Two U.S. regulators are vying for jurisdiction over the same thing. On the surface, it looks like a turf war over bureaucratic responsibilities... But the outcome of this fight could determine whether ordinary people will be able to buy highly leveraged crypto products in the future..
📢 最新消息群里说
On Monday, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission opened a public comment period on a type of retail crypto trading involving margin, leverage, and buying on credit.. In other words, it wants to use its existing authority to stake its claim to this territory..
Most people see yet another regulatory framework going through the motions.. What’s more worth paying attention to is that the opposition isn’t coming from an exchange, but from a financial reform advocacy group called Better Markets.. Its director of securities policy put it bluntly: the CFTC is the wrong agency..
The reasoning is straightforward.. The CFTC has no investor-protection mandate; its mission is to regulate commodity and derivatives markets, which have traditionally been dominated by large institutions, with very little retail participation.. The legal authority it cites was originally intended to crack down on leveraged precious-metals fraud in the last century. That’s a very different thing from making it the lead regulator for retail crypto..
This is where the real divide emerges.. If the CFTC writes the rules, the products will hew more closely to the commodity and derivatives model, with less disclosure and more room for market makers and affiliated parties.. If the SEC steps in, things will move much more slowly, with stronger protections but higher compliance costs..
For investors, this is no small matter.. Regulatory jurisdiction determines the form leveraged products take and how quickly they reach retail traders.. Whichever set of standards gets up and running first will define the pace at which the next wave of perpetual and leveraged trading expands in emerging markets.. Under such a framework, exchanges and market makers often get what amounts to a legal fast pass..
So don’t treat this dispute as bad news.. When two agencies fight over jurisdiction, it usually means a path to legalizing a product is being opened.. The real question isn’t whether it will be regulated, but who will regulate it.. The less-protective framework will move faster—and is more likely to leave retail traders holding the bag..
What’s worth watching next is whether the CFTC actually moves forward after public comments come in, and whether the SEC steps in to pull it back.. Once the two sides start testing the boundaries, the launch timeline for leveraged products will shift too..
📢 最新消息群里说
On Monday, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission opened a public comment period on a type of retail crypto trading involving margin, leverage, and buying on credit.. In other words, it wants to use its existing authority to stake its claim to this territory..
Most people see yet another regulatory framework going through the motions.. What’s more worth paying attention to is that the opposition isn’t coming from an exchange, but from a financial reform advocacy group called Better Markets.. Its director of securities policy put it bluntly: the CFTC is the wrong agency..
The reasoning is straightforward.. The CFTC has no investor-protection mandate; its mission is to regulate commodity and derivatives markets, which have traditionally been dominated by large institutions, with very little retail participation.. The legal authority it cites was originally intended to crack down on leveraged precious-metals fraud in the last century. That’s a very different thing from making it the lead regulator for retail crypto..
This is where the real divide emerges.. If the CFTC writes the rules, the products will hew more closely to the commodity and derivatives model, with less disclosure and more room for market makers and affiliated parties.. If the SEC steps in, things will move much more slowly, with stronger protections but higher compliance costs..
For investors, this is no small matter.. Regulatory jurisdiction determines the form leveraged products take and how quickly they reach retail traders.. Whichever set of standards gets up and running first will define the pace at which the next wave of perpetual and leveraged trading expands in emerging markets.. Under such a framework, exchanges and market makers often get what amounts to a legal fast pass..
So don’t treat this dispute as bad news.. When two agencies fight over jurisdiction, it usually means a path to legalizing a product is being opened.. The real question isn’t whether it will be regulated, but who will regulate it.. The less-protective framework will move faster—and is more likely to leave retail traders holding the bag..
What’s worth watching next is whether the CFTC actually moves forward after public comments come in, and whether the SEC steps in to pull it back.. Once the two sides start testing the boundaries, the launch timeline for leveraged products will shift too..
