CFTC Proposes Crypto Rules, But the Spot Market Gap Remains
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission has moved to establish a federal regulatory framework for cryptocurrency trading under its existing authority, introducing two linked rulemaking proposals aimed at leveraged, margined, and financed digital asset activity. The proposals, named Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (Regulation CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (Regulation CAM), mark a significant step toward the kind of federal oversight that a stalled congressional crypto bill failed to deliver. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs running digital asset operations, the distinction between what falls inside this new framework and what does not is not an academic point: it will determine how trades are classified, which intermediaries must be involved, and what anti-money laundering infrastructure must be in place.
Two Rules, One Regulatory Framework
CFTC Chairman Mike Selig announced the dual rulemaking on Monday, framing the pair as a "comprehensive regulatory framework" designed to bring consistency to a market that has operated without clear federal rules at the transaction level.
Regulation CTX: Governing the Transactions
Regulation CTX addresses the transactions themselves. Any crypto activity involving leverage, margin, or financing would fall under its scope. In practical terms, this captures the use of borrowed funds to amplify a position, whether that is a leveraged long on bitcoin, a margined DeFi position, or a financed crypto purchase. The CFTC's authority here flows from the retail-trading elements of the Commodity Exchange Act, which were strengthened under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 following the 2008 financial crisis.
One operational requirement already drawing attention from compliance professionals is the mandatory involvement of futures commission merchants (FCMs) as intermediaries for activity captured under Regulation CTX. FCMs are already subject to Bank Secrecy Act obligations, so routing leveraged crypto trades through them would automatically bring AML and know-your-customer requirements into the picture. For firms currently running digital asset desks without that intermediary layer, this represents a meaningful structural change to their operating model.
The regulation also carries an "actual delivery" exemption. Transactions where the underlying asset genuinely changes hands within 28 days would be exempt from Regulation CTX classification. That carve-out has direct accounting relevance: a trade that qualifies as actual delivery may be treated differently from a leveraged derivative position under both U.S. GAAP and any applicable tax analysis.
Regulation CAM: A New Platform Category
Regulation CAM creates a new registration category: Crypto Asset Markets (CAMs). This sits below the full Designated Contract Market (DCM) status that existing CFTC-regulated exchanges hold. DCMs are required to support the full range of derivatives products including futures, swaps, and options. CAMs would be a narrower registration, specifically tailored to the leveraged and margined crypto spot-adjacent activity that CTX defines.
Platforms that want to offer more complex derivatives products would still need to obtain full DCM status. The CAM pathway is positioned as a proportionate option for exchanges whose product set does not justify the full DCM burden. Selig drew a comparison with the tiered charter structures available in the regulated banking sector, where the scope of a firm's activities determines the depth of its regulatory obligations.
CAMs would not escape substantive obligations, however. Proposed requirements include a prohibition on listing products susceptible to manipulation and proof-of-reserves demands for any exchange holding customer assets in omnibus accounts. Both requirements have direct implications for how a CAM's financial statements are prepared, what disclosures are needed, and how an external auditor would approach the engagement.
The Spot Market Gap: What the CFTC Cannot Do
The proposals are significant, but so is what they cannot cover. The CFTC does not have statutory authority to regulate spot markets in the way the SEC regulates securities markets. Spot trading, the direct exchange of one asset for another at current market prices without leverage or margin, falls outside the new framework for most tokens including bitcoin and ether. State money-transmission regulations remain the primary legal layer governing that activity.
What Remains Unregulated at the Federal Level
For most retail and institutional spot purchases of crypto assets, the CFTC's new rules simply do not apply. The agency retains anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority in spot markets, so it can pursue bad actors, but it cannot set trading rules, capital requirements, or disclosure standards in that space through these proposals.
CFTC officials acknowledged during Monday's announcement that they do not yet know how large the spot market will be relative to the regulated CAM space. They are relying on the 60-day public comment period to gather industry data on that question. The officials noted, with some optimism, that market participants may voluntarily gravitate toward federally regulated venues if they perceive those as offering greater consumer confidence. Whether that proves correct is an open question.
Why Congress Matters Here
Closing this spot market gap was the central purpose of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the congressional bill that stalled in the U.S. Senate last month. Without legislation, the CFTC has no path to extend its rulemaking authority over unlevered spot trading. The current proposals are explicitly designed to work within the agency's existing statutory powers, not to expand them. That limitation is structural, not a drafting choice, and firms should plan around it accordingly. For background on how that legislative stall is being interpreted in capital markets, see our earlier analysis of how the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act stall affects capital markets.
Where the SEC and CFTC Now Stand Together
Monday's CFTC action follows a period in which the SEC moved considerably faster on crypto rulemaking. The SEC has already proposed rules on crypto custody for investment advisers, and separately implemented an exemption clearing the path for securities tokenisation. For a detailed look at the custody side, see our coverage of what the SEC custody proposal means for investment advisers.
Earlier in 2026, the two agencies produced a joint staff statement that, for the first time, attempted to set out a shared framework for determining whether a given digital asset falls under SEC jurisdiction as a security or under CFTC jurisdiction as a commodity. The new CAM and CTX proposals represent the CFTC's contribution to fleshing out the CFTC side of that divide with actual regulatory substance rather than staff guidance.
Both agencies are currently operating with only Republican commissioners in post. The SEC has Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda. The CFTC's Mike Selig has been the sole commissioner for nearly a year, which means each of his actions is technically unilateral. Final rules will need to survive potential legal challenge, and that political and structural context matters for assessing how durable Monday's proposals will prove to be.
DeFi Accounting and the Developer Question
One passage from Chairman Selig's prepared remarks will have caught the attention of any firm advising clients on DeFi accounting or protocol development. Selig said the agency is developing policies to protect software developers who build products but do not themselves solicit orders, take orders, or hold customer funds. His line was direct: "A person should not have to register as an introducing broker simply because that person shipped code."
Implications for DeFi Protocol Governance
This is not yet a formal rule, but it signals the direction of CFTC thinking on the developer liability question that has created significant uncertainty in decentralised finance. For accounting firms advising DeFi protocol founders or DAOs, this framing is relevant to how operational risk is assessed and whether registration obligations need to be modelled into a client's compliance budget. Until the policy is formalised, cautious firms will want to track the comment period and any subsequent staff guidance closely.
The broader point is that leveraged DeFi activity, where users borrow against collateral in a smart contract to amplify exposure, would appear to fall squarely within Regulation CTX's scope as currently drafted. How that interacts with decentralised protocol infrastructure, where there may be no single legal entity acting as an FCM, remains one of the harder questions the comment period will need to surface. Firms with clients operating or investing in leveraged DeFi strategies should flag this as an open item in their digital asset accounting software and compliance tracking workflows.
Accounting and Reporting Implications for Firms
For accounting practices and CFOs, the proposals create several immediate and near-term considerations.
Trade Classification and the CTX Perimeter
Under current U.S. GAAP guidance from FASB, digital assets are generally treated as indefinite-lived intangible assets or, for certain stablecoins, potentially as cash equivalents pending further standard-setting. The introduction of a regulatory category specifically defined by leverage and margin changes how some positions should be analysed. A leveraged crypto position routed through a registered FCM under Regulation CTX has a different risk and legal profile from a spot purchase, and that distinction should be reflected in how contracts are reviewed and positions are classified on the balance sheet.
Proof-of-reserves requirements for CAMs holding customer assets in omnibus accounts will also create audit evidence considerations. External auditors will want to understand what reserve attestation standards the CFTC adopts in its final rule and whether those align with existing attestation frameworks under AICPA standards.
AML Infrastructure and the FCM Requirement
The mandatory FCM intermediary layer for CTX-regulated activity means that Bank Secrecy Act compliance is embedded into the transaction structure by design. For CFOs at trading firms or treasury teams running active crypto desks, that intermediary relationship needs to be accounted for in counterparty agreements, fee structures, and AML programme documentation. Firms that currently trade leveraged crypto through channels that do not involve an FCM will need to reassess those arrangements once the rules are finalised.
The 60-day comment period is the right moment for firms and their advisers to engage. Responses to the comment docket can directly shape the final rule's technical definitions, and several of the definitions, particularly around what constitutes leverage or financing in a DeFi context, remain genuinely open. Crypto accounting software and crypto bookkeeping software providers will also need to track how the final rules define transaction types so that automated classification logic can be updated accordingly.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Regulation CTX apply to spot bitcoin purchases made with cash?
No. A straightforward purchase of bitcoin or ether with cash, where the asset is delivered without any leverage or margin involved, falls outside Regulation CTX. The CFTC's spot market authority is limited to fraud and manipulation enforcement. State money-transmission rules continue to govern direct spot trading at the platform level.
What is a Crypto Asset Market (CAM) and how does it differ from a DCM?
A CAM is a new, narrower registration category proposed for platforms offering leveraged or margined crypto trading. A Designated Contract Market carries a broader mandate covering futures, swaps, and options across asset classes. Exchanges that want to offer those more complex derivatives products will still need full DCM registration. The CAM route is designed as a proportionate option for platforms whose activity sits specifically in the leveraged crypto space defined by Regulation CTX.
What does the FCM intermediary requirement mean for a corporate treasury running a leveraged crypto position?
Once Regulation CTX is finalised, any leveraged crypto trade within its scope would need to be cleared or intermediated through a registered futures commission merchant. FCMs carry existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations, so the corporate treasury would effectively have AML and KYC requirements embedded in the trade execution chain. That has implications for counterparty selection, legal documentation, and operational cost.
How should accounting teams treat the 28-day actual delivery exemption?
Transactions that result in genuine delivery of the underlying asset within 28 days may qualify for the actual delivery exemption and fall outside Regulation CTX. For accounting purposes, a delivered asset is likely to be treated differently from a margined derivative position under both GAAP and tax analysis. Firms should document the delivery timeline for any transactions they intend to treat as exempt and review that position with legal counsel before the final rule is published.
Are DeFi protocols subject to the new CFTC rules?
The extent to which DeFi protocols fall within Regulation CTX depends on whether the activity they facilitate involves leverage, margin, or financing and whether any identifiable legal entity functions as the intermediary. Chairman Selig's comments on developer liability suggest the CFTC does not intend to capture passive code developers, but leveraged DeFi products appear to be within scope in principle. The comment period is the critical window for the DeFi sector to provide the CFTC with data and legal argument on this question. Firms advising DeFi clients should monitor the docket carefully.
Source: CoinDesk