CFTC Sends Crypto Rules to White House as Clarity Act Stalls
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has formally submitted a crypto market-structure proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review, bypassing the Congressional stalemate that killed the Clarity Act earlier this week. The details of the submission are not yet public, but the move signals that the CFTC intends to use its existing statutory authority rather than wait for fresh legislation. For accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs managing digital asset positions, the practical implication is clear: the regulatory framework governing crypto markets and stablecoin accounting is being written in real time, through agency rulemaking, and the window for shaping it is approaching.
What the CFTC Has Actually Done
Three distinct regulatory actions landed in rapid succession following the Clarity Act's Senate defeat, each with different compliance timelines and different implications for firms that hold or service digital assets.
The OMB submission
On Thursday, the CFTC sent a proposed crypto market rule to the White House OMB. This is a standard step in US federal rulemaking: the OMB reviews the economic and policy impact of significant regulations before they return to the issuing agency for a formal vote and public comment period. After the public comment round closes, the CFTC would need a second vote before the rule takes effect. The content of the submission has not been disclosed. It is not yet known which crypto assets or asset classes it covers, what compliance obligations it would impose on exchanges or intermediaries, or precisely how far the CFTC believes its authority extends into spot crypto markets. Firms should treat this as an early signal that a rulemaking is in motion, not a final rule.
The SEC's parallel innovation exemption
On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a five-year conditional exemption allowing qualifying platforms to offer on-chain trading of certain tokenized stocks without registering as securities exchanges. The CFTC and SEC have both stated publicly that they will continue coordinating to deliver clearer rules under their existing authority, even without the Clarity Act's statutory blueprint. CFTC Chair Mike Selig confirmed that posture directly after the Senate vote, writing that the agency is "locked in and ready to ship its rules for the new frontier of finance."
No-action relief for passive software providers
On Friday, the CFTC published a no-action letter addressing a category of software providers that connect users to regulated derivatives markets without acting as introducing brokers. The relief covers passive tools that let users view markets and submit orders directly to registered firms, including crypto wallet interfaces. Providers operating under the letter can market specific contracts and receive transaction-based fees, but they are prohibited from holding customer assets, generating buy or sell signals, or controlling order routing or execution. Conditions include risk disclosures, recordkeeping obligations, and compliance with the CFTC's marketing rules. The relief remains in place until the CFTC adopts formal rules or guidance on registration requirements for software developers. We covered the specifics of that letter in detail in our earlier piece on CFTC no-action relief for passive software providers.
Why the Clarity Act's Failure Matters for This Rulemaking
The Clarity Act was intended to draw a clear jurisdictional boundary between the CFTC and the SEC for digital assets, including a statutory framework for stablecoins. Its failure leaves both agencies relying on authority derived from legislation written decades before blockchain existed. That creates two problems for firms trying to build robust stablecoin accounting and digital asset accounting software configurations.
Jurisdictional ambiguity persists
Without the Clarity Act, the question of whether a given crypto asset is a commodity or a security remains case-by-case, resolved either through enforcement actions or through individual no-action positions like the one issued Friday. For a firm holding a diversified basket of tokens, that ambiguity affects how each position is classified on the balance sheet, which regulator's reporting rules apply, and which compliance attestations are required. A CFTC rulemaking that defines its commodity perimeter would resolve some of that, but it cannot settle the SEC's side of the boundary on its own.
Stablecoin accounting remains in a holding pattern
Stablecoins were among the assets the Clarity Act would have addressed. The absence of a statutory framework means that the accounting treatment of stablecoins such as USDC continues to depend on entity-specific judgements under US GAAP or IFRS, informed by SAB 122's guidance on crypto asset fair value measurement but not yet anchored to a product-level regulatory classification. A CFTC rule that classifies certain stablecoins as commodities, or excludes them from its perimeter entirely, would be a material input to those judgements. Until the OMB review concludes and the CFTC publishes a draft for comment, firms cannot know which direction that classification will go. Our earlier analysis covers how the Clarity Act failure reshapes stablecoin accounting obligations in more detail.
The Rulemaking Timeline and What Firms Can Expect
Federal rulemaking in the US follows a predictable sequence, even if the timing at each stage is uncertain. Understanding where the CFTC's crypto proposal sits in that sequence helps firms allocate review and response resources appropriately.
Stages remaining before a rule takes effect
The OMB review is the current stage. Once complete, the draft returns to the CFTC for an internal vote to advance it to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which triggers the formal public comment period. Comments from industry participants, including accounting firms and technology vendors, are reviewed before the CFTC votes again to adopt, modify, or withdraw the rule. Each stage can take months. A rule submitted to the OMB in September 2026 could realistically reach its effective date in late 2027 or 2028, depending on the volume and complexity of comments received and any intervening political changes.
The public comment window is where firms have leverage
Once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, any person or entity can submit written comments. For accounting firms and CFOs, a well-structured comment that addresses the practical accounting and reporting consequences of a proposed classification, such as how a commodity designation for a stablecoin would interact with fair value measurement requirements or broker-dealer net capital rules, carries weight. The CFTC is required to respond to substantive comments in its final rule. Firms that have not participated in prior CFTC comment rounds should start building that capacity now, because the crypto market rule is likely to be one of the most consequential rulemaking exercises the agency has undertaken.
Accounting and Audit Implications of the Current Uncertainty
The period between the OMB submission and a final rule is not a quiet one for accounting teams. Several practical questions demand attention now.
Balance sheet classification of digital assets
Under ASC 350-60 (the FASB's fair value standard for certain crypto assets), entities measure qualifying crypto assets at fair value through profit and loss. The scope of that standard currently applies to assets that meet the definition of an intangible asset and are not producer-held inventory. A CFTC rule that reclassifies certain tokens as regulated commodity contracts, or that creates a new category of regulated spot commodity, could interact with that scope definition in ways that require entities to revisit their accounting policy elections. Auditors will need to track the rulemaking closely to assess whether policy updates or disclosure enhancements are required at interim reporting dates.
Disclosure obligations under SEC reporting rules
For SEC-registered entities, the SEC's existing crypto disclosure guidance requires material information about digital asset holdings, custody arrangements, and regulatory risks to be disclosed in periodic reports. A CFTC rulemaking that introduces new compliance obligations, such as exchange registration requirements or position reporting, would constitute a material regulatory development requiring disclosure as soon as it becomes probable rather than merely possible. Legal and finance teams should align on the materiality threshold they are applying and document that assessment.
No-action relief and software vendor due diligence
The CFTC's no-action letter for passive software providers is directly relevant to firms that use crypto bookkeeping software or digital asset accounting software that connects to derivatives markets. If a vendor's product routes orders to a CFTC-registered derivatives platform, the conditions attached to the no-action relief apply to that vendor. Firms should confirm with their software providers whether they are operating under the letter, and if so, whether the recordkeeping and disclosure conditions are being met. A vendor that does not qualify for the relief and is not registered as an introducing broker could expose client firms to regulatory risk.
What Firms Should Do Before the Public Comment Period Opens
The rulemaking is early-stage, but the groundwork for an effective response needs to start now. Several actions are time-sensitive in the sense that they require institutional knowledge that takes time to build.
Map your digital asset exposure to regulatory perimeters
Before the CFTC's proposed rule is published, firms should categorise their digital asset holdings and those of their clients by the regulatory perimeter most likely to apply: SEC-regulated securities, CFTC-regulated commodities, or currently unregulated assets. This mapping does not need to be definitive; it needs to be documented and defensible. When the proposed rule is published, the mapping becomes the baseline against which compliance gaps are measured.
Review stablecoin accounting policies for scenario sensitivity
If a client's or firm's stablecoin accounting policy assumes that USDC and similar assets are indefinite-lived intangible assets measured at cost (an approach that predates SAB 122), that policy may need updating regardless of the CFTC rulemaking. If it already applies fair value measurement, the question is whether the disclosures adequately address regulatory classification risk. A targeted policy review now reduces the chance of a reactive restatement later.
Engage with the public comment process
When the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published, accounting firms and CFOs have standing to comment on the practical consequences of proposed rules. Comments that speak directly to accounting standards interactions, audit complexity, and compliance cost carry particular weight with agency economists and legal staff. Firms that wait until the comment period closes to form a view will have missed the primary opportunity to shape the final rule.
Source: CoinDesk Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the CFTC actually submit to the White House?
The CFTC sent a crypto market-structure proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget for an economic and policy review. The contents have not been made public. It is not yet known which assets or market participants would be covered, what compliance obligations would apply, or how the CFTC is framing the boundaries of its authority.
How does this affect stablecoin accounting right now?
In the short term, it does not change the accounting treatment directly. Entities should continue applying fair value measurement under ASC 350-60 or the relevant IFRS standards. However, if the final rule classifies certain stablecoins within the CFTC's commodity perimeter, that classification could affect scope assessments and disclosure requirements. Firms should document their current policy rationale so that any future adjustment is clearly traceable.
What is the no-action letter for software providers and does it affect our crypto accounting software?
The CFTC's no-action letter gives certain passive software providers a route to connect users to regulated derivatives markets without registering as introducing brokers. It applies to tools that display markets and pass orders to registered firms, including some crypto wallet interfaces. If your digital asset accounting software or bookkeeping platform routes orders to a CFTC-regulated derivatives market, you should confirm with the vendor whether they are operating under this relief and whether all attached conditions are being met.
When will the CFTC's crypto rule take effect?
The OMB review is the current stage. After that, the CFTC must vote to issue a proposed rule, open a public comment period, and then vote again to finalise it. Given the complexity of the subject matter and the volume of comment likely to be received, a final effective rule before late 2027 would be optimistic. Firms should plan for an extended period of regulatory uncertainty.
Can accounting firms submit comments to the CFTC on this rulemaking?
Yes. Once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published in the Federal Register, any person or entity can submit written comments. Comments that address the interaction between proposed regulatory classifications and accounting standards, audit requirements, or reporting obligations are particularly useful to the CFTC's analysis. Firms that want to participate should monitor the Federal Register and the CFTC's official website for the publication date.