Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, says it plans to roll out cryptocurrency trading infrastructure by Dec. 1, including a “digital depository” designed to record customers’ crypto ownership and handle transactions largely outside the public blockchain.

Interfax reported that the depository will track rights in clients’ cryptocurrency positions and process most transfers off-chain, while Sberbank will also run active wallets for deposits, withdrawals, and client-initiated transfers.

Key takeaways

• Sberbank’s scheduled Dec. 1 rollout would add a regulated-style custody and settlement layer, using a digital depository to record ownership and process transactions off-chain.
• Russia’s crypto market framework is progressing toward an effective date of Sept. 1, 2026, defining regulated participant categories and expanding central bank oversight.
• Regulatory preparation is unfolding alongside intensifying EU and UK sanctions affecting crypto-asset service providers linked to Russia-related activity.
• Investors and market participants should watch how Russia’s central bank sets licensing rules and eligibility for which assets can be offered through intermediaries.

Sberbank’s digital depository: custody and off-chain settlement

According to Interfax, the digital depository will serve as the core component of Sberbank’s planned infrastructure. It is intended to maintain records of customers’ cryptocurrency rights and to account for transactions outside the main blockchain.

The state-affiliated press service quoted Alexander Vedyakhin, Sberbank’s first deputy chairman of the management board, explaining that the depository would also support transfers requested through “active wallets.” In other words, customers’ interactions—depositing, withdrawing, and moving crypto via the bank—would be handled through a banking-operated system that mirrors custody and payment workflows more than traditional on-chain exchange mechanics.

The practical implication is that, if implemented as described, Sberbank could reduce reliance on direct peer-to-peer blockchain settlement for everyday client movements, instead concentrating transaction processing and ownership accounting inside the bank’s infrastructure.

Russia’s regulated crypto framework heads toward 2026

The Sberbank announcement arrives as Russia’s legislators have advanced the country’s first comprehensive crypto market framework. Earlier in the month, lawmakers completed final readings on a bill intended to bring crypto trading, custody, and settlement into a regulated financial system.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the bill would grant the Bank of Russia broad oversight of the regulated market. That oversight would include determining which crypto assets may be offered via licensed intermediaries and issuing implementing regulations.

Cointelegraph’s reporting also highlighted that the central bank has established liquidity thresholds for participating in the regulated market. Those thresholds include an average market capitalization above 5 trillion rubles (about $64 billion) and an average daily volume above 1 trillion rubles (about $12.8 billion) over a two-year period.

Once the framework takes effect, it establishes five categories of regulated market participants: crypto exchanges, brokers, asset managers, custodians, and exchange service providers. The framework is set to define what market participants can do—such as buying, selling, holding, and exchanging crypto assets—as of the effective date, Sept. 1, 2026.

Infrastructure rollout meets tightening sanctions environment

While Russia builds out domestic infrastructure, external compliance pressure continues to rise. The move toward a working crypto system inside Russia is unfolding as the European Union expands sanctions targeting Russia amid its war on Ukraine.

Last week, the EU listed cryptocurrency exchange HTX (formerly Huobi Global) among sanctioned entities. In a Thursday decision, the European Council amended earlier measures “in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine,” adding HTX to a list of 18 entities “providing crypto-assets services or payment services established outside of the Union that are significantly frustrating the purpose of the prohibitions” against Russia.

Earlier, Cointelegraph reported that EU officials said they would prohibit Belarusian nationals and residents from owning, controlling, or managing crypto exchanges and digital asset service providers, aligning the approach with the EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) framework.

The sanctions on HTX were not limited to the EU. The UK government imposed similar measures in May, stating there were “reasonable grounds to suspect” HTX supported Russia’s government by using financial services and funds facilitated by sanctioned entities.

For market participants, the key tension is that Russia is tightening domestic regulation while many foreign-facing crypto service providers remain exposed to sanction risks and compliance constraints. That gap can shape where liquidity flows, which counterparties can operate with certain clients, and how banks and exchanges structure their services.

What to watch next: licensing mechanics and depository operations

Sberbank’s planned digital depository—alongside the broader Russia framework set for Sept. 1, 2026—puts the spotlight on implementation details. Readers should watch how the Bank of Russia operationalizes licensing requirements, how asset eligibility is defined under the liquidity thresholds, and whether bank-operated off-chain custody and transfer accounting becomes a model for other regulated intermediaries.

Outside Russia, the sanctions trajectory suggests that cross-border partnerships and access to international payment rails may remain a moving target for crypto businesses tied to the region.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to ensure that contract “self-certifications” are detailed and product-specific when event contracts cover a wide range of outcomes.

In an advisory published Friday, the CFTC said that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking for prediction markets—operators may still certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable CFTC regulations under the existing self-certification framework, so long as they follow the statutory requirements.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC warned that platforms should not use broad, template-style self-certifications for events contracts that cover many permutations.
• According to the agency, “self-certified” submissions must include the terms and conditions for each proposed variation and a concise explanation of compliance for the product as structured.
• The latest advisory echoes a prior CFTC warning earlier this year about overly generalized filings.
• The guidance arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for comments on proposed rule amendments tied to public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Why the CFTC is pushing back on template certifications

The CFTC’s Friday notice focused on how operators describe and certify event contracts under the agency’s jurisdiction. The regulator highlighted concerns with the number of instances where platforms have “self-certified” event contracts without providing sufficient detail for each version of the product.

In particular, the CFTC criticized submissions that do not include, for each proposed permutation of the contract, the terms and conditions and a concise explanation and analysis addressing compliance with respect to the product’s terms, the underlying commodity, and the product’s regulatory compliance.

As the CFTC put it in its July 24 announcement, the guidance “reiterates that broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted.” The agency framed this as a compliance issue rather than a change to the underlying legal concept of self-certification.

A repeat warning earlier this year

This is the second time in 2026 that the CFTC has flagged the same type of problem. In March, the Commission issued an earlier warning about submissions that were “overly generalized,” again indicating that template-level descriptions are not adequate when contracts are structured to cover a broad range of event outcomes.

By issuing a follow-up advisory in July, the CFTC effectively signaled that its concerns are ongoing and that it expects operators to make practical adjustments to how they document certifications—especially for contracts with multiple permutations rather than a single, narrowly defined instrument.

The practical takeaway for platforms is straightforward: if an operator is certifying a wide slate of event outcomes under one certification approach, the filing must still be organized in a way that maps to each contract variation and explains how the design fits regulatory requirements.

Advisory timing ahead of public interest rulemaking

The advisory landed just days before the July 27 deadline for submitting comments on the CFTC’s proposed rule amendments related to public interest determinations for certain event contracts that fall under the Commodity Exchange Act’s enumerated activities.

While the Friday guidance largely addresses self-certification behavior, the timing matters because it underscores that multiple regulatory strands for prediction markets are moving at once: day-to-day product certification practices, and longer-term rules for determining when specific types of event contracts should be evaluated or restricted on public interest grounds.

The CFTC has proposed amendments that outline how it determines whether certain event contracts are contrary to the public interest. In the agency’s proposal, it would apply a three-step analytical framework to evaluate contracts, including those involving activities such as terrorism or assassination, as well as gaming-related considerations tied to the enumerated activities listed in the Commodity Exchange Act.

If those proposed amendments are adopted, the CFTC said they would reshape parts of the regulatory landscape for prediction markets by clarifying the evaluation method used for specific contract types. Legal analysis cited in the source notes that the proposal could represent a meaningful shift in how prediction markets are assessed from a public interest standpoint.

What operators and traders should watch next

For prediction market operators, the CFTC’s warning increases pressure to ensure certification workflows produce filings that are not only legally sufficient but also detailed enough to match each contract permutation and the underlying product structure. Investors and traders should watch for how platforms revise their certification documents—and whether the CFTC’s public interest rule amendments, due to be shaped by the July 27 comment process, later alter the types of event contracts that can be listed or how they are evaluated for regulatory compatibility.

The crypto industry, naturally, is urging passage. The common refrain online is that Clarity includes some investor protection rules and creates some structure for crypto products, while not passing the bill would mean there are no investor protections.

If the bill is to pass the Senate before summer recess begins, the first thing to watch for is a motion to proceed on Monday or Tuesday. This kicks off the formal process. If the motion to proceed is filed by Wednesday, one individual following the process said, that would still give the Senate enough time to vote on the bill before August 7, the last day of the summer session.

If the motion to proceed ripens — meaning it’s been an hour into the second day after the motion is filed, according to the Congressional Institute, a not-for-profit organization — there can be a cloture vote, most likely on the amendment in the nature of a substitute (i.e. the new text of the bill). If that passes, there can be another cloture vote later on for the actual passage of the bill.

“Recess deadlines are powerful tools,” Kristin Smith, the president of the Solana Policy Institute, told CoinDesk.

On a practical note, what this most likely means is we’ll see the motion to proceed Monday or Tuesday, two industry sources told CoinDesk, with a possible vote late next week.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to follow its rules when certifying event contracts that cover a wide range of possible outcomes. The regulator said some platforms are submitting “self-certified” listings without providing the specific terms and compliance analysis required for each contract permutation.

In an advisory released on July 24 and published as part of a Friday notice, the CFTC reiterated that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking—operators may still self-certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, as long as they do so within the statutory self-certification framework.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC warned that broad, template-style self-certifications for event contracts are not acceptable for listings under its jurisdiction.
• Operators are expected to submit the terms and conditions for each proposed permutation, along with concise explanations tied to the product and the relevant commodity and compliance requirements.
• The advisory underscores the regulator’s view that generalized submissions have been a recurring issue, with a similar warning issued earlier this year.
• The latest move comes just before a public comment deadline tied to the CFTC’s proposed amendments on public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Why the CFTC is pushing back on “self-certified” event contracts

According to the CFTC’s July 24 announcement, the agency has observed multiple instances where event contracts are being self-certified by platforms without supplying the full details the CFTC says it needs. Specifically, the regulator criticized submissions that do not include the terms and conditions of each proposed permutation, nor a concise explanation and analysis explaining how the product’s terms and conditions relate to compliance expectations.

The advisory frames this as a compliance execution problem rather than a blanket prohibition on prediction market products. The CFTC emphasized that operators can certify certain event contracts without seeking prior commission approval, but they must do so properly under the self-certification structure established by law and CFTC regulations.

In the regulator’s words, broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted. The CFTC’s concern is that generalized paperwork makes it harder to evaluate whether each individual contract listing complies with the CEA and applicable CFTC requirements—particularly when a contract covers a wide swath of events and permutations.

A warning issued twice in 2026

The July 24 advisory is not the first time the CFTC has flagged the issue this year. The agency referenced a similar warning on March 12, again targeting overly generalized submissions. By issuing the guidance for a second time, the CFTC is effectively signaling that it expects corrective action and that it views continued template-style filings as a repeated compliance failure.

For operators, this matters because self-certification is often treated as a faster path to listing products compared with seeking affirmative approval. If the CFTC continues to find that filings lack the required detail, platforms may face heightened regulatory scrutiny, which can translate into delays, requests for additional information, or more direct enforcement consequences—especially for contracts built around broad event categories.

Regulatory timeline: comments due before rule amendments

The advisory arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for submitting comments on proposed rule amendments related to how the agency conducts public interest determinations for certain event contracts.

Those proposed amendments aim to clarify how the CFTC determines whether specific event contracts are contrary to the public interest under the CEA. The CFTC described the approach as a three-step analytical framework intended to evaluate contracts based on their involvement in certain enumerated activities—such as terrorism, assassination, or gaming—so that only appropriate contracts are listed for trading.

The proximity between the self-certification warning and the comment period is likely not accidental. For prediction market businesses, the next regulatory phase could change how contracts are assessed for public interest risks even if self-certification remains available in some circumstances. Operators will therefore need to reconcile two parallel expectations: submit sufficiently detailed self-certifications now, while also preparing for potential changes in the CFTC’s public interest evaluation standards later.

What changes for operators: from templates to permutation-specific filings

The practical thrust of the CFTC’s message is straightforward: when an event contract can take many forms—or when it is designed to cover numerous permutations—operators need documentation that matches that complexity. The CFTC’s criticism centered on certifications that do not provide, for each proposed permutation, the terms and conditions and a concise compliance explanation tailored to the product’s conditions, the underlying commodity, and applicable compliance considerations.

That means the template approach that may be common for scaled product development—where only a few parameters are varied across listings—could be viewed by the CFTC as insufficient when the certification is expected to demonstrate compliance for each unique configuration.

For market participants such as traders and liquidity providers, the filing quality issue may not directly change how contracts trade day-to-day, but it does affect listing stability and regulatory risk. If contract certifications are challenged, the availability of products could be disrupted, and participants may face sudden changes in trading access or contract availability.

Legal practitioners have also pointed to how the pending amendments could alter the regulatory landscape. Earlier coverage noted that law firm Ropes & Gray said the CFTC’s proposed changes could “rewrite the rulebook” for prediction market contracts, reflecting how significant the public interest determination framework could be if adopted.

What to watch next

With comments due July 27 on the proposed public interest determinations framework, prediction market operators should expect follow-on developments that could refine what the CFTC considers acceptable contract listings and how self-certification must be documented. The key question ahead is whether operators will update certification practices to avoid template-style submissions and how the CFTC will translate its three-step framework into enforceable guidance if the proposed amendments move forward.