CFTC Partners With SEC on Crypto Rules After CLARITY Vote Fails

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is signaling that it will move ahead with a more structured regulatory approach to crypto exchanges even if Congress does not pass new legislation. CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency will act “with or without legislation,” pointing to proposals that would give certain crypto platforms a clearer pathway to operate under the CFTC’s national oversight.

Speaking at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium on Monday, Selig outlined a framework designed to reduce reliance on inconsistent state-by-state rules for some crypto trading products—while drawing a line between leveraged and margined offerings and “ordinary spot” exchanges.

Key takeaways

• CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency plans to advance crypto rules using existing statutory authority, regardless of whether Congress passes new measures.
• Proposed rules would create a new CFTC category, a “crypto asset market” (CAM), allowing eligible exchanges to register as a designated contract market under a uniform framework.
• The CFTC’s “CTX” concept targets firms offering retail customers the ability to trade crypto assets on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis.
• Spot crypto exchanges—described by Selig as generally governed under state money transmission laws—would not fall under the new CAM approach, though the CFTC would retain anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority.
• The renewed push comes after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.

A national pathway for certain crypto trading venues

Selig’s comments focused on proposals intended to bring more uniformity to how the CFTC regulates particular crypto activities. According to the remarks delivered at the Fordham event, the CFTC has issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking covering companies “offering retail customers the ability to trade crypto assets on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis,” which Selig characterized as “CTX.”

The core idea is to offer companies an alternative to what Selig described as a “patchwork” of requirements across U.S. states. For market participants, the appeal of a federal lane is straightforward: clearer compliance expectations can reduce legal uncertainty and operational friction, particularly for exchanges dealing with retail access to more complex trading structures.

Selig also said the CFTC intends to establish a designated contract market (DCM) category known as a “crypto asset market,” or CAM. Under this framework, eligible exchanges could choose to register as either CAMs or under other appropriate DCM pathways.

How the CFTC distinguishes leveraged crypto from spot trading

Not all crypto exchanges would be covered by the new proposal. Selig said the rules would not extend to what he called “ordinary spot crypto exchanges,” which he described as “generally regulated under state money transmission laws.”

That distinction matters for compliance planning. It implies that firms offering spot trading—such as trading pairs where users typically hold or transfer assets without a leveraged or margined structure—may still face a regulatory environment dominated by state-level money transmission rules.

However, Selig emphasized that the CFTC would continue to have authority to enforce anti-fraud and anti-manipulation requirements for spot markets. In practical terms, this suggests that even where the CAM pathway does not apply, the enforcement risk associated with market integrity remains.

Why the timing is shaped by Congress—and by executive action

Selig’s push for regulatory structure follows a difficult moment on Capitol Hill. A few weeks earlier, lawmakers in the U.S. Senate failed to approve the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bill that had been expected to expand clarity over crypto oversight and enforcement. The lack of legislative movement has raised the stakes for agencies hoping to build a coherent framework without new statutory mandates.

Earlier, the Securities and Exchange Commission had announced a “tailored securities offering regime” for crypto assets. This SEC proposal was made public in August, before the CLARITY vote failed, reinforcing the expectation that both agencies would proceed through their existing authority rather than waiting for Congress to codify a new baseline.

In Selig’s remarks, the message was direct: Trump, according to Selig, promised a crypto asset regulatory market structure “with or without legislation,” and regulators would rely on existing authorities to deliver it.

The operational question: can agencies keep up?

Beyond the policy design, the CFTC’s ability to implement changes may depend on staffing. The article notes that Friday marked the last day of SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce after eight years of service. Her departure leaves only two commissioners leading the SEC, and at the CFTC, Selig is described as the sole commissioner and chair.

A White House official told Cointelegraph last week that Trump intended to nominate commissioners to both agencies “in the near future,” but as of Monday the administration had not announced replacements for Peirce or other commissioner seats. For market participants, limited staffing can translate into slower rulemaking, delayed enforcement prioritization, and fewer internal resources for complex market oversight—factors that can influence how quickly any new regulatory pathway becomes operational.

At the same time, Selig’s comments point to an approach that attempts to keep momentum despite these constraints. By using advanced notices of proposed rulemaking and existing legal authorities, the CFTC can begin shaping expectations for market structures even as leadership and capacity remain in flux.

Investors and builders should watch whether the CFTC’s advanced notice on “CTX” and the planned “crypto asset market” registration category move from proposal into formal rule text, and how exchanges that serve retail customers assess whether their products fit the margined/leveraged lane or remain classified as “ordinary spot.” Equally important will be whether staffing changes at the SEC and CFTC alter the pace and emphasis of enforcement and implementation.