In an interview with crypto.news, Selva Ozelli speaks with CKC Fund founder and managing director David Doss about institutional digital asset investing, risk management and the infrastructure needed to connect crypto strategies with professional investors.

The discussion also covers Bitcoin and Ethereum, AI and blockchain intellectual property, data centers, stablecoin regulation under the GENIUS Act, the CLARITY Act and tokenization, as well as Doss’ outlook for the digital asset market through the rest of 2026.

David Doss is a digital asset fund manager, growth advisor, and marketing executive who serves as the founder and managing director of CKC Fund (CKC Management LLC). His work centers heavily on digital asset wealth management, blockchain infrastructure, compliance, and institutional risk standards. He sits on the board of ChainBLX (fostering corporate fintech events like Digital Davos) and authored the investor guide Digital Assets Decoded.

1. Tell us about your journey to founding CKC Fund.

My career has two chapters: a decade in research, education, and technology, followed by a decade in digital assets.

I started in academic research in 2005, including a Fulbright graduate research scholarship, before moving into education technology and growth leadership. That experience taught me to follow the evidence and build the operational scaffolding that turns good ideas into real businesses.

In digital assets, I kept seeing the same gap: strong traders on one side and serious investors on the other, without enough institutional infrastructure connecting them.

CKC exists to close that gap: not through better predictions, but through better architecture. We built around segregated portfolios, non-custodial execution, auditable NAV, and clear separation between the manager and investor assets. The structure came first, then the strategies. I’m convinced that’s the right order.

2. How did you get interested in digital assets?

I was drawn to the technology before the price. A financial ledger that anyone could independently verify represented a major shift from traditional systems built around trusted intermediaries.

I became interested in 2016. Today, that original promise is becoming practical through stablecoin payments, tokenized assets, and on-chain proof of holdings.

3. Tell us about the investment strategy and philosophy of CKC Fund.

In a market this volatile, the durable edge is risk management — not prediction.

We separate market exposure, momentum, yield strategies, and longer-term private investments rather than blending them into one portfolio. Each has a different risk profile.

Custody is equally important. Our traders can execute strategies without being able to withdraw investor assets. We also size positions for the drawdowns we can withstand, not the returns we hope to make.

My background in internationally competitive épée fencing taught me something similar: winning is less about moving fastest than controlling distance and choosing the right moment.

4. How much do you have in assets under management?

We don’t publicly disclose current fund-level AUM, but over my career, I’ve consulted on or managed more than $100 million across digital asset strategy, growth, and fund operations.

5. Which digital assets do you invest in?

We focus primarily on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and a small group of highly liquid digital assets.

Liquidity comes first. We need to know we can exit a position in a stressed market without moving the market ourselves. We also look for a real economic purpose and enough derivatives-market depth to manage risk. If we can’t explain the asset or model the exit, we don’t invest.

6. Are you investing in AI and blockchain intellectual-property ventures?

Yes, selectively. We’re interested in defensible intellectual property in AI-enabled media, including patents and equity in the companies developing them.

Those investments sit in a dedicated vehicle, ART SP, rather than being mixed with liquid digital assets. The risks and timelines are completely different.

As AI models become cheaper and more widely available, lasting value will increasingly come from proprietary data, distribution, and enforceable intellectual property.

7. How about data centers, orbital data centers, and platform technologies?

They’re promising, but they’re at very different stages.

Traditional data centers are investable now. AI’s constraints increasingly involve power, grid access, and physical capacity, not just chips.

Orbital data centers are much earlier-stage. The potential is real, but so are the engineering risks and dependence on launch costs. I view them as frontier venture investments, not predictable infrastructure assets.

Platform technologies may offer the most capital-efficient opportunity. Software that manages, verifies, and transacts around computing resources can scale without owning the entire physical layer.

8. Has the enactment of the GENIUS Act made investing in stablecoins easier?

It has made stablecoins easier to use by clarifying standards around reserves, audits, and redemptions. That gives banks and institutions greater confidence.

It has also made the business model more competitive. Because issuers cannot pay interest directly, more value is shifting toward exchanges, wallets, and distribution platforms.

The next major issue is stablecoin rewards. Banks see them as competition for deposits; crypto platforms see them as a way to share value with users.

9. What are your thoughts on the impact of the CLARITY Act cloture vote failing?  Will this slow down tokenization?

The CLARITY Act could give digital assets a clearer path from securities treatment to commodity treatment as their networks become more decentralized. The industry needs rules it can follow in advance, rather than discovering the boundaries through enforcement.

If the Act fails, tokenization won’t stop. More activity will simply move offshore or remain inside private markets.

The United States risks losing market share, jobs, and influence … and ordinary investors may have less access to the benefits.

10. Digital assets are showing a late-year price recovery in 2026. What are your market predictions for the rest of 2026?

I don’t give short-term price targets. I focus on the conditions driving the market.

The 2026 decline looked more like an orderly reduction in leverage than a breakdown of the system. Exchanges kept operating, stablecoin infrastructure held up, and no major intermediary failed. That’s meaningful progress.

For the rest of the year, I’m watching global liquidity, how quickly leverage returns, and whether Bitcoin can break through recent resistance. A gradual recovery would be healthier than another fast, heavily leveraged rally.

11. Anything else you would like to add?

Investors should ask every manager a simple question: “Who verified the numbers, and when?” A return, valuation, or track record is only as reliable as the process behind it. The industry has made enormous progress on infrastructure. It now needs the same discipline in reporting and transparency.

12. How can people reach you?

Email: [email protected]

Web: 

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/davidambrosedoss

X: @DDossAttack

I’m always glad to hear from journalists, researchers, investors, founders, and others working in digital assets, AI, and market infrastructure.

About the Author:
Selva Ozelli Esq, CPA, is an international digital asset legal expert and author of Sustainably Investing in Digital Assets Globally and an award winning artist.  Her writings are translated into 45 languages and republished in over 200 global publications.  She is recognized as an expert media/TV commentator on global AI,  digital asset regulation, tax, and technology matters.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued Polymarket, alleging that the prediction market operated without a state gambling license and allowed people under 21 to use its platform.

According to a petition filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James in a Manhattan state court on Sep. 24, Polymarket offered New Yorkers contracts tied to the outcomes of future events without obtaining a license from the New York State Gaming Commission.

The state is asking the court to stop the alleged unlicensed operation, order restitution for customers, impose civil fines, and require Polymarket to give up gains it says were earned illegally.

The filing puts the company in the same state legal fight as Kalshi, Coinbase Financial Markets and Gemini Titan. James brought a case against Kalshi in July, after filing petitions against Coinbase and Gemini in April. Each case centers on New York’s claim that the companies offered gambling products without the licenses required under state law.

Polymarket’s sports contracts draw New York’s challenge

New York’s petition cites contracts tied to sports outcomes, including a July baseball game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and New York Mets. In the state’s view, customers risk money on events they cannot control in exchange for a payout if their chosen outcome occurs. James describes the products as gambling, a legal claim Polymarket can contest in court.

State officials also object to Polymarket allowing users aged 18 to 20 onto the platform. New York sets a minimum age of 21 for mobile sports betting, and the attorney general argues that operating outside the state’s licensing system leaves customers without the safeguards required of approved betting companies.

Governor Kathy Hochul said the alleged operation had put New Yorkers at risk, particularly younger users whom she described as more vulnerable to problem gambling. James likewise argues in the petition that unlicensed contracts expose residents to gambling addiction without the protections imposed on state-regulated operators. Polymarket expressed disappointment with the lawsuit and said it would speak with the state, Reuters reported.

In July, New York sued Kalshi over prediction markets, alleging that its event contracts amounted to unlicensed gambling. The state’s case against Kalshi also raised the age of users and the absence of state approval. Kalshi has argued that its federal registration places its contracts under Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight.

A separate inquiry has focused on how the products are sold to customers. In August, the New York City Council examined prediction market advertising by Polymarket, Kalshi, Coinbase and Gemini Titan. Council Speaker Julie Menin’s office said the inquiry concerned allegations of deceptive marketing and planned to consider whether consumer protection measures were needed. The city inquiry is separate from James’s state gambling cases.

CFTC jurisdiction remains contested in the US

At the center of the court disputes is whether federal oversight of event contracts prevents states from applying their gambling laws to sports-related markets. Prediction market operators have argued in litigation that contracts traded on federally regulated exchanges fall under the Commodity Exchange Act and the CFTC’s authority. State officials say a federal derivatives framework does not remove their power to license and regulate sports wagering within their borders.

James set out New York’s position in April when she joined 37 other attorneys general in a filing supporting Massachusetts’s case against Kalshi. The coalition argued that Congress did not give the CFTC exclusive control over sports gambling when it expanded federal regulation of swaps through the Dodd-Frank Act. The attorneys general also said state rules address matters such as minimum betting ages and protections for people at risk of gambling harm.

The distinction matters to US users because access to a sports contract can depend on the state where a customer lives and on court orders governing a particular operator. In Michigan, for example, a state court ordered Kalshi to keep sports event contracts blocked for residents while that lawsuit proceeds. The preliminary injunction carries potential fines of $500,000 per day for violations of its terms, as covered in September. That order concerns Kalshi; it does not decide New York’s claims against Polymarket.

Federal appeals courts have also reached different preliminary conclusions in Kalshi’s cases. In April, the Third Circuit upheld an order preventing New Jersey from enforcing its gambling rules against Kalshi’s sports contracts while the litigation continues. The court found Kalshi likely to succeed on its argument that the contracts qualify as swaps subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.

In August, the Ninth Circuit allowed Nevada gaming regulators to proceed against Kalshi’s sports contracts. Its ruling found Kalshi unlikely to succeed on the claim that federal commodities law displaced Nevada’s requirements. Neither preliminary ruling is a final decision resolving every claim in the underlying cases.

New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to review the split

Following its Third Circuit loss, New Jersey petitioned the Supreme Court on Sep. 2 to review whether federal law prevents states from applying sports gambling rules to contracts offered on a CFTC-registered market. The state argues that Congress did not remove its authority over sports wagering by defining and regulating swaps.

New Jersey’s petition asks the justices to review the Third Circuit decision in the Kalshi case. Filing the petition does not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it; the justices must first decide whether to grant review.

The Federal Reserve has published two proposals aimed at putting more detailed guardrails around stablecoin issuers as the U.S. implements the GENIUS Act. The plan, developed for entities under Fed supervision, would add capital requirements, define operational-risk charges, tighten redemption expectations, and mandate standardized reserve reporting—while also outlining an approval path for certain banks to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries.

At the same time, Fed Governor Michael Barr signaled support for the overall direction but emphasized that stablecoins must remain reliably redeemable at par even under market stress. His remarks point to the central test investors and users will apply to the final rules: will redemption work smoothly when liquidity tightens and even high-quality government debt trades under strain?

Key takeaways

• The Fed’s proposal adds an operational-risk capital framework for Fed-supervised stablecoin issuers, with charges that vary based on the amount of stablecoins outstanding.
• Redemptions would generally need to be processed within two business days, and issuers would face defined steps if reserves fall below the one-to-one backing requirement.
• Issuers would be required to publish monthly reserve and outstanding stablecoin disclosures, certified by senior executives and audited by a registered public accounting firm.
• A separate proposal would set an application process for Fed-supervised banks to seek approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries.
• Barr backed the direction of the framework but urged additional clarity on how stability is ensured during stress, including interest-rate and foreign-currency risks.

How the GENIUS Act shapes the Fed’s stablecoin rulemaking

The GENIUS Act already contains baseline requirements for stablecoin issuers: tokens must be backed by reserves on a one-to-one basis, and issuers are limited in the types of assets they can hold. In particular, the statute restricts reserves to certain categories including cash, bank deposits, and short-term U.S. Treasurys, while leaving regulators to build out more granular capital, diversification, and risk-management standards.

According to the Fed’s proposal, the missing piece is the operational and supervisory detail: how much capital issuers must hold against specific risks, what redemption timelines must be met, and how often issuers must document and verify that reserves remain adequate.

Capital charges, redemption timelines, and what happens if backing slips

Under the Fed proposal, issuers would face an operational-risk capital charge calculated as a percentage of the stablecoins they have issued. The rate would step down as outstanding amounts increase: 2% for the first $20 billion of stablecoins outstanding, 1.5% for the next $30 billion, and 1% for amounts above $50 billion. The proposal also references additional capital requirements tied to credit and operational risks.

The rules would also establish a practical expectation for redemption operations. In general, Fed-supervised issuers would be expected to process redemptions within two business days.

Importantly, the proposal addresses a key failure scenario: if an issuer’s reserves fall below the required one-to-one backing, it would have to notify the Fed and choose between two paths—either restore reserves according to a remediation plan or liquidate reserves and redeem outstanding stablecoins.

For investors and market participants, this structure matters because it translates a statutory “always backed” principle into an operational consequence framework. Instead of only requiring reserve sufficiency after the fact, the proposal attempts to specify how quickly an issuer must act and what supervisory information will be available.

Monthly transparency with audited reporting

To reinforce the reserve-backstopping requirement, the Fed proposal would require issuers to publish monthly reports. These disclosures would cover the outstanding amount of stablecoins and the value and composition of reserves.

The proposal also sets a higher standard for accountability around that data: the disclosures would need to be examined by a registered public accounting firm and certified by the issuer’s CEO and CFO.

That combination—frequent reporting, third-party review, and executive certification—can be significant for traders, partners, and users trying to assess whether a stablecoin remains compliant as market conditions evolve. It also increases the importance of internal controls at issuers, since executive sign-off implies direct responsibility for the quality and accuracy of reserve information.

Separate track for Fed-supervised banks issuing through subsidiaries

Alongside issuer-focused requirements, the Fed released a separate proposal that would establish an application process for Fed-supervised banks seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries.

Per the proposal, banks would need to submit a business plan and provide financial information as part of the approval process. While the GENIUS Act sets the statutory groundwork, this track would determine whether banks—under Fed supervision—can bring certain stablecoin issuance activities under a subsidiary structure and how they would be evaluated before launch.

For the broader industry, the distinction matters: approval frameworks can affect timing, product design, and risk management choices for banks looking to participate in stablecoin markets.

Barr stresses redemption reliability under stress and highlights open questions

In remarks accompanying the proposals, Fed Governor Michael Barr supported the overall direction but argued that more work is needed before stablecoins can qualify as reliable payment instruments. In a statement released Thursday, Barr said stablecoins will only be stable if they can be “reliably and promptly redeemed at par in a range of conditions,” explicitly including periods of market stress.

Barr’s commentary focused on scenarios where liquidity strains can affect even otherwise liquid government debt, as well as episodes where an issuer—or related entities—faces pressure. He said he was encouraged by the proposed limits on reserve assets and the standardized capital requirements, but he also called for public feedback on whether the framework adequately addresses interest-rate and foreign-currency risks.

Barr also raised process-and-enforcement considerations. He said universal redemption rights should be clearly established in the final rule. He further expressed concern about a proposed standard that would limit the Fed’s ability to take supervisory or enforcement action over an anti-money laundering deficiency unless the issue is deemed “significant or systemic.”

These points suggest that while the Fed is moving to operationalize the GENIUS Act, the “stress test” details—particularly around interest-rate, FX, redemption rights, and supervisory triggers—may still evolve through the comment period.

What happens next

The Fed’s proposals are open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. With the GENIUS Act scheduled to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, or 120 days after final implementing rules are issued—whichever comes first—the key question for market participants is how the final rule will address Barr’s concerns and refine redemption reliability, capital adequacy, and stress-related risks.

Paxos Labs has launched PAXGy, a token built on PAX Gold that is designed to increase the amount of PAXG a holder can redeem as its reserves earn returns from gold leasing.

According to Paxos Labs’ launch announcement shared with crypto.news, the company deploys the reserves behind PAXGy to vetted institutional gold borrowers. As the borrowers pay to lease the metal, the company says the value of each PAXGy rises in PAXG terms. Holders can redeem PAXGy for PAXG, although the amount returned depends on the exchange rate at the time.

The structure gives holders a way to seek returns measured in ounces of gold rather than dollars. It also makes PAXGy different from simply holding PAXG: the return depends on the performance of a lending strategy, while the dollar value of both tokens remains exposed to changes in the gold price, Paxos Labs said.

How PAXGy turns gold leasing into token returns

Paxos Labs said a holder can enter the product by depositing PAXG or swapping an accepted stablecoin. Instead of distributing additional tokens to the wallet, income from the reserve assets is designed to increase the amount of PAXG redeemable for each PAXGy.

The reserves are placed with institutional borrowers in the bullion leasing market, according to the announcement. Refiners, jewelry makers, miners and bullion banks may borrow gold for their operations and pay a lease rate in gold terms. Paxos Labs said the market has long relied on large transactions and direct relationships with banks, limiting access for smaller holders.

“Gold has been lent for thousands of years, and institutions have earned on their bullion reserves for decades,” Paxos Labs co-founder Bhau Kotecha said in the announcement. He said PAXGy is intended to give token holders access to those economics, with the reserves growing in ounce terms when the strategy earns a return.

The distinction between the two tokens matters for anyone entering or leaving the product. Under Paxos’ PAXG terms, each PAXG represents one fine troy ounce of London Good Delivery gold held on a segregated basis for holders. PAXGy, by contrast, is built on PAXG and uses reserves in an external lending strategy, as described by Paxos Labs.

For direct redemptions through the Paxos platform, the PAXG terms require a verified account. They also set a minimum of 430 PAXG, plus a fee, for redemption into an allocated London Good Delivery bar. Those conditions concern the underlying PAXG product; Paxos Labs describes the exit from PAXGy as redemption into PAXG.

Where PAXGy is available at launch

Paxos Labs named OKX as PAXGy’s only centralized exchange listing at launch and said the token is available through OKX Gold Earn and X Layer. It also named 0x, Uniswap and Ether.Fi among its onchain launch partners. Additional venues are expected to follow, the company said.

For transfers between blockchains, Paxos Labs selected Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol as its exclusive messaging provider. The company said holders can move a PAXGy position across supported chains without first redeeming it for PAXG. Availability through a particular exchange or service may still depend on that provider’s terms and the holder’s location.

The launch comes as tokenized gold is being used for more than spot trading. In August, Arch Lending began accepting PAXG and Tether Gold as collateral for loans, according to an earlier crypto.news report. Arch’s service lets eligible holders borrow against their tokens; PAXGy instead seeks a return by placing reserve assets with gold borrowers.

Trading activity has also increased. A report on tokenized gold volume in May cited CoinGecko data showing $90.7 billion in first-quarter 2026 spot volume, above the $84.64 billion recorded throughout 2025. CoinGecko identified PAXG and Tether Gold as the main contributors to that market’s trading activity.

What U.S. holders need to know about the risks

Paxos Labs’ product notice says PAXGy carries credit, liquidity, and market risks. Returns are not guaranteed: losses in the external strategies or a borrower default could cause the PAXGy-to-PAXG exchange rate to fall, leaving a holder with less gold exposure than the amount deposited. A rise in the exchange rate would likewise not guarantee a dollar profit if the price of gold fell.

For U.S. holders considering the underlying asset, Paxos’ PAXG terms spell out a separate set of redemption conditions. Only verified customers can purchase PAXG from Paxos or convert and redeem it directly through its platform, and the company says it may refuse a transaction in circumstances described in those terms. PAXGy’s launch announcement does not state that holding the new token changes those direct PAXG redemption requirements.

Paxos Labs said tokenizing gold allows smaller holdings to be pooled into positions large enough for institutional leasing. Chief executive and co-founder Charles Cascarilla described PAXGy as a way to put tokenized gold to work after it has been made transferable onchain. The company’s notice says any resulting growth still depends on the reserve strategy, and its exchange rate may be adjusted downward if that strategy incurs losses.

The Federal Reserve has proposed capital, redemption and other regulatory requirements for stablecoin issuers under its supervision as it moves to implement the GENIUS Act.

The GENIUS Act already requires stablecoin issuers to maintain reserves backing their tokens on a one-to-one basis and limits the types of assets they can hold, including cash, bank deposits and short-term US Treasurys. The law left federal regulators to establish more detailed capital, reserve-diversification and risk-management requirements.

Under the Fed proposal, issuers would face an operational-risk capital charge equal to 2% of the first $20 billion in stablecoins outstanding, 1.5% of the next $30 billion and 1% of amounts above $50 billion, along with additional capital requirements tied to credit and operational risks.

Issuers would generally be required to process redemptions within two business days. If reserves fall below the required one-to-one backing, an issuer would have to notify the Fed and either restore its reserves under a remediation plan or liquidate them and redeem outstanding stablecoins.

Issuers would also have to publish monthly reports detailing their outstanding stablecoins and the value and composition of their reserves. The disclosures would have to be examined by a registered public accounting firm and certified by the issuer’s CEO and CFO.

A separate proposal would establish an application process for Fed-supervised banks seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries, including requirements to submit a business plan and financial information.

The proposals are open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Related: EU banking watchdog calls for crypto lending rules under MiCA

Barr says stablecoins must remain redeemable during market stress

Fed Governor Michael Barr supported the proposal on Thursday but said further work would be required for stablecoins to become reliable payment instruments.

“Stablecoins will only be stable if they can be reliably and promptly redeemed at par in a range of conditions. This includes during market stress, when pressure can be put on the value of even otherwise liquid government debt, and during episodes of strain on the individual issuer or its related entities,” Barr said.

Barr added that he was encouraged by the proposed limits on reserve assets and standardized capital requirements, while calling for public feedback on whether the framework adequately addresses interest-rate and foreign-currency risks.

He also said universal redemption rights should be clearly established in the final rule and raised concerns about a standard that would prevent the Fed from taking supervisory or enforcement action over an anti-money laundering deficiency unless the issue is considered “significant or systemic.”

The GENIUS Act is set to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators issue final implementing rules, whichever comes first.

Magazine: Winners and losers of the SEC’s new tokenized stocks rules

The case adds to a growing fight between prediction markets and state gambling regulators over who has the authority to oversee the products.

Prediction market companies argue that their event contracts are financial products overseen at the federal level by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). States have taken a different view, particularly when the contracts involve sports, arguing that the products are effectively bets and must follow state gambling rules.

New York has been one of the most active states in that fight. The state sued Kalshi in July after negotiations between the company and Hochul’s office broke down, seeking as much as $36 billion in penalties and disgorgement. Many of these court cases have gone to appeals courts, and a recent case between Kalshi and New Jersey has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Our gambling laws exist to protect New Yorkers, prevent the potential harms of problem gambling, and ensure funding for educational and public benefit programs,” James said in a statement.

The lawsuit comes less than a year after Polymarket returned to the U.S. market.

“Under the proposal, certain types of arrangements involving third parties would be presumed to be prohibited payments of interest or yield,” the Fed wrote, noting that its approach is consistent with the OCC’s. Though the regulations aren’t final, the agencies seem to be allowing a very narrow approach by crypto platforms to offer stablecoin rewards akin to credit-card incentive programs.

The question of how much companies such as Coinbase could reward stablecoin users was one of the sticking points in the debate over the recently failed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. As it stands, the GENIUS Act is now the primary law governing stablecoin rewards, because the efforts to revise it in the Clarity Act didn’t succeed.

Proposed rules like those offered by the Fed on Thursday need to gather input from the public before the federal regulator can revise them and publish them in final form — a process that usually takes several months, sometimes much longer.

The central bank’s first proposal on Thursday governs capital and reserve requirements meant to ensure that the stablecoins are fully represented by the most liquid assets and the issuers have a solid foundation in times of stress. It also outlines accepted stablecoin activities at its supervised banks, and it’s the proposal that includes the stablecoin rewards component.