Raiffeisen Bank International has partnered with Bitpanda Enterprise to create a common digital asset framework for its Central and Eastern European banking network, potentially bringing crypto services within reach of up to 18 million customers.

According to Bitpanda, the agreement will give RBI network banks the infrastructure needed to introduce digital asset services in their respective markets, while individual banks will decide what products to offer and when to launch them based on local regulations and market conditions.

The arrangement expands a model already used by Raiffeisen banks in Austria, where customers have been given access to cryptocurrencies through their existing banking environment. Instead of requiring customers to open a separate account with a crypto platform, Bitpanda provides the infrastructure behind the service offered through the bank.

RBI operates subsidiary banks across 11 Central and Eastern European markets and serves more than 18 million customers. Bitpanda Enterprise will provide the underlying digital asset technology for the network, creating a common setup that participating banks can use when introducing their own services.

RBI Bitpanda partnership builds on Austrian crypto rollout

Raiffeisen’s work with Bitpanda began at Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien, or RLB NÖ-Wien, which became one of the early traditional European Union banks to give customers access to cryptocurrencies within its existing banking setup.

Bitpanda supplied the technology behind that service, allowing customers to access digital assets while continuing to use their bank as the main point of contact. The latest RBI agreement takes the same approach beyond an individual Austrian bank and creates a framework that can be used across multiple markets.

Other Raiffeisen banks in Austria have since moved in the same direction. Raiffeisen Landesbank Tirol introduced access to digital assets through Bitpanda Enterprise in June, adding another regional bank to the infrastructure provider’s growing list of traditional banking partners.

The new arrangement does not mean crypto services will become available to all RBI customers at the same time. Each network bank will determine its product offering and launch schedule based on demand, local rules and its operating requirements.

RBI’s footprint gives the partnership considerably more potential reach than the earlier individual integrations. The banking group has around 42,000 employees and roughly 1,300 business outlets, with most of its customer base located in Central and Eastern Europe.

Bitpanda is building its banking infrastructure business

The RBI deal comes as Bitpanda has been expanding the institutional side of its business beyond its original retail crypto platform.

Bitpanda Enterprise provides banks and other financial companies with infrastructure for trading, custody, liquidity, payments, stablecoins and tokenization. Its systems can be integrated into a financial institution’s existing products instead of requiring the institution to build its own crypto infrastructure from the ground up.

Earlier in September, Bitpanda Enterprise expanded its work with BW-Bank as European banks continued adding digital asset products to existing financial services.

Bitpanda has worked with other major financial institutions as well. In May, IG Europe selected Bitpanda to provide liquidity, trading connectivity and market data for its planned European crypto trading expansion.

The Austrian company has maintained ties with Deutsche Bank since 2024, when the German lender began providing local IBANs and real time payment infrastructure for Bitpanda customers in Germany. The relationship has since expanded into other areas of digital asset infrastructure, with Deutsche Bank preparing crypto custody services for Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Bitpanda reported €371 million in adjusted revenue for 2025, up 16% from the previous year, while its user base reached 7.4 million. Crypto.news previously reported that the company was expanding its white label infrastructure business alongside its retail operations.

European banks are adding more regulated crypto services

RBI’s framework comes during a period of growing participation by traditional banks in the European Union’s regulated crypto market.

Banks represented nearly 23% of entities listed on the European Securities and Markets Authority’s crypto provider register by Sept. 16, after their number roughly doubled from around 40 in late June to about 80. The total number of listed crypto providers rose from 243 to 349 over the same period.

German cooperative banks have accounted for part of that growth. Six more institutions joined the register in August, taking Germany’s total number of authorized crypto asset service providers to 79 at the time.

EU rules give banks a separate route into the crypto market under the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation. Credit institutions can provide covered crypto services after submitting the required information to their home regulator, while crypto companies generally need authorization as crypto asset service providers.

Bitpanda has positioned its regulated infrastructure as a way for banks and financial companies to enter that market without developing their own trading and custody systems. The company operates under MiCA licenses in Europe and has continued supplying infrastructure to institutions expanding their digital asset offerings.

Its regulatory record has faced scrutiny as well. Austria’s Financial Market Authority fined Bitpanda €70,000 in August over breaches involving crypto asset white paper and marketing requirements. The proceedings were completed through an expedited procedure and became the Austrian regulator’s first published final penalty under MiCA.

At the same time, traditional banks have continued taking a larger role in regulated crypto services. ESMA data showed banking institutions accounting for almost one in four listed crypto providers by mid September, though the services permitted for each institution differ and can include custody, transfers, order execution, portfolio management or exchanges between crypto assets and funds.

For RBI, the Bitpanda framework leaves those product decisions with its individual network banks. Participating institutions can introduce digital asset services when their local regulatory and operating conditions allow, using Bitpanda Enterprise as the common infrastructure layer behind their customer offerings.

The race to build artificial intelligence (AI) chips is no longer just about who can make the fastest processor. Now, it is increasingly becoming a China-U.S. technology contest, with companies on both sides pushing to build more of their own AI-computing capabilities as U.S. government restrictions limit China’s access to advanced U.S. chips.

Huawei just gave that race another jolt. The Chinese tech giant is reportedly moving up the launch of its next-generation Ascend 960DT AI chip to the first quarter of 2027 from its previously planned Q3 timeline. Huawei also plans to launch the Ascend 960PR in Q3 2027, accelerating its broader Ascend roadmap as it works to expand China’s domestic AI infrastructure.

More News from Barchart

Huawei is not stopping at individual chips, either. The company is developing UnifiedBus technology to connect groups of AI processors so that they work as larger computing systems. Huawei has developed 11 chips around the technology for its supernode and supercluster systems and has reportedly already shipped more than 1,000 supernode systems.

That matters because Nvidia (NVDA) has become almost synonymous with the AI infrastructure boom. The company’s GPUs power the training and running of advanced AI models, while its advantage stretches beyond chips into networking and the broader software ecosystem. Huawei is now aiming at that system-level advantage, particularly in China, where U.S. export restrictions have made access to Nvidia’s most advanced hardware more difficult.

So, is Huawei’s faster roadmap just another headline, or could it eventually change the competitive landscape for Nvidia? Let’s take a closer look at what the move could mean for Nvidia and where NVDA stock stands from here.

About Nvidia Stock

Nvidia hardly needs an introduction these days. Once known mainly for making graphics chips for gamers, the company has become one of the biggest names in the AI revolution, and one of Wall Street’s favorite ways to play it. Founded in 1993 and headquartered in Santa Clara, California, Nvidia spent decades building its expertise in GPUs before the technology suddenly became central to the AI boom.

As companies raced to train and run increasingly sophisticated AI models, demand for Nvidia’s computing power exploded. Its GPUs now sit at the heart of AI data centers, cloud computing, robotics, autonomous vehicles, and high-performance computing. With a market capitalization of roughly $5.3 trillion, Nvidia has grown into one of the world’s most valuable companies.

That makes NVDA stock more than just another chip stock. Its performance has become closely tied to the broader AI investment cycle, making it one of the first names investors turn to when gauging the strength of the AI trade. Few stocks get pulled into that conversation as quickly as Nvidia. The company has delivered extraordinary returns, but 2026 has shown that even an AI heavyweight can face periods of volatility.

Shares of Nvidia have gained 22% in 2026, including a 32% advance over the past six months. Zooming out further, NVDA stock has surged 29% over the past 52 weeks, 434% over the past three years, and an eye-popping 12,875% over the past decade.

Still, the ride has not been smooth. The stock pulled back this year as investors questioned whether hyperscalers could keep spending on AI infrastructure at such a furious pace, while competition across the semiconductor industry continued to intensify. Then came a fresh dose of skepticism in late July, when a wave of AI-related deals put the staggering cost of the AI buildout back in focus.

Lately, though, NVDA stock has been finding its footing again. Strong demand for AI infrastructure and easing concerns about how hyperscalers will finance their spending have helped shares recover. Nvidia is now just 4% below its all-time high of $236.54.

Technically, the picture looks fairly balanced. The 14-day RSI sits at 58, which is close to neutral territory.

For a company at the heart of the AI boom, the valuation may look less intimidating than its headline success suggests. NVDA stock currently trades at a relatively reasonable 24 times forward earnings, while its price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 24.8 times is higher than many peers That makes the valuation story a little more nuanced — investors are still paying for growth, but not quite at the same premium seen in the past.

The shareholder-return story adds another layer. Nvidia raised its quarterly dividend from $0.01 to $0.25 per share in May 2026, reflecting its ability to generate substantial cash while returning more to shareholders. The payout is small relative to the stock’s valuation, but the increase signals growing capacity for shareholder distributions.

A Snapshot of Nvidia’s Q2 Numbers

Nvidia reported its second-quarter fiscal 2027 results on Aug. 26, with revenue jumping 106% year-over-year (YOY) to $96.2 billion, comfortably ahead of Wall Street’s expectations. Non-GAAP EPS was just as eye-catching, climbing 120% YOY to $2.22, while non-GAAP gross margin expanded 2.5 percentage points to 75%.

The Data Center segment once again stole the spotlight. The division pulled in a massive $89 billion in revenue, up 117% YOY and representing more than 92% of total revenue. Hyperscaler spending on AI infrastructure remained the key driver, while enterprise adoption of accelerated computing continued to broaden. Sequential growth also benefited from the initial volume rollout of Nvidia’s next-generation Vera Rubin architecture, alongside continued full-scale production of Blackwell systems for major cloud customers like Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), and Oracle (ORCL).

Nvidia’s Edge Computing business generated $7.2 billion, up 27% YOY, as AI increasingly moves closer to devices and commercial applications.

Meanwhile, the company continued turning its enormous cash generation into shareholder returns. Nvidia returned about $26 billion through buybacks and dividends during the quarter, with roughly $99 billion still available under its repurchase authorization. Operating cash flow reached $24.1 billion, while free cash flow came in at $21.3 billion. Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable debt securities totaled $56.6 billion at quarter-end.

Looking ahead, management anticipates Q3 revenue to be around $108 billion, plus or minus 2%, with GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins expected at 74%, plus or minus 50 basis points. Management also expects fiscal 2028 revenue to grow approximately 70%, although supply is expected to remain a bottleneck through at least the end of that year.

Analysts tracking Nvidia forecast Q3 fiscal 2027 revenue of around $109 billion, while EPS is projected to climb 99% YOY to $2.47 per share. Zooming out, EPS is expected to rise 102% YOY to $9.25 in fiscal 2027, then climb another 66% YOY to $15.33 per share in fiscal 2028.

What Do Analysts Expect for NVDA Stock?

Overall, analysts are upbeat about NVDA stock’s growth potential, giving Nvidia a consensus “Strong Buy” rating. Of the 50 analysts covering the stock, 45 advise a “Strong Buy,” three recommend a “Moderate Buy,” one analyst has a “Hold” rating, and one suggests a “Strong Sell” rating.

The average price target for NVDA stock is $325.88, indicating potential upside of 43% from current levels. Meanwhile, the Street-high target price of $515 suggests that the stock could rally as much as 127% from here.

Final Thoughts on Nvidia Stock

So, should Nvidia investors hit the panic button? Not really. For investors, Huawei’s latest move is less an immediate threat and more a sign of where the AI chip race could be heading.

Nvidia remains deeply entrenched in the market, with its GPUs, networking technology, and software ecosystem widely used by AI developers worldwide. Meanwhile, Huawei is building its own ecosystem, with thousands of developers already working on its AI platform.

The China angle makes this especially important. Access to Nvidia’s most advanced chips in China remains restricted, while U.S. policy has allowed only limited sales of products such as Nvidia’s H200 processors. Shipments have also been constrained, with only a small number of H200 shipments having begun. That gives Huawei a natural opening to strengthen its domestic alternative.

Huawei is clearly moving faster, but turning a chip roadmap into a scaled, widely adopted AI platform takes time. For NVDA stock investors, this is not a panic signal yet, although Huawei’s next moves deserve attention.

On the date of publication, Sristi Suman Jayaswal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has compared a new Connecticut firearms lawsuit with Ripple’s former SEC battle, arguing that both disputes raise questions about businesses determining whether their conduct complies with unclear regulatory standards.

Schwartz said on Sept. 23 that the situation described in the Glock litigation appeared “grossly unfair,” after attorney Kostas Moros drew attention to Glock’s claim that Connecticut officials had not clearly told the manufacturer whether redesigned pistols comply with a law taking effect Oct. 1. Schwartz added: “Ask me how I know.”

Kalshi has pushed back against reports that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is reviewing a suspicious pattern of trading in its Ether perpetual futures market. The exchange says it has not been contacted by regulators and doubts there is any formal examination underway.

The controversy centers on a reported cluster of rapid, nearly identical trades around roughly $5,500 each, allegations that some observers are framing as potential wash trading. The dispute comes as Kalshi’s perpetual futures business has expanded quickly since its May launch.

Key takeaways

• Kalshi says it has not received contact from the CFTC and does not believe a formal review is taking place.
• The CFTC scrutiny described by the Wall Street Journal relates to a repeated $5,500 trade-size pattern in Ether perpetual futures.
• Kalshi attributes repeated order sizes to liquidity incentive programs that reward makers for resting orders within a price band—not to rewards for executed trade volume.
• Kalshi argues the activity reflects normal market-making dynamics with many takers hitting a fixed-size resting order, rather than wash trading.
• The Journal also reported equity-linked incentives tied to trading-volume targets, which Kalshi’s response did not directly address.

CFTC review report meets Kalshi denial

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500 in Kalshi’s Ether perpetual futures. The report cited a person familiar with the matter and said the trading behavior has sparked allegations of wash trading.

Kalshi responded by disputing the premise of any regulatory action. Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, told Cointelegraph that the company “has not been contacted by the CFTC” and “doesn’t believe there is any formal examination.” She further characterized the chatter as “rumors seeded by competitors,” adding that the behavior is consistent with liquidity incentive programs common in financial markets.

Diana urged people not to rely on social media claims, stating: “Don’t believe everything you read on X.”

What the reported trade pattern suggests

The trades described by the Journal occurred within one of Kalshi’s perpetual futures markets, where participants speculate on the price of an underlying asset without taking spot ownership. In this case, the underlying is Ether.

According to the Journal, trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for more than $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month. The scale of the repeated-size activity is important because wash trading allegations typically emerge when volume appears to rise without genuine economic risk transfer between independent parties.

The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets. It said the incentives included waived trading fees and monthly cash payments designed to encourage large traders to provide liquidity.

While those incentive structures may be familiar in traditional markets, the details matter in crypto derivatives—particularly when regulators or market observers are trying to determine whether activity is driven by genuine hedging and price discovery or by self-referential execution designed to simulate demand.

Kalshi’s explanation: liquidity programs and market-maker resting orders

In a blog post published on Wednesday, Kalshi sought to clarify why trade sizes appeared repeatedly similar. The company said the recurring $5,500-sized trades reflect programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and within set price ranges.

Kalshi’s central claim is that incentives reward the availability of resting orders rather than the volume of trades that ultimately execute. In other words, the firm argues that the structure of its liquidity mechanism can naturally produce repeated execution sizes when many takers interact with a maker’s fixed quotes.

However, Kalshi’s post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading-volume targets as described by the Wall Street Journal. That omission leaves an open question for readers: even if the trade-size pattern can be explained by market-making design, how equity- or cash-linked targets influence participant behavior remains a separate issue worth watching.

Market-making dynamics vs. wash trading allegations

Kalshi’s response leaned heavily on how derivatives markets function. The company noted that market makers support trading by continuously quoting prices they are willing to buy and sell at, offering other traders ready counterparties. In that framework, market makers can earn from spreads but face losses if prices move against their quoted levels.

In contrast, “takers” are the traders who accept the resting prices offered by market makers. Kalshi argued that the reported fixed-size executions align with a market maker posting orders of a consistent size, then being hit by many takers.

Kalshi also said traders could profit when prices moved on other exchanges, by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price. The company further claimed that the activity involved “hundreds of distinct traders,” with takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”

On that basis, Kalshi characterized the pattern as evidence of “genuine economic activity rather than wash,” explaining that wash trading typically shows volume increase without either side taking meaningful profit or loss in the way expected from independent risk-taking.

In essence, Kalshi is arguing that the direction of outcomes—rather than the repetition of trade sizes alone—helps distinguish real liquidity provision from trades that are structured to look active without reflecting true trading interest.

What to watch next

If regulators pursue inquiries, the key remaining uncertainty is whether investigators focus on the liquidity mechanism itself or on the broader incentive ecosystem—especially any elements tied to trading volume targets and equity access. Market participants will likely watch for additional clarification from the CFTC, further documentation from Kalshi, and whether similar patterns appear consistently as perpetual futures markets mature.

Valued at a market cap of $17.4 billion, Tempe, Arizona-based Gen Digital Inc. (GEN) is a global company focused on enabling Digital Freedom through trusted consumer brands including Norton, Avast, LifeLock, and MoneyLion. The company provides products and services spanning cybersecurity, online privacy, identity protection, and financial wellness.

Companies valued at $10 billion or more are generally classified as “large-cap” stocks, and Gen Digital fits this criterion perfectly, exceeding the mark. Gen Digital serves nearly 500 million users across more than 150 countries, helping consumers live their digital lives safely, privately, and confidently.

More News from Barchart

Shares of Gen Digital have dipped 9.9% from its 52-week high of $31.65. The stock has increased 25% over the past three months, outperforming the broader iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF’s (IGV) return of 22.4% during the same period.

Gen Digital’s shares have risen 5.8% on a YTD basis, outpacing IGV’s 1.1% gain. The stock has declined marginally over the past 52 weeks, compared to IGV’s 9.3% drop over the same time frame.

GEN stock has been trading above its 50-day moving average since May.

Gen Digital shares rose 3.8% following its Q1 2027 results on Aug. 6 as adjusted revenue increased 11% to $1.34 billion, bookings grew 11% to $1.28 billion, and adjusted EPS jumped 19% to $0.71, reflecting broad-based growth across both segments. The company also generated $430 million in free cash flow and delivered $668 million in adjusted operating income, up 9%, including EPS surged 65% to $0.36.

In addition, Gen Digital raised its fiscal 2027 revenue guidance to $5.38 billion – $5.48 billion and adjusted EPS guidance to $2.87 – $2.97.

In comparison, rival Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) has underperformed GEN stock. Shares of Microsoft have gained 3% on a YTD basis and declined 3.2% over the past 52 weeks.

Despite the stock’s outperformance relative to its industry peers, analysts are cautiously optimistic, with a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” from 10 analysts. The mean price target of $33.60 suggests a premium of 17.6% to current levels.

On the date of publication, Sohini Mondal did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com

Prediction markets operator Kalshi said it has not been contacted by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and does not believe there is any formal examination, after a report that the regulator was reviewing a flurry of trading activity in its Ether perpetual futures market. 

On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CFTC is examining a pattern of rapid trades clustered around $5,500, citing a person familiar with the matter. The trading pattern has prompted allegations of wash trading. 

The scrutiny comes as Kalshi has reported rapid growth in its perpetual futures business. A week after launching its perpetual futures markets in May, the company told CNBC that trading volume had surpassed $1 billion.

Elisabeth Diana, head of communications at Kalshi, described the discourse as “rumors seeded by competitors.” 

“We have not been contacted by the CFTC and don’t believe there is any formal examination,” Diana told Cointelegraph. “As we’ve said, these data patterns are typical of liquidity incentive programs and common in financial markets. Don’t believe everything you read on X.”

Cluster of trades on Ether perpetual futures

The trades took place in one of Kalshi’s markets for perpetual futures, where users speculate on the price of an asset without buying it; in this case, the price of Ether. 

The trades of roughly $5,500 each accounted for over $5 billion in Ether perp volume over the past month, according to the Journal. 

The Journal also reported that Kalshi offered some traders opportunities to buy equity in the company if they met trading-volume targets, citing people familiar with the arrangements. It also said the company waived trading fees and provided monthly cash payments to encourage large traders to provide liquidity. 

In a blog post on Wednesday, Kalshi attributed the repeated trade sizes to programs that pay market makers to keep buy and sell orders available at specified sizes and at a set price range. It said those payments reward the availability of orders, not the volume of trades executed. 

The post did not directly address the equity-purchase opportunity tied to trading volume targets as reported by the Journal. 

Kalshi denies wash trading claims

Market makers help financial markets function by continuously quoting prices at which they are willing to buy and sell an asset, giving other traders ready counterparties to trade with. Market makers can profit from the difference between their buying and selling prices, but risk losses if prices move against them. Traders who accept their quoted prices are known as takers.

Related: Kalshi joins Coinbase with own filing for US stock perpetual futures

Kalshi said traders could profit when prices changed on other exchanges by buying or selling at a market maker’s outdated price. 

“The fixed size trades are entirely consistent with a single maker putting up resting orders of a fixed size and getting traded against by many takers,” Kalshi said.

It said the trades involved hundreds of distinct traders taking a market maker’s orders, with the takers “pretty consistently right” and the maker “pretty consistently wrong.”

“This is a sign of genuine economic activity rather than wash (where you’d expect volume to increase without either side taking a profit/loss),” Kalshi said. 

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

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission has begun preparing financial markets for what Chair Michael Selig called “mass tokenization,” as the agency works to adapt existing rules for blockchain, artificial intelligence and onchain finance.

CFTC Chair Michael Selig said during the U.S. Treasury Market Conference on Sept. 22 that regulators need to prepare existing market structures for tokenized real world assets, 24/7 trading and technologies that could operate across traditional financial infrastructure.

Selig described tokenization as one of the technologies that could change how assets and collateral move through financial markets. High quality tokenized collateral, he said, could make liquidity more dynamic while allowing assets to move between clearinghouses, intermediaries and end users in real time.

Blockchain based financial infrastructure could eventually support near instantaneous settlement alongside that movement of collateral, according to Selig. He compared the potential change with the transition from trading through hand signals to electronic markets.

“Just as the transition from hand signals to electronic trading advanced our financial system, I believe tokenization can do the same for all asset classes,” Selig said.

CFTC sees tokenization reaching multiple asset classes

Preparing markets for “mass tokenization” will require regulators to adjust older frameworks so blockchain and AI can be used at scale, Selig said. His remarks covered real world asset tokenization alongside onchain finance and markets that could operate around the clock.

Stablecoins are part of that work. Earlier in 2026, the CFTC expanded the types of eligible tokenized collateral to include certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks and published guidance covering the use of crypto assets and blockchain technology by regulated entities.

Selig said the commission plans to continue looking for ways to support stablecoin use by market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses. The agency intends to rely on principles based regulation as tokenization develops, while maintaining its existing market integrity responsibilities.

Around the clock trading is being treated separately depending on the asset involved. Selig said crypto and precious metals may currently be suited to 24/7 markets, while agricultural products, energy contracts and some financial products may not be ready for the same structure.

The CFTC has already sought public feedback on expanding trading hours and issued staff guidance covering 24/7 trading, clearing and settlement. Selig said surveillance systems, margin frameworks and operational safeguards would need to function continuously if markets move toward that model.

The tokenization push is unfolding while the agency is working on a separate regulatory framework for crypto markets using powers it already has.

As crypto.news previously reported, the CFTC submitted its crypto market framework to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Sept. 17, two days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act.

The filing, titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets,” remains at the prerule stage. Proposed regulatory text has not been released, and the filing itself does not create new trading or registration requirements.

Selig had already said in August that the agency was prepared to pursue digital asset market rules even if Congress did not complete the CLARITY Act. The proposals under consideration included rules for leveraged or margined crypto transactions through regulated markets and possible regulatory routes for developers building onchain financial products.

CLARITY Act setback leaves agencies working under existing powers

The Senate failed to invoke cloture on the CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 in a 49 to 50 vote, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to advance.

The failed procedural vote did not end work on the legislation. Seven Democratic senators who voted against cloture later said negotiations could continue, leaving open the possibility of another attempt if lawmakers reach an agreement on outstanding provisions. Talks over the CLARITY Act resumed after the vote, although no new Senate vote has been scheduled.

While Congress continues negotiations, both the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission have taken regulatory steps under their current statutory powers.

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division on Sept. 17 issued a no action position covering qualifying passive software providers that connect users with registered derivatives exchanges, brokers and futures commission merchants. Under the relief, staff will not recommend enforcement for certain failures to register as introducing brokers or associated persons when providers meet 10 specified conditions. The conditional registration relief applies only to activities covered by the staff letter.

SEC opens a five year route for tokenized US stocks

The SEC has moved further into tokenized markets through a temporary exemption that gives qualifying platforms a regulatory route for trading digital versions of US listed stocks.

On Sept. 17, the commission granted Tokenized Securities Venues temporary conditional relief from the definition of an exchange under the Securities Exchange Act. The exemption permits eligible venues to use permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools to facilitate trading in tokenized National Market System stocks.

The five year tokenized stock exemption carries several conditions. Tokens traded under the framework must give holders the same rights and privileges as the corresponding traditional shares, while synthetic products that provide only price exposure do not qualify.

Venues must give the underlying company notice and an opportunity to object when an unaffiliated third party tokenizes its shares. Smart contracts used by participating venues must be public and auditable, while trading in a tokenized stock must stop when trading in the underlying stock is halted on its primary exchange.

The SEC placed limits on the number of symbols and trading volume permitted under the framework. Qualifying venues are required to disclose information about their operations and trading activity, while certain liquidity providers can receive temporary conditional relief from the Exchange Act’s dealer definition.

The exemption is scheduled to expire five years after publication, with the commission requesting public feedback while it considers longer term rules for onchain securities markets. SEC Chair Paul Atkins described the framework as an interim measure that would allow tokenized stock trading in a permissioned environment while regulators evaluate further changes.

US regulators prepare existing market rules for onchain finance

SEC Division of Trading and Markets Director Jamie Selway has said tokenization and crypto have become politically contentious even though he does not view market technology as inherently political. He said US development of the technology should be capable of drawing support across party lines.

The SEC’s September order puts part of that approach into practice by letting qualifying venues experiment with tokenized listed stocks without removing the underlying securities from federal securities law.

Commissioner Mark Uyeda said tokenization could be used across issuance, trading, transfer, settlement and ownership records. Under the temporary framework, regulators will be able to observe trading venues and market participants while considering permanent rules, he said.

CFTC policy is developing along a parallel track in derivatives markets. Selig said the agency expects blockchain, tokenized assets and continuous trading to become a larger part of financial infrastructure, but he rejected a single approach for every market.

The commission has instead tied potential 24/7 trading to the characteristics of individual asset classes. Selig said its role would include ensuring surveillance, margin systems and operational safeguards can work continuously where markets adopt round the clock trading.

For tokenized collateral, the agency has already permitted certain payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks to qualify under its collateral framework. Selig said the CFTC plans to continue examining additional uses for stablecoins across regulated market participants, exchanges and clearinghouses.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has withdrawn several civil enforcement actions targeting cryptocurrency companies that were initiated under the prior administration, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said. Speaking at a Wednesday panel at the Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy’s Financial Markets Quality Conference, Uyeda framed the decision as part of a broader shift in how the agency plans to approach rulemaking and litigation.

Uyeda, who served as acting SEC chair from January to April 2025 before Paul Atkins’s confirmation, said the SEC dropped cases brought earlier in 2025 because pursuing them could conflict with the agency’s impending policy direction. He also suggested that keeping litigators committed to arguments made under the earlier framework would undermine the SEC’s credibility if the commission’s positions effectively changed.

Key takeaways

• SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda said the agency stopped crypto-related civil cases in early 2025 to avoid credibility problems tied to forthcoming rulemaking changes.
• Uyeda argued it would be damaging for SEC litigators to defend interpretations in court that would later be reversed through a “180-degree” policy shift.
• The withdrawn matters included actions involving Kraken, Ripple Labs, Coinbase, and others, according to earlier coverage referenced by Uyeda.
• The SEC’s leadership structure is expected to narrow further after Commissioner Hester Peirce’s planned departure in November, leaving fewer members to shape enforcement priorities.

Why the SEC moved to drop crypto cases

On the Psaros Center panel, Uyeda described the decision as a response to an expected policy turnaround. He said the SEC was preparing a “180-degree change” in rulemaking, making it strategically and reputationally risky to continue pursuing cases that would require the agency to argue positions that the commission planned to abandon.

Uyeda said the SEC could not justify asking its legal team to stand in court on arguments authorized under the prior administration while the agency simultaneously issued a fundamentally different interpretation. In his remarks, he linked the move directly to institutional credibility—arguing that the commission’s effectiveness depends on consistency between litigation positions and the SEC’s evolving stance.

He emphasized that there were “significant concerns” about whether the earlier crypto company cases were truly defensible under law, particularly given how the agency’s approach was expected to change. The implication for market participants is that enforcement risk may be as much about where the SEC’s policy is heading as it is about individual company conduct.

Link to earlier enforcement and the political context

The SEC’s decision follows a period when crypto firms were repeatedly targeted through civil cases associated with the prior leadership. Under Uyeda’s acting chairmanship, the SEC dropped cases filed against Kraken, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and others, according to earlier reporting cited in the article describing his comments.

That earlier reporting characterized the withdrawals as reflecting broader tensions between the crypto industry and the SEC during the prior administration. It also tied the enforcement push to the general environment surrounding U.S. political leadership changes, including former SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s resignation after President Donald Trump took office.

Notably, the shift described by Uyeda is not presented as a narrow case-by-case retreat, but rather as a decision shaped by the SEC’s planned regulatory pivot. For investors and compliance teams, that distinction matters: a litigation strategy driven by anticipated rulemaking changes may affect how future enforcement decisions are evaluated, even for companies not directly covered by the withdrawn suits.

What “rulemaking change” could mean for crypto policy

Uyeda’s remarks connect litigation strategy to a planned transformation in how the SEC intends to develop and apply rules. By describing a “180-degree change,” he signaled that the SEC’s future stance may not simply refine the agency’s current arguments—it could overturn core assumptions underpinning the earlier cases.

While he did not specify the precise contours of the forthcoming approach in the remarks summarized here, the practical takeaway is that the SEC is attempting to align courtroom positions with policy direction. That alignment can influence how quickly regulated firms expect clarity, and it can also affect the perceived durability of legal theories used previously in enforcement actions.

For market participants, the key watch point is whether the agency’s changed posture results in new regulatory frameworks, revised interpretations of existing statutes, or both. Until those details are established, the SEC’s broader enforcement stance may remain difficult to predict—especially for companies whose compliance strategies were built around litigation risk tied to the previous administration’s approach.

Leadership reshuffle and the SEC’s enforcement calculus

Uyeda’s comments came as the SEC’s internal composition is expected to change again. Uyeda has been a commissioner since 2022 and currently serves in leadership alongside Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce. However, Peirce’s departure is expected in November, leaving only two of the SEC’s five members on the leadership panel at that time.

The SEC has not announced nominations for replacements, according to the context provided alongside Uyeda’s remarks. A smaller leadership group can affect institutional priorities, since fewer commissioners may be responsible for setting the direction of enforcement and policy initiatives during the transition period.

In practice, leadership concentration can accelerate strategic shifts—either by enabling faster decision-making or by increasing the impact of a narrower set of views on whether and how to bring future cases. Combined with Uyeda’s stated rationale for dropping earlier matters, the leadership transition could further shape how crypto-related enforcement risk is assessed over the coming months.

What to watch next

Investors and builders should watch for how the SEC translates Uyeda’s stated rulemaking pivot into concrete policy signals—whether through new proposals, updated guidance, or further enforcement decisions that reflect the agency’s changing litigation posture. The next developments will reveal how far the shift goes and whether it produces clearer standards for crypto companies or simply changes the SEC’s enforcement tactics.