Securitize, one of the largest providers of tokenization infrastructure for Wall Street, expects to raise about $400 million as it prepares to go public through a merger with a Cantor Fitzgerald-backed special purpose acquisition company.

The company said Friday that, following lower-than-expected shareholder redemptions, the business combination with Cantor Equity Partners II (CEPT) is expected to generate roughly $400 million in gross proceeds, including private investment in private equity (PIPE) financing.

CEPT was 8% higher following the news.

The transaction is scheduled to close on July 1, pending shareholder approval on June 29 and other customary closing conditions. The combined company is expected to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange the following day under the ticker SECZ.

Tokenization — the process of representing assets such as funds, bonds and private credit on blockchain networks — has become one of Wall Street’s fastest-growing digital asset initiatives. The market for tokenized real-world assets has grown to more than $30 billion excluding stablecoins, according to rwa.xyz, while Boston Consulting Group and Ripple project it could reach $18.9 trillion by 2033.

Recently, United States Vice President JD Vance reportedly joined a dinner with donors, including Brian Armstrong, as part of his efforts to fundraise for the Republican Party.

The dinner was held at the home of All-In podcast host Chamath Palihapitiya and included approximately two dozen donors, including Lip-Bu Tan, the chief executive of Intel.

This fundraising dinner reportedly raised approximately $4.2 million, with Axios reporting that donors each paid $250,000.

The market capitalization of Strategy’s STRC, the once-$10.5 billion stock that was supposed to pay better than a high-yield bank account or money market, sank to another all-time low beneath $7.2 billion this morning.

For four uninterrupted days, the stock has crashed lower each day. By 9:33am today, it was trading 29% beneath the par value the company advertises.

Indeed, the price of each STRC share is supposed to trade at $100 while Strategy pays shareholders an 11.5% annualized dividend.

Shares were, in fact, trading at $100 as recently as May 14. Well, this morning, they were trading at $71.25.

Bitcoin will pay for everything if it rallies 30% a year

Strategy is a bitcoin (BTC) acquisition company whose founder Michael Saylor believes BTC is going to rally annually with a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) near 30%. He even created a calculator to forecast the price of his company’s common stock, MSTR, under the assumption that BTC would never have a down year.

Based on his bullish conviction, Strategy issues a variety of securities that pay far less than Saylor’s forecasted rally in BTC, under the assumption that Strategy’s BTC holdings will eventually rally enough to make up for all of its payouts.

It will come as a surprise to no one that BTC has not rallied that much recently. Over the last five years, the CAGR of BTC is less than 13%.

Embarrassingly, Strategy president Phong Le publicly admitted a few months ago that retail investors hold about 80% of the supply of STRC, meaning that the damage is disproportionately affecting working-class investors who listened to the company’s forecast.

U.S. senators have urged the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate Polymarket over allegations that the prediction market platform used deceptive advertising to reach American users despite restricting access in the country.

According to a letter obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Senators Adam Schiff and John Curtis asked CFTC Chair Michael Selig to examine claims that Polymarket promoted its markets through simulated trading websites, staged transactions, and undisclosed paid influencer campaigns. The lawmakers wrote that, if the allegations are accurate, they warrant immediate regulatory scrutiny.

The request follows a Wall Street Journal investigation alleging that Polymarket hired content creators to record trades using fake trading interfaces instead of the live platform.

The report also claimed some influencers failed to disclose they were being paid and that promotional material exaggerated potential winnings, creating a misleading impression for U.S. audiences, even though the platform does not serve domestic users.

The senators requested that the CFTC provide a written response by July 10 stating whether it has opened an investigation into the allegations. If the regulator has decided against pursuing the matter, they asked it to explain that decision.

Lawmakers question CFTC oversight of prediction markets

Beyond the advertising allegations, Schiff and Curtis asked the CFTC to outline the consumer safeguards it currently expects prediction market operators to maintain. Their questions covered advertising standards, age verification, responsible gaming tools, addiction warnings, affiliate marketing practices, and disclosure requirements for influencer promotions.

The lawmakers also challenged whether the agency has the authority, expertise, and resources needed to carry out responsibilities traditionally handled by state and tribal gaming regulators. Their letter asked whether the CFTC can deliver comparable licensing, enforcement, and consumer-protection measures while continuing to argue that prediction markets fall under its exclusive jurisdiction.

Those concerns arrive as the CFTC continues defending that position in court. Earlier this week, the regulator sued Kentucky after state authorities moved against prediction market operators, including Polymarket and Kalshi, arguing that federal law gives the agency sole oversight of those products.

Schiff and Curtis cautioned the regulator against allowing federal oversight to become a way for companies to avoid state or tribal gaming laws or weaken consumer protections through misleading promotional campaigns.

Regulatory pressure extends beyond prediction markets

The letter lands during a period of increasing debate over how the CFTC is supervising crypto-linked derivatives.

Last week, CME Group sued the regulator and Chairman Michael Selig after the agency approved U.S. crypto perpetual futures, arguing the contracts should be classified as swaps rather than futures under the Dodd-Frank Act.

According to CME’s complaint, the CFTC departed from its long-standing interpretation of perpetual-style contracts and approved the products without going through formal rulemaking. CME Chief Executive Terrence Duffy had previously stated that the exchange planned legal action after platforms including Kalshi and Coinbase received approval to list regulated crypto perpetual futures.

On Friday, the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission opened a 60-day public consultation on crypto derivatives regulation. The agencies are seeking feedback on portfolio margining across securities, swaps, futures, and related products while separately reviewing whether Dodd-Frank definitions governing swaps and security-based swaps still match current derivatives markets.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins said closer coordination between the two regulators could improve market efficiency, strengthen consumer protections, and reduce overlapping regulatory responsibilities as crypto derivatives and tokenized financial products continue to expand in the U.S.

Remittix has urged RTX presale buyers to register wallets ahead of the upcoming token distribution.

Remittix has issued a major reminder to RTX holders as airdrop registration continues ahead of the upcoming token distribution phase. Presale buyers are now being encouraged to register their wallets through the official Remittix site before distribution begins.

The update has added fresh urgency across the Remittix community, with holders moving to complete registration and stay connected before the next launch-stage announcement. As attention builds around the upcoming RTX launch price reveal, wallet registration has become one of the most important steps for presale participants.

Wallet registration is now the key step

The Remittix airdrop refers to the distribution of RTX tokens purchased during the presale. This is not being positioned as a separate free-token giveaway, but as the process linked to getting presale tokens ready for holders.

To register, users need to visit the official Remittix airdrop registration page, connect their wallet, submit their wallet address, and complete the registration page. There is also an optional section where users can add notification details to receive future updates linked to the airdrop and token distribution process.

Once the process has been completed, the page confirms that the user has successfully registered.

For RTX holders, this step is important because it helps keep them updated as Remittix moves closer to token distribution. The community is being urged to use only official Remittix links and avoid connecting wallets to any unofficial pages or accounts.

Token distribution moves closer

With registration now live, the focus is shifting toward the next phase of the Remittix launch process. Presale holders have been waiting for clearer updates on token distribution, launch price, and wider exchange activity.

The launch price reveal remains one of the most-watched updates in the Remittix community. As that announcement moves closer, wallet registration gives holders a direct action to take now instead of waiting on the sidelines.

This is why the current update has created renewed attention around the project. It gives RTX buyers a clear checkpoint before the launch phase begins and helps bring the community back into focus.

Live platform adds more confidence

The registration update also comes as Remittix continues to highlight its live crypto-to-fiat platform. The platform is designed to let users send crypto while recipients receive fiat directly into their bank accounts.

Multiple community members have reportedly received fiat payments into their bank accounts through the Remittix system, giving the project an active utility story alongside its token launch preparations.

That combination is now driving the latest wave of attention around Remittix. The platform is live, airdrop registration is open, and the community is waiting for the launch price reveal.

For RTX holders, the message is simple. Register your wallet through the official Remittix site, stay alert for future updates, and make sure you are prepared before token distribution begins.

For more information, visit the official website and airdrop registration.

FAQ

What is the Remittix airdrop for?

The Remittix airdrop refers to the distribution of RTX tokens purchased by holders during the presale, rather than a separate free-token giveaway.

How do RTX holders register for the airdrop?

Holders can register through the official Remittix site by connecting their wallet, submitting their wallet address and completing the registration process.

Why is the Remittix launch price reveal important?

The launch price reveal is one of the biggest upcoming updates because it will help shape expectations around RTX as the project moves from presale into its launch phase.

A group of 17 Democratic US senators has asked leadership of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government to prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from using federal funding to continue lawsuits targeting state regulators over prediction markets. The senators’ request centers on Chair Michael Selig’s litigation strategy, which asserts that the CFTC has “exclusive jurisdiction” over certain prediction market products.

The letter—sent to the chair and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee—frames the issue as a practical and compliance-relevant question of federal oversight, state consumer-protection authority, and how enforcement resources are deployed in parallel regulatory systems.

Key takeaways

• 17 Democratic senators urged subcommittee leadership to block CFTC access to federal funds for litigation against state gaming authorities tied to prediction market enforcement.
• The senators contend that ongoing CFTC lawsuits could undermine state consumer protections and intensify a “race-to-the-bottom” dynamic across jurisdictions.
• CFTC litigation has targeted multiple states, while some market operators—including Kalshi and Polymarket—have brought related lawsuits challenging state actions.
• The dispute sits within a broader legislative debate over the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act and the division of authority between the CFTC and SEC.
• Legal observers have pointed to the possibility that one of the cases could eventually reach the US Supreme Court, potentially revisiting the balance of state authority in sports betting.

Senators seek limits on CFTC litigation funding over state actions

In the Wednesday letter, Senators Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, and 15 additional Democrats asked the appropriations subcommittee to intervene in the budgeting and oversight process governing how the CFTC can use federal resources. Their request is directed at preventing the CFTC from employing federal funds in Chair Michael Selig’s legal challenges against state-level authorities pursuing crackdowns on prediction markets.

The senators argue that the CFTC’s litigation posture risks distorting federal-state regulatory balance in a way that could benefit online prediction markets while reducing consumer protection and oversight. They specifically warn that the CFTC’s use of enforcement litigation as leverage against state authorities may enable platforms to evade local guardrails.

While appropriations do not determine the legality of the CFTC’s underlying statutory interpretations, the senators’ intervention signals a policy and accountability concern: whether enforcement resources should be used in a way that the senators view as escalating conflict rather than clarifying jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional fight: CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” and “swaps” characterization

At the center of the dispute is the CFTC’s position that certain contracts used on prediction market platforms fall within its regulatory authority. According to the senators’ framing, Selig and the agency defend the view that the event contracts in question qualify as “swaps,” placing them under the CFTC’s purview.

This jurisdictional argument has been tested across a growing set of state challenges. As of June, the CFTC has pursued legal actions involving prediction markets in a range of states, including Connecticut, Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. In parallel, some companies, including Kalshi and Polymarket, have filed their own lawsuits against state authorities, a development that underscores how quickly these disputes have evolved into multi-forum litigation.

According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, the CFTC’s cases have included litigation such as its suit against Kentucky after state-level prediction market enforcement actions. Cointelegraph has also covered related operator litigation, including challenges that support the CFTC’s broader view of federal jurisdiction.

Potential Supreme Court implications and the sports-betting jurisdiction precedent

As the legal battles progress, some experts have suggested that the trajectory of these cases could ultimately produce a Supreme Court outcome. The concern is not limited to prediction markets alone; it also relates to the broader constitutional and statutory question of how much regulatory space states retain when federal agencies assert exclusive control over particular types of wagering or trading-like instruments.

The senators’ letter implicitly draws on the existing legal framework around state regulation of sports betting. In the 2018 Supreme Court decision Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Court held that states may regulate sports betting. If the justices were to grant review in one of the currently pending prediction market-related matters, they could be asked to clarify or revisit the scope of state authority under circumstances where federal regulators contend that certain products fall within an exclusively federal regulatory category.

For compliance and legal teams, the potential for Supreme Court review matters because it could reshape how state gaming rules apply to contracts characterized by federal agencies as financial derivatives. It could also determine whether state enforcement efforts remain viable when operators argue federal preemption or exclusive jurisdiction.

CFTC leadership, agency structure, and the CLARITY Act debate

Beyond the litigation itself, the senators’ intervention comes amid a broader debate over how US regulators should divide responsibility for digital assets and related market structures. Chair Michael Selig is currently the sole commissioner and chair of the CFTC, giving him significant control over the agency’s leadership-driven policy direction. The senators’ focus on appropriations reflects their view that the CFTC’s current approach is not merely an isolated enforcement matter, but part of a wider institutional posture toward prediction market regulation.

The CFTC is expected to have a bipartisan group of five commissioners in the long run, but as of Friday there had been no announcement of additional CFTC appointments to fill vacancies. That governance context can affect regulatory predictability: when leadership is concentrated, courts and Congress may scrutinize whether enforcement priorities align with statutory intent and legislative design.

Meanwhile, the US Senate is expected to vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal intended to establish separate regulatory roles for the CFTC and the SEC over digital assets. The prediction market enforcement controversy intersects with this legislative discussion because some stakeholders have argued that the CLARITY Act should not be used to extend federal oversight in ways that they believe exceed the CFTC’s mandate.

Last week, gaming organizations petitioned the Senate to add language barring sports event contracts from CLARITY’s coverage, contending that the CFTC was not created to regulate such wagers. This reflects how prediction markets are increasingly treated as a legal and policy test case for the broader question of how Congress intends to allocate authority across regulators.

What to watch next

The immediate next step is whether appropriations subcommittee leadership will act on the senators’ request to restrict federal funding for the CFTC’s prediction market litigation. Separately, the ongoing multi-state cases and related challenges by market operators will determine how quickly courts clarify jurisdictional boundaries—potentially culminating in higher-court review. Until then, uncertainty remains for institutions trying to map compliance obligations across federal and state regimes, particularly where contract structuring, derivative labeling, and wagering classifications overlap.