The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sharpened its stance on using crypto as collateral in derivatives markets, releasing updated guidance that clarifies how crypto assets can be deployed within a pilot program launched last year. A Friday notice from the agency’s Market Participants Division and Division of Clearing and Risk responds to FAQs that emerged from December staff letters and lays out the operational and risk parameters for futures commission merchants (FCMs) participating in the pilot.

In its notice, the CFTC reminded FCMs that to participate they must file a formal notice with the Market Participants Division, including the date on which they will begin accepting crypto assets from customers as margin collateral. The guidance aims to harmonize crypto collateral practices with a broader regulatory framework being developed in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as the two agencies outline a more unified approach to crypto oversight.

Key takeaways

• Capital charges for crypto collateral align with SEC oversight: 20% for Bitcoin and Ether positions, and 2% for stablecoins used as collateral.
• Initial three-month window restricts eligible collateral to Bitcoin, Ether, or stablecoins, with weekly reporting requirements and a prompt notice for significant cybersecurity or system issues.
• After three months, other crypto assets may be accepted as collateral, subject to ongoing risk and reporting standards.
• Residual interest in customer segregated accounts may be funded only with proprietary payment stablecoins; other tokens cannot be used for that purpose.

Operational guardrails and the three-month sprint

The notice makes clear that the pilot is designed with risk controls in mind. Futures commission merchants who wish to participate must submit a formal participation notice that includes the anticipated start date for accepting crypto as margin collateral. The three-month initial phase places strict limits on the types of crypto eligible for collateral, restricting it to Bitcoin, Ether, and stablecoins. During this period, FCMs are also required to file weekly reports detailing the total crypto holdings across customer account types and to promptly report any material cybersecurity or system issues.

The three-month horizon serves a dual purpose. It allows the CFTC to observe how crypto collateral behaves in real-time market conditions under a controlled regime, while enabling market participants to build processes around risk management, custody, valuation, and operational controls. After the initial period, the rulebook opens the door to additional digital assets, expanding the universe of potential collateral as regulators gain confidence in the framework.

What changes for market participants and tokenized markets

Beyond the three-month mark, the pilot could permit a broader spectrum of crypto assets to be used as collateral, provided they meet the CFTC’s risk, custody, and governance standards. The notice also clarifies several nuanced points about where crypto and stablecoins can—and cannot—serve as collateral. Notably, crypto and stablecoins cannot be used as collateral for uncleared swaps. However, swap dealers may deploy tokenized versions of eligible assets for collateral if they satisfy regulatory requirements and preserve the same rights those assets confer in their traditional form.

Derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs) have their own set of allowances. They may accept crypto and stablecoins as initial margin for cleared transactions, again contingent on meeting CFTC standards related to minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks. Finally, as to residual interest in customer accounts, the guidance specifies that only proprietary payment stablecoins may be deposited for that purpose, excluding other cryptocurrencies from this particular use case.

In framing these rules, the CFTC underscored its intent to align its approach with the SEC’s ongoing crypto framework. The agency’s notice notes that capital charges for crypto collateral will be consistent with SEC practices, signaling a coordinated path rather than a patchwork of standalone rules. The collaboration between the agencies is part of a broader effort to create a stable, transparent regulatory environment that can accommodate the 24/7 nature of crypto markets while enforcing prudent risk controls.

Participants will be watching closely how this evolves in practice. The pilot’s design—beginning with widely traded assets like BTC, ETH, and stablecoins—reflects a cautious, first-step approach to integrating digital assets into traditional margin concepts. It also signals how regulators intend to balance the benefits of crypto-native features, such as rapid settlement and continuous trading, with the need to manage financial risk and ensure market integrity.

For traders, funds managers, and infrastructure providers, the framework offers clarity on how crypto collateral might be used in the near term. It also highlights the kinds of operational capabilities that firms must develop: robust custody solutions, reliable valuation methodologies for volatile assets, strong cybersecurity postures, and precise reporting protocols to monitor crypto holdings in customer accounts.

Industry participants will also be watching for details on how tokenized assets and stablecoins will fare under the evolving rules. Tokenization can, in theory, unlock more flexible collateral options, but it requires careful attention to governance, settlement finality, and legal rights. The CFTC’s emphasis on risk controls, alongside explicit limitations on residual interest and uncleared swaps, suggests a measured approach to expanding collateral acceptance while preserving market safety nets.

Overall, the guidance reinforces a midterm view: a calibrated expansion of crypto collateral capabilities that can gradually broaden the collateral toolkit for U.S. derivatives markets, anchored by risk-management discipline and regulatory alignment with the SEC.

Investors and market participants should monitor how this pilot progresses in the coming months, including any updates to asset eligibility, reporting requirements, or capital-charge methodologies. The three-month checkpoint will likely spur conversations about whether additional assets should qualify, how valuation and custody standards will be harmonized, and what that means for liquidity and funding costs in crypto-backed trading strategies.

As regulators continue to shape the playbook, the core question remains: can a robust, well-regulated framework unlock crypto collateral’s potential while preserving financial stability? The CFTC’s latest notice positions the industry at a pivotal juncture, where clarity and risk controls could unlock broader adoption in the years ahead.

For now, market participants should prepare for continued regulatory alignment with the SEC, stay alert to any shifts in asset eligibility, and ensure their internal controls and reporting capabilities meet the forthcoming standards if they plan to participate in the pilot.

A Nevada judge has temporarily blocked Kalshi from operating in the state, finding that state authorities are reasonably likely to prevail in a legal fight over whether the company’s event contracts violate Nevada gambling laws.

Carson City District Court Judge Jason Woodbury issued a temporary restraining order on Friday, siding with a Nevada Gaming Control Board motion to block Kalshi from operating in the state for 14 days.

“Prediction markets, to ​the extent they facilitate unlicensed gambling, are illegal in Nevada, and we have a statutory duty to protect the public,” Nevada Gaming Control Board Chair Mike Dreitzer said in a statement to Reuters.

Kalshi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court’s decision comes after a federal appeals court on Thursday denied an emergency request by Kalshi to stay a federal court proceeding, allowing Nevada’s regulators to take action.

Nevada bars sports, election and entertainment event contracts

In his order, Judge Woodbury wrote that Kalshi was banned from offering sports, election and entertainment-related event contracts in Nevada.

He added that, in the record of the early stages of the case, such contracts are considered a “sports pool” under Nevada law, which Kalshi was not licensed to operate.

The Nevada Gaming Control Board sued Kalshi last month, asserting the company needed to be licensed by the state in order to offer its sports event contracts.

Kalshi argued that its contracts are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an agency that has backed prediction markets that are fighting in multiple state courts over accusations of offering illegal gambling.

“The question of federal preemption in this regard is nuanced and rapidly evolving,” Judge Woodbury wrote in his motion, rejecting Kalshi’s argument. “At the moment, the balance of convincing legal authority weighs against federal preemption in this context.”

Related: Kalshi CEO fires back against Arizona criminal charges as ‘total overstep’

Judge Woodbury scheduled a hearing on April 3 to consider a motion for preliminary injunction against Kalshi.

Kalshi is being sued, or has launched its own legal action, against multiple states that have accused the prediction market of operating without a state license.

A Massachusetts state judge banned Kalshi from offering sports event contracts earlier this year, which was lifted after Kalshi appealed the decision.

On Tuesday, Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi, with the state’s Attorney General Kris Mayes alleging Kalshi is “running an illegal gambling operation,” which Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour called a “total overstep.”

Magazine: When privacy and AML laws conflict — Crypto projects’ impossible choice