new Travel Rule regulations covering crypto transfers handled by digital asset operators.
• The rules require operators to gather information on the parties to transactions and retain it for regulatory review.
• Self-custodial wallets will be subject to additional ownership or control verification steps when users send to or receive from them.
• Recordkeeping must cover each transaction for at least five years.
• Compliance begins Feb. 27, 2027, after consultations earlier in 2026.

Thailand’s Travel Rule push: data sharing for transfers

The SEC’s new framework requires digital asset operators in Thailand to collect information about both sides of eligible crypto transfers—effectively mirroring the core idea of the Travel Rule: tracking who sends and who receives value across financial rails. According to the SEC’s announcement, the regulations are intended to reduce the risk that crypto transfers are used to support illicit activity.

Regulators have been moving toward standardized transaction screening and information exchange for years, and Thailand’s final rules reflect that broader shift. The SEC’s move also aligns with the broader international picture: the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) estimated that 83% of surveyed jurisdictions had passed Travel Rule legislation as of 2026, per earlier coverage referencing FATF findings (see this Cointelegraph report).

For market participants, the practical significance is straightforward: compliance will require more than simple transaction monitoring. Operators will need processes to transmit and reconcile counterpart information, particularly where transfers cross different service providers or involve specific wallet types.

Self-custodial wallets will require ownership or control checks

A notable element of Thailand’s rules is how they treat self-custodial wallets—wallets where users control private keys and therefore directly control access to funds. Under the SEC’s framework, Thai digital asset operators must verify the ownership or control of self-hosted wallets when customers send crypto to or receive crypto from those addresses.

The point of friction for businesses is that self-custody reduces the usual intermediated link between user identity and on-chain activity. Centralized exchanges and custodians can typically manage onboarding and identity checks for their own users, but self-custodial transactions require operators to demonstrate that the wallet being used is genuinely under the customer’s control.

Beyond wallet verification, the SEC also requires that operators retain information that accompanies digital asset transactions for at least five years and provide the records for regulatory examination. That long retention period matters because it implies ongoing administrative and storage costs—alongside the technical effort of recording transfer metadata that regulators can later request.

The SEC also characterized the motivation behind the rules in risk terms. Pornanong Budsaratragoon, secretary-general of Thailand’s SEC, said the regulations aim to “reduce the risk of digital asset operators being used for money laundering and terrorist financing.”

From consultations to finalized rules

The Travel Rule regulations did not arrive abruptly. The SEC said the final text followed two rounds of public consultation during 2026. The process began with proposed principles in March and progressed to a draft notification in June, with the regulator indicating that most stakeholders supported the proposals.

That consultation history may help explain the compliance window. By setting an effective date in late February 2027, Thailand’s SEC effectively acknowledges that digital asset operators will need time to implement end-to-end workflows—especially around verifying self-custodial wallet control and ensuring that transaction information is systematically captured and retained.

For investors and traders, the indirect effect is that regulated service providers may tighten operational requirements around how users deposit, withdraw, and transact—particularly when interactions involve self-custodial addresses. While the rules are framed as AML measures, the on-the-ground result can be operational changes, additional documentation, and potentially more robust transaction screening before transfers are executed.

Thailand’s broader regulatory direction

Thailand’s Travel Rule finalization comes as the SEC also advances other crypto-related rulemaking. Earlier this week, the regulator proposed allowing intermediaries to offer retail investors access to certain crypto derivatives traded on regulated overseas exchanges. Days before that, it moved forward with draft rules for spot Bitcoin and Ether exchange-traded funds (ETFs), while also seeking feedback on requirements for foreign digital asset custodians used by funds investing in crypto.

Taken together, the SEC’s agenda suggests an approach focused on bringing more segments of crypto activity under formal compliance structures while maintaining a pathway for new regulated products. The emphasis on transaction-level traceability for AML purposes—now codified through the Travel Rule—fits naturally with a regulator that is simultaneously exploring how retail-facing offerings and fund structures can operate within oversight.

What remains to be seen is how Thailand will interpret and enforce the practical implementation details—particularly around self-custodial wallet verification and the technical standards for passing Travel Rule data between counterparties. Providers should watch for guidance on implementation expectations as the Feb. 27, 2027 effective date approaches, and traders should be alert for potential onboarding or transfer process changes from regulated platforms as they prepare to comply.

New Jersey’s Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and the state’s interim director for the Division of Gaming Enforcement, Mary Jo Flaherty, have petitioned the US Supreme Court to take up a dispute over who has the power to regulate prediction market companies.

The filing, made Wednesday, asks the nation’s highest court to decide whether federal law—specifically the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act—preempts states from enforcing their own sports betting rules against prediction market platforms that list contracts on markets registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The case centers on New Jersey’s enforcement action against Kalshi.

Key takeaways

• New Jersey is asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether Dodd-Frank preempts state regulation of sports bets offered through CFTC-registered markets.
• The petition targets a dispute that has already been litigated through the federal courts, including an April ruling by the Third Circuit that went against New Jersey.
• New Jersey argues that if platforms can comply with the CFTC while violating state law, Congress did not intend to “immunize” the sports-betting industry from state gambling rules.
• Kalshi says it disagrees with New Jersey’s Supreme Court appeal and argues the company cannot be governed by “50 different regulators.”
• The Supreme Court’s decision—if it takes the case—could materially affect which regulators can control prediction markets in different states.

Why New Jersey wants the Supreme Court involved

In its petition, New Jersey points to its own enforcement against Kalshi over contracts tied to sporting events. According to the state’s filing, similar civil cases have been pursued by gaming authorities in “at least 20 states,” creating a patchwork of enforcement positions that New Jersey says the Supreme Court should resolve.

In a statement accompanying the move, Davenport argued that platforms like Kalshi market sports wagering as lawful across the country while refusing to follow the gambling rules of any individual state. Davenport’s remarks, as published by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, frame the dispute as a question of whether Congress silently removed state authority from the equation.

The petition itself centers on a narrow but consequential legal question: whether the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act preempts states from regulating sports bets that fall within their jurisdictions when those bets are offered on markets registered with the CFTC.

The legal clash after the Third Circuit decision

New Jersey’s request comes after an April decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In that ruling, judges voted 2-1 against New Jersey’s position, concluding that Kalshi had a “reasonable chance of success” in arguing that the CFTC’s Commodity Exchange Act preempted state law.

A key aspect of the fight described in the petition involves the CFTC’s characterization of certain prediction market contracts as “swaps,” which would place them within the agency’s regulatory scope. New Jersey’s filing disputes the idea that federal law overrides state sports-gambling rules even when markets are registered with the CFTC.

The petition also challenges the way the lower court handled the interplay between federal preemption and state enforcement, asking the Supreme Court to directly address whether states retain authority in these circumstances.

What a Supreme Court win could mean for prediction markets

New Jersey argues that the outcome could determine the legality of a wide range of sports betting activities conducted through CFTC-registered trading venues. In the Attorney General’s announcement, New Jersey highlighted the federal constraints that prohibit trading swaps off CFTC-registered markets, suggesting that if Kalshi prevails, sports wagering associated with those registered venues could be treated as illegal for any state that restricts it—even in cases where state law might otherwise allow it.

That framing reflects the broader tension at the center of the dispute: if prediction platforms are regulated under federal swap rules, then the question becomes whether states can still enforce their own licensing and gambling restrictions against them, or whether federal compliance effectively displaces state authority.

Kalshi pushes back on the appeal

Kalshi has not agreed with New Jersey’s effort to take the fight to the Supreme Court. In comments to Cointelegraph, Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever said the company disagrees with the state’s decision to appeal and argued that prediction market platforms cannot reasonably operate under dozens of separate state regulatory regimes.

Lever said Kalshi remains confident in the lower courts’ rulings and that New Jersey’s filing does not change the company’s view of the case.

Could the Supreme Court step in soon?

Whether the Supreme Court will accept the petition is not yet known. Legal observers have speculated that justices may consider similar issues connected to prediction markets and appellate decisions in other jurisdictions, including disputes that have also reached federal courts in Nevada.

If the Supreme Court decides to take up the Kalshi dispute—or another closely related enforcement matter involving a different platform—the ruling would likely clarify which level of government can control prediction markets across state lines. Until that happens, companies and regulators may continue to face uneven enforcement, with state authorities asserting their power to apply local gambling laws and federal agencies maintaining that certain contract structures fall under CFTC oversight.

With New Jersey urging the Supreme Court to resolve the federal-versus-state regulatory question, the next key development for market participants is whether the justices grant certiorari—and, if they do, how they define the reach of Dodd-Frank preemption for CFTC-registered sports betting contracts.

Ethereum finds itself in a critical situation. ETH fell below the 50-week EMA at $2,372.88, and on the daily and 4-hour charts, there is increasing selling pressure. The critical question is whether ETH can return above $2,372 and move higher to $2,412-$2,421, or whether the breakdown will continue down to $2,265 and even $2,010.

Key Takeaways

• Price of Ethereum is below the 50-week EMA at $2,372.88, keeping the bearish pattern dominant unless it rallies above this mark.
• $2,365 is the initial downward price level to pay attention to, as a breakdown would lead to an ETH rally toward the $2,265 support region.
• $2,412-$2,421 is the nearest resistive zone for ETH to overcome to increase the chances of rallying toward $2,500-$2,550.
• The 50-week SMA at $2,541.78 is the primary resistive level acting as the upper border of TedPillows’ target region of $2,500-$2,550.
• The number of active addresses reduced from around 458,000 to 430,000, and the number of transactions declined from approximately 2.025 million to 1.75 million.
• ETH might be exposed to around $2,010 on a breakdown below $2,190-$2,265.

Ethereum Price Loses the 50-Week EMA

We took a look at the ETH weekly chart, and $2,372.88 was the crucial point to focus on. ETH was trading at $2,404, only $31 above the 50-week EMA.

At that time, ETH, according to the daily chart, was being quoted at $2,370.97, which is lower than the weekly EMA. The high and low of the daily candle were at $2,427.45 and $2,365.87, respectively.

That puts $2,365 on the immediate downside radar. If ETH can recover above $2,372 and push through the daily 9-day EMA at $2,412.30, buyers could regain some control. Above that, the 4-hour 9-EMA at $2,421.39 becomes the next hurdle.

$2,265 Is the Next Key Level

The 4-hour chart shows how quickly sellers took control. ETH went down from $2,419 to $2,365 within the candle, and therefore the price was about $2,370.22. Also, the RSI went down from 46.44 to 31.52. If the RSI goes below 30, then the coin is considered oversold.

This allows for some sort of bounce, but an oversold RSI does not necessarily guarantee that the downtrend is over. If ETH makes another bounce up to $2,400-$2,421 and fails, sellers may aim for $2,265. The weekly chart indicates the first level of significant support at $2,190-$2,265. In case of failure there, the next key level from the analysis comes at $2,010.

On-Chain Data Is Weakening Too

The on-chain data adds more concern. Ethereum’s market cap stayed around $32.0 billion-$32.4 billion as ETH moved from approximately $2.48K to $2.42K. Since market cap is calculated by multiplying price by circulating supply, a stable market cap alongside a lower ETH price can happen when circulating supply increases. The chart itself does not prove exactly what caused the supply change.

Network activity also moved lower. There was an approximate drop of 6.1% in the number of active addresses, from 458,000 to 430,000.

The number of transactions fell from 2.025 million to 1.75 million, which is an approximate fall of 13.6%. So, both the indicators are declining while ETH loses its technical support.

Ethereum Price: $2,200 or $2,550

The next move comes down to a few clear levels. ETH reclaiming $2,372 and breaking above $2,412-$2,421 will make the bull case more powerful. In that case, the upside target for ETH is seen between $2,500-$2,550, with the 50-week simple moving average $2,541.78 being the key level of resistance. Failure of ETH to retain the $2,365 level will turn the eyes toward $2,265.

For now, the data favors the bearish side. ETH is below the 50-week EMA, below the daily 9-day EMA, below the 4-hour 9-EMA, and network activity has also fallen. The key level to watch is $2,365. Hold it, and ETH could get a relief bounce. Lose it, and $2,265 becomes the next major test.