The lawsuit alleged that Tether froze USDt funds in a Conduit wallet tied to an investigation launched by Brazilian authorities in 2024.

The proposed fund would hold ZEC directly, with Gemini Trust serving as custodian and Winklevoss Capital affiliates eyeing up to a $100 million investment.

The shift to tokenized markets could revolutionize global finance by enhancing liquidity, accessibility, and efficiency for investors worldwide.

The post Chainlink’s Andrew McCormick takes the tokenized markets pitch to TOKEN2049 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Cornell's engagement of Sally Yates may lead to policy reforms and influence legal outcomes, reflecting a shift towards accountability in academia.

The post Cornell taps Sally Yates for review of sexual assault case response appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

TL;DR

• KuCoin Futures has launched stock-index perpetual contracts tracking Nike, Accenture and the Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF.
• The contracts are settled in USDT, trade continuously and support leverage of up to 20x.
• They are synthetic derivatives and do not give traders ownership of the underlying shares or ETF units.

KuCoin is extending its crypto-style perpetual futures market further into traditional equities.

The exchange has launched USDT-margined contracts tracking Nike, Accenture and the Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF, with leverage available from 1x to 20x.

The products use the same broad structure crypto traders already know from perpetual futures, but the reference assets come from conventional securities markets.

The Contracts Track Prices, Not Ownership Rights

KuCoin is explicit that these are synthetic derivatives.

A trader buying NKEUSDT is taking exposure to the price movement of Nike shares. They do not become a Nike shareholder, receive voting rights or take delivery of stock.

The same applies to the Accenture and BWET contracts.

Funding is settled every eight hours, with rates capped at plus or minus 2% under the initial contract parameters.

Trading is available around the clock, even when the underlying U.S. securities market is closed.

Always-On Stock Derivatives Create A Different Market

The 24/7 structure is both the attraction and the complication.

A trader can react to news during evenings and weekends rather than waiting for the cash market to reopen.

But when the underlying equity is not trading, price discovery moves into the derivative itself.

That can create wider gaps between the perpetual and the last official cash-market price, particularly around major news.

Leverage makes those gaps more dangerous.

At 20x, a relatively small move against a position can create a liquidation event long before a long-term investor in the underlying stock would care about the same price change.

KuCoin’s expansion shows how quickly crypto derivatives infrastructure is being repurposed for assets outside crypto.

Perpetual futures began as a native digital-asset product.

They are increasingly becoming an alternative wrapper for trading everything from commodities to equities, with crypto exchanges competing to make traditional markets feel as continuous as Bitcoin.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR

• Crypto.com Exchange has integrated with Insilico Terminal, giving users access to advanced execution tools for spot and derivatives.
• Supported tools include TWAP, scale orders, depth-of-market views, automated sizing and programmable hotkeys.
• The integration does not change the underlying market risk of leveraged or derivatives trading.

Crypto.com is adding a more professional trading interface without forcing users to move their accounts to another venue.

The exchange announced an integration with Insilico Terminal on October 6, allowing users to connect their Crypto.com Exchange account directly to Insilico’s trading platform.

That gives traders access to execution tools usually associated with specialist terminals while keeping the actual account and liquidity on Crypto.com.

The Upgrade Is Mostly About Execution

Insilico supports tools including time-weighted average price orders, scale orders, depth-of-market views, automated sizing, programmable hotkeys and one-click strategies.

Those features matter most to active traders.

A simple market order may be enough for a small position, but larger traders often want to split execution, manage slippage or place orders according to a more structured plan.

The integration effectively separates the exchange from the interface.

Crypto.com provides the account, spot and derivatives markets and settlement infrastructure. Insilico provides a more specialized layer for interacting with them.

Better Tools Do Not Make Leverage Safer

Professional interfaces can improve how a trader executes a strategy.

They do not improve the strategy itself.

That distinction becomes especially important in derivatives, where a sophisticated order type can still lose money quickly if the underlying position is wrong or overleveraged.

The partnership is therefore best understood as infrastructure rather than a promise of better returns.

For Crypto.com, the attraction is clear.

Institutional and high-frequency traders often choose venues based not only on fees and liquidity but also on the quality of APIs and execution tools available around the exchange.

Offering direct access through Insilico gives the platform another way to compete for that flow.

The broader trend is also notable.

Crypto trading is beginning to look more modular, with traders using one venue for liquidity, another piece of software for execution and separate providers for custody or analytics.

Crypto.com and Insilico are leaning into that model rather than assuming every serious trader wants to live entirely inside one exchange interface.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Strategy estimated a $4.1 billion income-tax benefit after Bitcoin's fair value rose above cost as of Sept. 30, according to its Oct. 5 filing. The benefit comes from a lower estimated tax expense through an accounting adjustment.

The filing shows what can change when Bitcoin crosses a large holder’s cost basis. The next consequence depends on the position being measured: a company’s Bitcoin holdings, an ETF’s underlying assets and an investor’s ETF shares each have their own purchase history.

Strategy said it reversed a deferred tax asset related to its Bitcoin and released the associated valuation allowance. These management-prepared financial figures had neither been audited nor reviewed by KPMG.

The estimated benefit concerns the company’s own tax accounts and its September valuation-allowance adjustment.

The company disclosed 848,000 BTC at an average purchase price of $75,440.70, including fees and expenses, as of Oct. 4 at 4 p.m. Eastern time. That later acquisition figure has a separate cutoff from the Sept. 30 accounting comparison.

Fund cost and shareholder break-even are separate

An ETF acquisition estimate measures the fund’s underlying holdings. Maketo estimated the average cost of Bitcoin remaining in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) at $81,188 per BTC as of Oct. 2. Its model reconstructs underlying Bitcoin costs from daily money flows and prices.

An IBIT shareholder buys shares at a market price, so investors entering on different dates can have different break-even prices, even though their shares represent interests in the same pool of Bitcoin. The fund’s estimated acquisition cost measures a different position from each shareholder’s investment.

BlackRock’s Oct. 5 holdings file listed about 806,038 BTC, and its fund page reported nearly $69 billion in net assets and a Bitcoin benchmark level of $85,694.41 that day.

Its June 30 quarterly filing recorded 734,261 BTC with an investment cost of about $61 billion and a fair value of about $43.4 billion. That historical comparison places the same holdings below cost at the same cutoff.

IBIT calculates realized gains and losses on Bitcoin disposals using average cost, and the June filing records substantial activity in both directions. During the six months ended June 30, the Trust acquired 157,501 BTC and disposed of 192,970 BTC for share redemptions. Those categories include in-kind transfers.

Testing whether redemptions accelerated below cost requires daily flows, prices and cost estimates aligned to the same dates. The first-half totals leave the timing of trades relative to cost crossings, and investors’ motives, unresolved.

How a shareholder exit reaches Bitcoin

An investor can sell ETF shares in the secondary market. Redemption with IBIT is a separate transaction: only authorized participants can create or redeem baskets directly with the Trust.

IBIT’s prospectus distinguishes cash redemptions from redemptions in Bitcoin. With a cash redemption, the Trust converts underlying Bitcoin into cash, while an in-kind redemption delivers Bitcoin.

Share trading, cash redemptions and Bitcoin transfers describe different steps. The fund’s acquisition cost alone leaves those steps and the recipient’s subsequent decisions unmeasured.

US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows of $89.8 million on Oct. 5, while Farside Investors’ data show that BlackRock’s fund recorded inflows in that same session.

That split captures a day of different flow directions across funds. Establishing whether cost-basis crossings influence those decisions requires comparing flows before and after the crossings over a longer period.

Crossing cost changes the gain-or-loss comparison on the underlying position, and Strategy’s filing demonstrates a material tax-accounting consequence.

Actual creations, redemptions, and the handling of redeemed Bitcoin are the next signals to watch for market impact. A shared price level, on its own, leaves the identity and motivation of the next buyer or seller unresolved.

The post Bitcoin rally delivers $4.1 billion tax windfall for Strategy appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The US services prices gauge reached a four-year high in September even as growth slowed, a combination that could keep leveraged Bitcoin positions exposed to restrictive financing conditions. The October 5 survey pairs softer activity with more widespread reports of rising input costs.

The Institute for Supply Management's services report, issued on its October 5 release date, put the prices index at 74.0, up from 72.6 in August. That was its highest reading since July 2022, when it reached 74.5.

The headline services PMI eased to 54.9 from 55.4, while business activity dropped to 56.5 from 61.7. Both remained above the 50 expansion threshold. Employment moved the other way, rising from 47.8 to 50.1 and returning to slight expansion after two months of contraction.

Growth therefore lost momentum while reported input-cost increases became more widespread. ISM's prices gauge is a diffusion index describing the direction and breadth of monthly input-cost changes across survey respondents. Its 74.0 reading provides no estimate of the size of price increases and cannot be read as a consumer-inflation rate.

Why the rates risk persists for Bitcoin

Fed Vice Chair Philip Jefferson said on October 1 that inflation risks tilted upward. He also described September's quarter-point increase in the federal funds target range to 3.75%-4.00% and said future adjustments should depend on the data, outlook and balance of risks.

His remarks preceded the services release. The survey adds cost-pressure evidence to a policy debate already underway. Slower expansion gives investors one part of the picture; rising input-cost pressure keeps the prospect of rate relief uncertain.

For leveraged Bitcoin exposure, the concern is how that uncertainty affects financing and willingness to take risk. If persistent costs make rate relief less likely and investors become more cautious, financing-sensitive positions could face pressure. Leverage would magnify a trader's losses from an adverse price move: the CFTC explains that margined virtual-currency futures traders can be forced to replenish collateral or close positions when markets move against them.

The Fed's policy rate and perpetual-futures funding operate differently. Coinbase's documentation describes funding as payments between long and short positions that help align perpetual prices with spot prices. Bitcoin perpetual funding needs its own market observation; it cannot be inferred from the federal funds target.

Historical evidence also cautions against treating the price connection as automatic. A February 2023 New York Fed study using intraday data found Bitcoin largely disconnected from monetary and macroeconomic news in its sample.

Bitcoin traded near $85,580 on CryptoSlate's October 6 page, down 0.04% over 24 hours. That rolling change cannot identify a reaction to the ISM release.

The funding-risk case would strengthen if adverse policy or yield repricing coincided with weaker leveraged demand. Easing cost pressure, stable rate expectations or stronger buying without leverage would weaken it. Slower services expansion alone offers little assurance of relief for leveraged Bitcoin positions; the effect on their financing still needs evidence from markets.

The post US services price gauge hits a four-year high, clouding Bitcoin’s rate-relief outlook appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Hyperliquid has confirmed it is registered in Singapore, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday. Yet Singapore’s financial regulator reportedly does not see the platform as within its jurisdiction.

That regulator is the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the city-state’s central bank. Based on the report, the biggest concern is that Hyperliquid is decentralized.

Hyperliquid’s Team Lives in Singapore, but Holds No Licence

Its team of about 11 people, led by co-founder Jeff Yan, moved to Singapore in 2024. It never applied for an MAS licence.

On June 26, MAS added Hyperliquid to Singapore’s crypto warning list. The list flags firms that the public might wrongly assume MAS regulates.

The entry is a warning, not a ban. Hyperliquid replied that it is permissionless infrastructure, and that users keep control of their own funds.

Kyle Samani, chairman of Forward Industries, criticized its permissionless claims days later.

“Hyperliquid is not permissionless. Stop gaslighting the public,” he said.

Singapore Already Forced Out Several Crypto Firms

MAS has already shut one door for local crypto firms. It set a June 30, 2025 deadline for local firms serving only overseas clients to get licensed or stop.

It also said it would generally not grant those licences. The rules target activities such as running an exchange, brokering trades, and holding customer assets, according to law firm CMS.

Hyperliquid, by contrast, says trades settle on-chain while users hold their own funds. According to the FT, that decentralized design is why MAS does not claim the platform.

Meanwhile, Hyperliquid’s HYPE token trades at $91.64, down 3% in 24 hours. However, the altcoins market value has continued to climb despite the MAS alert issued in June.

In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is seeking comment on new crypto trading rules. It cites the $8 billion FTX fraud as its reason to act early.

The post Hyperliquid Calls Singapore Home — But Does It Have a License? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Attackers stole approximately $387.5 million from Bitget on September 24 by manipulating its internal withdrawal process. According to Chainalysis, the attack was carried out by North Korean hackers. 

So, is Bitget now safe to use? What if the next hack is bigger? And what security measures are the exchange taking? BeInCrypto sat down with the exchange’s CEO, Gracy Chen, to answer these questions. 

Latest Updates on the Bitget Hack

As of October 6, the exchange has reopened withdrawals, while investigators continue tracing the stolen funds:

• Withdrawals: Bitget says its phased reopening finished on October 2.
• Frozen funds: Its tracker lists approximately $1.07 million frozen, about 0.28% of the loss. The amount actually returned remains undisclosed.
• Attribution: Chainalysis now attributes the theft to North Korean actors. 
• Investigation: The affected third-party security vendors remain unnamed publicly. 

In an exclusive BeInCrypto interview recorded before withdrawals fully resumed, CEO Gracy Chen defended Bitget’s financial position. She also acknowledged gaps in its understanding of the attack.

If another hack exceeded the protection fund, could Bitget cover it?

Chen said Bitget had replenished its protection fund above $300 million after using bitcoin from it to meet withdrawals. She considered that threshold sufficient for now, despite the latest theft exceeding it.

She said the company also held more than $1 billion in capital outside the fund.

“I can’t tell you the exact number, but it’s for sure more than one billion.”

Asked about another loss of several hundred million dollars, she said Bitget could absorb it. The interview did not establish how much of that capital was immediately available.

What has the hack cost Bitget in customers and business?

Chen described the impact on daily operations and profitability as limited. 

A couple of institutional clients withdrew large sums when Bitcoin withdrawals reopened, she said, but customers had since begun returning.

“Just within the last few days, many of them came back already.”

An hour after Ethereum withdrawals reopened, inflows exceeded outflows, according to Chen. She also described strong inflows when USDT withdrawals resumed. 

She provided no figures showing the scale of those deposits or how much withdrawn capital had returned.

How did attackers learn enough about Bitget to build a dedicated withdrawal tool?

Chen said a preliminary internal investigation found no insider involvement. But she could not explain how the attackers acquired their knowledge of Bitget’s systems.

“I actually don’t know. I wish I can ask them and get an answer there.”

She said the investigation remained ongoing and could take longer than Bybit’s because the Bitget incident involved a more complicated set of systems. 

Her response leaves a central question open: how much access did the attackers have before the theft?

Chen said Bitget had conducted an internal investigation and found no evidence of insider involvement at that stage.

“The preliminary investigation so far is telling us there’s no internal sort of involvement.”

What has actually changed to prevent another attack?

Chen described isolating affected systems and resetting internal credentials. She said Bitget had tightened access to sensitive systems and introduced additional approvals for withdrawals.

The exchange was also strengthening checks on outside security products. Chen described the entry point as a previously unknown vulnerability in a third-party product, whose affected functionality had been disabled.

She acknowledged that alerts needed to be interpreted correctly and that monitoring should respond faster.

“No system, no security infrastructure is perfect or impenetrable.”

Should services such as THORChain do more to stop stolen money moving?

Chen rejected the suggestion that THORChain was chiefly responsible for exchange hacks. She said protocols had different technical capabilities and respected their permissionless design.

But she wanted operators to explain what intervention was possible. She pointed to NEAR Intents as an example of action taken where the infrastructure allowed it.

“I’m not blaming THORChain for sure.”

Her position was that exchanges should work with protocols to make laundering harder, while acknowledging responsibility for their own security.

Could exchanges form an alliance against these attacks?

Chen said Bitget had discussed an alliance involving exchanges and major protocols. Those talks were preliminary.

She acknowledged the difficulty of aligning participants’ interests. Sharing useful intelligence would also require companies to disclose more about their internal security.

“You want to share enough information, but not too much information.”

The interview shows how much the response depends on an exchange’s ability to cover losses while investigators pursue the money. It also leaves questions about prevention.

In analysis published after the interview, Certora estimated that roughly $238 million left after Bitget’s initial withdrawal block. That finding puts the next test of Chen’s assurances in focus: whether the new controls can stop forged internal transfers once an alarm sounds.

The post Bitget CEO Talks About the $387 Million Hack. Is the Exchange Safe?  appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Solana Foundation has announced Solana DvP, an open-source escrow program that has been created to offer financial institutions a shared standard for delivery-versus-payment settlement on the Solana blockchain. Released under the MIT license, the program aims to replace bespoke smart contracts with reusable infrastructure for setting assets and payments atomically.

Under this model, both sides of a transaction settle altogether or neither does, helping decrease counterparty and principal risk. Solana DvP has been created to support institutional requirements through isolated escrow, enforced deadlines and compatibility with supported token standards. J.P. Morgan provided input on securities settlement practices as the project was developed. The foundation is now inviting design partners and early participants ahead of the program’s production launch.

How Does Solana DvP Change Institutional Settlement? 

Solana DvP is piloted to tackle a drawback faced by institutions moving financial transactions on-chain. That is, many have depended on bespoke smart contracts rather than a shared settlement standard. The new proposition aims to provide a common approach that institutions and developers can use across the Solana ecosystem. Delivery versus payment is a security settlement mechanism that links the transfer of an asset to the corresponding payment. Both legs of a transaction are completed altogether, reducing the risk that one party transfers an asset without receiving the due payment. 

In conventional markets, settlements can involve clearinghouses, depositories, and custodians across a process that ties up capital for one or two days. Solana DVP aims to compress that process into one atomic transaction with finality in seconds rather than days. The program uses isolated escrow to coordinate both sides of a transaction. If settlement conditions are not met, the transaction does not fulfill as intended. It enforces deadlines, giving counterparties a fixed framework for completing the settlement. Solana Foundation and J.P. Morgan contributed expertise in institutional settlement practices and needs. 

This input helped mold the program around the requirements of the financial institutions. The shared standard is intended to be available for adoption across the wider Solana ecosystem. Catherine Gu, head of product, Digital Assets at Solana Foundation, said, atomic settlement removes counterparty risk that are inherited in conventional finance. She describes Solana DvP as an open standard on public infrastructure that allows settlement finality in a few seconds.

What Features and Institutional Support Does Solana DvP Offer? 

Solana DvP is released under the MIT license and is designed as an open-source program that institutions can use, adapt and build on. It is permissionless, has undergone external security audits and is ready to use with real funds. The program supports SPL Token and Token-2022, including extensions that governed issuers may rely on. These include permanent delegate functionality, pausable tokens and transfer hooks. The support is intended to make the settlement standard suitable for a range of tokenized assets and institutional requirements.

Solana DvP can be used by two counterparties working with a settlement agent, which may be a bank, custodian or exchange. The program is not restricted to a single settlement provider, allowing distinct institutions to work within the same open framework. J.P. Morgan’s contribution focused on institutional securities settlement practices. Rhodel D’souza, Head of Markets Digital Assets at J.P. Morgan said a shared standard for atomic delivery-versus-payment could help institutional market participants operate at scale without introducing settlement risk and counterparty exposure.

Solana Foundation also said it plans to add privacy features to allow private and confidential trade settlements. The foundation is welcoming design partners and early participants ahead of the rollout. The next phase will involve institutions and other participants exploring the program before broader adoption.

Zcash has moved its new big upgrade, NU7, into public testing as developers get prepared for a possible mainnet launch in November. Right now, they are running this upgrade on the testnet to see how it holds up before deciding whether to activate it on Zcash’s main network. By launching the public testnet, developers, infrastructure operators, and others can check out how the changes work before they actually touch real ZEC transactions. The mainnet rollout is set for November 5, but it depends on what they find during testing and a final call scheduled for October 20.

Faster Blocks are at the Centre of NU7

The biggest change in NU7 is the plan to cut Zcash’s block interval from 75 seconds to 25 seconds. Since blocks contain groups of transactions, making them more often should cut down the time people wait for their transactions to go through. This faster timing helps exchanges, wallets, and merchants. Basically, payments or deposits show up sooner, so users and businesses can process transactions more easily.

They are not just rolling this out live; they are testing it on the public testnet first. This gives developers a chance to spot problems and see how everything works in real-world conditions before heading to the mainnet. So the testnet phase is pretty important for NU7. Developers will use the results to decide if the changes are ready for Zcash’s main network.

Fee Changes and the End of the Older Sprout System

NU7 also changes how transaction fees get distributed. After the upgrade, 60% of fees will go to a reserve for future mining rewards. The rest still goes to miners. Plus, they are lowering the block reward. This keeps ZEC coin’s release schedule intact, even though blocks are coming more often. So, quicker blocks would not mean more new ZEC getting created.

Another big part of NU7 is shutting down the old Sprout privacy system and Version 4 transactions. Sprout is Zcash’s original privacy technology, and once NU7 is activated, coins held in Sprout would not work through that system anymore. Anyone affected needs to move their funds to a different address before the upgrade. That means the change matters not just for developers and operators, but also for anyone holding coins in the old Sprout system.

October 20 Decision Will Shape the Mainnet Rollout

Right now, the public testnet is what developers are focusing on. The Zcash team plans to check the results and make the final decision on October 20. That is when they will decide if NU7 heads to mainnet, and if yes, which block height to use for the activation. The target launch date for mainnet is November 5.

So, at this point, the upgrade is being tested and reviewed; it is not official yet. Developers have a few weeks to see how the new rules perform and make sure the network is ready. For Zcash, the testnet phase is a checkpoint. It is where they try out the 25-second block time, the new fee system, and the end of Sprout transactions in real conditions. Nothing moves to the mainnet until they are sure everything works.

TL;DR

• Fairshake has named 32 U.S. House candidates it plans to support ahead of the November midterms.
• Six races are receiving $1 million in outside spending each, for an initial disclosed commitment of $6 million.
• The slate is bipartisan, with 19 Republicans and 13 Democrats, and the money is spent independently rather than handed directly to candidates.

Crypto’s largest political spending network is moving into the general election with a broad House campaign.

Fairshake has identified 32 incumbent candidates it plans to support, split between 19 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Six of those races are receiving an initial $1 million each in independent spending, putting at least $6 million behind the first wave of the campaign.

The Selection Is Closely Tied To Crypto Policy

The six $1 million commitments are divided evenly between the two parties.

Fairshake is backing Democrats Janelle Bynum, Steven Horsford and Derek Tran, alongside Republicans French Hill, Bill Huizenga and Bryan Steil.

The wider slate is similarly bipartisan.

What connects the candidates is not party affiliation so much as their record on digital-asset legislation. The 32 lawmakers backed the House CLARITY market-structure bill, which has been a central priority for the crypto industry.

That gives Fairshake a relatively straightforward objective: protect lawmakers who supported the regulatory framework the sector wants to advance.

Independent Spending Is Not A Direct Candidate Donation

The mechanics matter.

Fairshake operates as a super PAC, so its spending is made independently rather than transferred directly into campaign accounts.

That money can fund advertising and other election activity supporting or opposing candidates, but it is not the same thing as a candidate receiving a $1 million cheque.

The scale nevertheless shows how deeply crypto policy has become tied to electoral strategy.

Major industry participants have put substantial money into Fairshake and related groups because congressional votes can determine whether market-structure, stablecoin and securities legislation moves forward.

The election result will be only the first test.

The second is whether a pro-crypto bloc that survives November can actually turn political support into legislation once the next Congress gets to work.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR

• CFTC staff has issued temporary no-action relief allowing designated contract markets to convert certain broad-based security index futures into true perpetual contracts.
• Exchanges can remove expiration dates if they meet customer-protection, notice and filing conditions.
• The relief is narrow, applies to existing qualifying contracts and expires on October 20.

The U.S. derivatives market is taking another step toward a contract structure crypto traders know well: the true perpetual future.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Division of Market Oversight said on October 5 that designated contract markets can convert certain existing perpetual-style broad-based security index futures into contracts with no expiration date.

The relief is temporary and conditional, but it is still a notable shift in how U.S.-regulated venues can structure perpetual exposure.

Exchanges Cannot Simply Delete The Expiry Date

The no-action position comes with several safeguards.

A designated contract market must solicit feedback from participants holding open positions, provide advance notice, give customers an opportunity to exit and deliver appropriate risk disclosures.

The exchange also cannot use the conversion as an excuse to alter other material contract terms.

Any amendment still needs to be filed under the CFTC’s existing rules, and the venue must certify that it has satisfied the conditions in the letter.

That is a long way from saying every U.S. futures exchange can now list any perpetual product it wants.

Crypto Popularized The Structure, But This Relief Covers Index Futures

Perpetual futures became a defining product of offshore crypto markets because they provide leveraged exposure without a fixed expiration date.

The contracts covered by this CFTC action are different: they reference broad-based security indexes.

Even so, the regulatory direction is interesting.

Earlier this year, CFTC staff also provided a route for converting certain digital-commodity perpetual-style futures into true perpetuals. Extending the same concept into index products suggests the agency is becoming more comfortable with the structure itself.

The relief lasts only until October 20, which makes it more of a controlled window than a permanent policy settlement.

Still, regulated U.S. exchanges now have a path to test true perpetual index futures under explicit customer-protection conditions.

That brings a contract design closely associated with crypto one step further into mainstream derivatives infrastructure.

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.