Regulators in Washington signaled renewed urgency around how crypto markets are structured and regulated, as a Milken Institute panel brought together key U.S. overseers to discuss perpetual futures, prediction markets and the broader market framework. CFTC Chair Michael Selig outlined a path to US-accessible perpetual futures, while SEC Chair Paul Atkins pressed for greater congressional clarity to steer crypto policy. The conversations come amid ongoing questions about governance, enforcement actions against prediction-market platforms, and a stalled market-structure bill that remains the subject of intense debate in Congress. With the CFTC short of a full slate and lawmakers weighing ethics, stablecoins and tokenized equities, the regulatory tempo appears poised to intensify in the weeks ahead.

During the Washington event, Selig said the Commission is actively pursuing a pathway to “true perpetual futures” for digital assets in the United States, aiming to deliver a functional version “within the next month or so.” The comments underscored a coordinated push to bring crypto product design closer to traditional futures markets and to anchor these instruments within a domestic legal framework rather than offshore venues. Selig’s remarks reflect a broader objective: reduce regulatory arbs and promote market integrity by establishing a clear, US-based regime for innovative derivatives tied to cryptocurrencies.

Notably, Selig currently stands as the sole Senate-confirmed commissioner at the CFTC, a vacancy-heavy backdrop that has persisted for months. He noted the agency’s reliance on a sense of congressional direction to advance policy and market structure reforms, underscoring how essential new leadership could be for momentum. In a panel exchange with Atkins, Selig pointed to the reality that, historically, “the prior administration drove a lot of these firms and the liquidity offshore,” a reality many market participants have cited as a driver of fragmented liquidity and uneven regulatory oversight.

Beyond futures, Selig signaled that the CFTC intends to publish guidance on prediction markets “in the very near future.” The agency has long asserted jurisdiction over event-contract platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, a stance that has drawn scrutiny from states pursuing their own enforcement actions against these operators. The discussion at Milken highlighted a recurring theme in crypto policy: the tension between federal authority and state-level actions, and the need for clear, uniform standards to prevent a patchwork regulatory environment that complicates compliance for innovators and operators alike.

On the topic of market structure, Atkins stressed the importance of legislative clarity. He described the ongoing digital asset market-structure bill as moving through Congress but effectively paused as the White House and lawmakers navigate debates over ethics, stablecoin yield and tokenized equities. Atkins argued that the SEC needs statutory direction to direct the courts and support the commission’s crypto initiatives, while Selig countered that “there’s only so much you can do without legal certainty from Congress.” The exchange of views captured a broader cross-agency push for a map of responsibilities that could harmonize enforcement, supervision and market access for crypto products.

These remarks come as the Senate Banking Committee has not yet scheduled a markup for the market-structure bill, according to multiple briefings. The White House has been holding a stream of talks with industry leaders on stablecoin yield, a topic that continues to generate both optimism and risk for policy pathways. While administration officials have signaled interest in advancing a framework, observers note that substantive progress remains contingent on navigating concerns about consumer protections, financial stability and the implications for the broader asset class. The absence of a clear legislative timetable has left exchanges, liquidity providers and investors watching closely for any signs of accelerated action or renewed negotiation on key provisions.

Why it matters

The near-term focus on perpetual futures, prediction markets and market structure signals that the U.S. regulatory narrative around crypto is shifting from scattered enforcement and piecemeal guidance toward a more integrated framework. If the CFTC can operationalize a US-based perpetual futures regime in weeks, it could draw liquidity back from offshore venues and consolidate activity within regulated platforms, potentially improving transparency, disclosure and risk controls for retail and institutionally backed trades.

At the same time, the push to clarify the regulatory status of prediction markets—platforms that allow users to trade on event outcomes—has the potential to redefine how decentralized information markets operate in the United States. The CFTC’s insistence on exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts contrasts with ongoing state-level actions against Kalshi and Polymarket, highlighting a broader strategic debate about federal supremacy versus state experimentation. The outcome could influence where innovation remains permissible and where compliance costs rise, shaping the trajectory of experimentation in event-based speculation and its integration with broader DeFi ecosystems.

Meanwhile, the market-structure bill sits at a crossroads. Proponents argue that a statutory framework would reduce uncertainty for market participants and provide a clear mandate for both the CFTC and the SEC. Critics contend that the legislation, if rushed, may neglect nuanced issues such as governance, transparency, and consumer protection. The discussions around stablecoins—central to the policy package—illustrate how a single policy thread can ripple across multiple regulatory domains, affecting liquidity, yield strategies and the potential for tokenized financial instruments. The net effect for users and builders is a heightened need for precise, verifiable guidance and a predictable regulatory clock that can support sustainable product development.

These developments are unfolding against a backdrop of ongoing policy chatter and industry dialogue. The Milken Institute event, the subsequent reporting on Selig’s remarks, and the broader media coverage of market-structure debates collectively reinforce a sense that Washington is recalibrating how crypto markets should operate within a traditional financial framework. As policymakers weigh the balance between innovation and protection, the sector watches for concrete milestones—whether a formal rulemaking, a legislative markup, or a fresh round of guidance—that could anchor near-term decisions around product design, liquidity strategies and risk management.

For investors and developers, the implications are twofold. First, a cleared path for perpetual futures could attract more liquidity to compliant, U.S.-based venues, reducing reliance on offshore liquidity pools that have often been a feature of the crypto derivatives landscape. Second, clear guidance or legislation on prediction markets and stablecoins would help define permissible structures and capital requirements, potentially unlocking new product categories while imposing guardrails designed to reduce systemic risk. In short, the next few weeks could prove pivotal for how deeply regulated, institutionally aligned crypto markets become in the United States, and how much of the global liquidity shift back toward home shores will actually materialize.

As policymakers keep their focus on the balance between innovation and protection, market participants should monitor several concrete signals: when the CFTC releases its true perpetual-futures guidance; whether prediction markets receive formal regulatory clarity; whether the market-structure bill advances in markup; and how the White House’s ongoing discussions with industry translate into concrete policy proposals. The convergence or divergence of these threads will likely shape the trajectory of U.S. crypto market infrastructure for the remainder of the year.

Core Scientific, a Bitcoin mining company, announced this week its plans to sell nearly all of its Bitcoin holdings to fund its shift towards AI and high-performance computing. 

The move reflected a broader trend in the Bitcoin mining industry. However, it also raised questions over the purpose of sustaining Bitcoin treasuries, especially in light of a broader market downturn.

Bitcoin Miner Reduces Holdings for Growth

Core Scientific unveiled on Monday its plans to use the proceeds from its Bitcoin sales to finance its growing data center buildout. According to its most recent 10-K filing, the company sold 1,924 Bitcoin between December and February for aggregate proceeds of nearly $176 million.

According to Bitcoin Treasuries, Core Scientific currently holds 613 Bitcoin, worth nearly $42 million.  

The company also announced that it will transition its Pecos, Texas, facility from Bitcoin mining to colocation services, a move that aligns with rising demand for artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure. 

The change reflects a broader trend among Bitcoin miners seeking more lucrative business models. It also coincides with weaker Bitcoin prices and rising energy costs, which have burdened miners’ operations. 

Last December, BeInCrypto reported that Bitcoin mining profitability hit record lows by the end of 2025, with 70% of the top 10 Bitcoin mining companies already generating revenue from infrastructure services. 

Core Scientific became the latest miner to do so, joining CleanSpark, Riot Platforms, and IREN, among others. 

However, its latest move not only reflects general restructuring but also indicates a shift away from Bitcoin accumulation.

Bitcoin’s Stagnation Raises Questions for DATs

Core Scientific’s Bitcoin holdings, prior to its recent sell-off, were not among the largest in the industry. According to Bitcoin Treasuries, it ranks 59th out of the top 100 public Bitcoin treasury companies. 

However, the scale of this sell-off has sparked questions about the future profitability of digital asset treasuries (DATs).

This shift also coincides with MARA Holdings revising its treasury policy, now allowing the sale of Bitcoin held directly on its balance sheet. 

The announcement marked the second-largest Bitcoin holding company’s sharp departure from its prior “full HODL” stance. It also raised broader questions over whether other DATs will soon follow suit.

Bitcoin’s failure to reach new highs, instead stagnating, has raised broader concerns. As of writing, its price is $68,000, but it has fallen 11% over the past month and 27% over the past three months. 

The possibility of Bitcoin returning to its previous all-time high of $126,000 now seems increasingly unlikely.

Meanwhile, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), the top Bitcoin treasury holder, remains committed to Bitcoin, with founder Michael Saylor tweeting on Tuesday, “I’m buying Bitcoin right now. Are you?” 

However, the volatility of its stock, MSTR, has raised concerns about investor confidence. 

Meanwhile, Phong Le, the company’s CEO, admitted last November that Strategy might be forced to sell Bitcoin under specific crisis conditions.

MARA Holdings, one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining companies, has rejected claims that it plans to unload the majority of its Bitcoin holdings following speculation about a shift in its treasury policy.

The clarification came in a post on X from MARA vice president for investor relations Robert Samuels, who said the company has not altered its core Bitcoin (BTC) treasury approach. 

His remarks were a direct response to SwanDesk adviser Jacob King, who claimed Tuesday that MARA had shifted toward a sell-down strategy, citing filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. King’s post had received more than 325,000 views at the time of writing.

Samuels pointed to the company’s 2026 10-K filing, which states that MARA expanded its policy to allow for potential sales of Bitcoin held on its balance sheet.

“Our 2026 10-K clearly states we expanded our strategy to allow for sales of bitcoin held on our balance sheet,” Samuels wrote.

As Cointelegraph initially reported, the filing authorizes discretionary transactions based on market conditions and capital allocation priorities, rather than mandating a reduction in reserves.

The distinction, Samuels argued, is between preserving optionality and committing to a material drawdown of Bitcoin treasury holdings.

MARA has historically positioned itself as a long-term Bitcoin holder, making any perceived shift in its treasury strategy closely watched by investors and market participants.

Related: Bitcoin mining’s 2026 reckoning: AI pivots, margin pressure and a fight to survive

MARA doubles down on diversification while maintaining a large BTC treasury

While MARA has broadened its operational footprint in recent years, its balance sheet remains heavily tied to Bitcoin exposure.

That diversification accelerated last month when MARA acquired a 64% stake in Exaion, a France-based computing infrastructure company focused on high-performance computing and blockchain services.

Even so, Bitcoin remains central to MARA’s balance sheet. The company holds 53,822 BTC, valued at about $3.7 billion, making it the largest publicly traded Bitcoin miner by treasury size.

Among public companies overall, only Michael Saylor’s Strategy holds more, with over 720,000 BTC accumulated to date.

Related: American Bitcoin boosts hashrate with 11,298 new mining machines