A growing bloc of state attorneys general is challenging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's role in overseeing prediction markets, arguing the products resemble gambling more than regulated financial derivatives. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said on June 18 that states are better positioned than a commodities regulator to understand and address the social costs tied to gambling. California's attorney general has made similar points, and both are pressing the view that the CFTC is the wrong agency to police these platforms. The pushback extends well beyond two states. On April 30, a bipartisan coalition of 41 state attorneys general filed formal comments with the CFTC contending that prediction markets operate as de facto sportsbooks. Their central argument: placing money on the outcome of elections or sporting events through these markets is gambling, and gambling oversight has traditionally been handled by states, not a federal derivatives regulator. The attorneys general also frame the dispute as practical, not just legal. They argue the CFTC lacks the infrastructure, expertise and mandate to handle gambling addiction, bettor-focused consumer protections and broader social harms that can accompany expanded access to wagering. The debate has intensified into active litigation in Minnesota. The state enacted a law in May 2026 that effectively banned prediction market operations within its borders. On May 19, the CFTC sued Minnesota, asserting the state law is preempted by federal authority because the agency has approved and regulates the relevant contracts. Minnesota's position is that if the platforms function like sportsbooks, they fall under the state's long-established power to regulate gambling. Ellison's June 18 remarks are widely seen as a direct rebuttal to the CFTC's lawsuit. For prediction market operators and traders, the stakes are high. Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket have built their regulatory strategy on treating prediction contracts as legitimate financial products under CFTC oversight, rather than gambling subject to state-by-state rules. If states succeed in reclassifying these markets under gambling law, platforms could face an existential shift: compliance would move from one federal regulator to dozens of state frameworks, many of which may not offer a clear licensing path for this type of product. Critics also say the current structure allows some platforms to sidestep state-level consumer protections and tax obligations that typically apply to traditional gambling.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is moving into territory it has long steered clear of: setting expectations for how large electricity consumers connect to the power grid. On June 18, the agency issued show-cause orders to the six regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, requiring them to defend existing interconnection tariffs for large loads or rewrite them. The orders target facilities such as AI data centers and manufacturing plants seeking more than 20 megawatts of demand. FERC noted that 20 MW can serve roughly 15,000 homes, while a single large AI data center can require hundreds of megawatts. Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act, FERC directed the orders to PJM, MISO, SPP, CAISO, ISO New England (ISONE), and NYISO, effectively covering the main organized wholesale power markets in the US. The schedule is tight by regulatory standards: each operator must submit a capacity-status report within 30 days and provide full integration reform plans within 60 days. FERC Chair Laura Swett called the action a historic modernization of electricity markets. The commission approved the orders unanimously. A central feature is cost responsibility. Large energy users will be required to pay the full cost of interconnection-related upgrades, a structure designed to keep residential customers from subsidizing the infrastructure needed to serve a major new load. FERC linked the initiative to an Oct. 23, 2025 directive from US Energy Secretary Chris Wright urging faster interconnection processes for high-demand loads. The commission's orders translate that policy push into enforceable requirements. Interconnection for large loads can take 5 to 10 years or more. Historically, FERC's interconnection policy has focused on generation—how power plants connect to sell electricity—while the rules for large customers connecting to buy electricity have largely been left to states and regional operators. The new approach introduces options such as flexible and curtailable load structures, which could allow faster hookups if customers agree to reduce consumption during peak-demand periods. Swett framed the objective as balancing innovation, reliability, and affordability. The orders do not mention cryptocurrency mining or digital assets. The emphasis is on AI-driven demand growth and manufacturing reshoring. Many Bitcoin mining sites exceed the 20 MW threshold, but Texas' ERCOT grid is not among the six operators covered. Even so, miners in PJM's eastern footprint or across MISO's Midwest territory could gain new routes to interconnection. Curtailable load provisions may be especially relevant for Bitcoin miners, which have already shown they will curtail during system stress in exchange for better power pricing. If the reforms standardize these arrangements federally, miners and other large users may have a clearer framework for negotiating grid access.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has secured a final court order against Alex Mashinsky, the founder and former CEO of Celsius, closing the agency's civil enforcement case tied to the crypto lender's collapse. Under a consent order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mashinsky is permanently enjoined from violating certain antifraud provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and is permanently barred from trading in, or registering for activities in, U.S.-regulated commodity markets. The order also prohibits him from serving as a director, employee, officer, or agent of any CFTC-registered entity and covers related eligibility restrictions. The CFTC said the injunction resolves its remaining outstanding claims against Mashinsky. The matter traces back to Celsius's failure. In July 2023, the regulator sued, alleging Mashinsky misled customers about the platform's security, profitability, and regulatory standing. The complaint alleged Celsius pooled customer crypto and pursued increasingly risky strategies while continuing to assure users their funds were safe. The CFTC said Celsius ultimately took in about $20 billion in customer assets before filing for bankruptcy. Mashinsky's parallel criminal case has already been decided. He pleaded guilty in December 2024 to one count of commodities fraud and one count of securities fraud. In May 2025, a court sentenced him to 12 years in prison, imposed a $50,000 fine, and ordered the forfeiture of roughly $48.4 million. With the civil case now concluded, a key piece of regulatory accountability tied to Celsius's collapse has been finalized.

Five U.S. financial regulators have jointly proposed new customer identification requirements for issuers of payment stablecoins. The proposal would align stablecoin issuers with existing bank customer-ID standards and is framed as part of the GENIUS Act's anti-money-laundering framework.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has resolved its enforcement action against Alex Mashinsky, the founder of Celsius. Under the settlement, Mashinsky is permanently barred from trading and from registering with the agency.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) said it has finalized its enforcement case against Alex Mashinsky, the former chief executive of crypto lender Celsius, securing a permanent injunction that bars him from CFTC registration and from participating in any commodity-related activities under the agency's jurisdiction. In its announcement, the CFTC said the settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and approved by a judge on Thursday. The order does not add new monetary penalties, focusing instead on an industry ban at the regulatory level. Mashinsky has already pleaded guilty in a related criminal matter and was sentenced to 12 years in prison for fraud. He was also fined $50,000 and ordered to repay $48 million. The CFTC alleged Mashinsky and Celsius misled hundreds of thousands of customers through a fraudulent scheme, including claims about the platform's safety, profitability and compliance. Regulators said that as the crypto sector unraveled in 2022, Celsius continued to tell customers their assets were secure and earning sustainable returns despite mounting losses. Celsius later became one of the high-profile firms to fail during the 2022 cryptocurrency market crisis. With the settlement approved, the CFTC's regulatory case is largely closed, underscoring U.S. authorities' continued focus on holding crypto executives accountable for disclosure obligations.

US financial regulators have proposed new rules under the GENIUS Act that would require stablecoin issuers to adopt customer identity verification practices similar to those banks follow under federal law. The plan is designed to strengthen Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) safeguards across the stablecoin sector. A joint notice of proposed rulemaking from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), National Credit Union Administration, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) would require issuers to run customer identification programs for people seeking to "open an account." Those programs would include verifying identity, keeping associated records, and screening whether an individual is suspected of terrorist ties. The agencies said the proposal is part of implementing the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law in July 2025. The notice was released Thursday and is expected to be filed for publication in the Federal Register, triggering a formal public comment process. At the core is an approach modeled on the Bank Secrecy Act framework, which sets minimum standards for regulated financial institutions to identify customers, retain documentation, and assess possible connections to terrorism or terrorist organizations. For stablecoin issuers, regulators are signaling that onboarding and verification processes should increasingly resemble traditional financial onboarding from an AML/CFT standpoint, even if stablecoin issuance and transfers operate differently than banks. Regulators' focus reflects GENIUS' broader aim to establish a clearer compliance pathway for stablecoin activity in the US, starting with "know your customer" controls that support ongoing monitoring and reporting. The identity and recordkeeping requirements could reshape onboarding workflows, documentation obligations, data retention practices, and audit readiness. The proposal follows other GENIUS-related actions. Treasury has already put forward AML and CFT measures tied to illicit finance, and earlier FDIC guidance indicated that insurance coverage for corporate deposits held by stablecoin issuers would not extend to stablecoin holders, highlighting that agencies are using multiple policy tools rather than a single unified framework. The agencies set a 60-day public comment period beginning after the rule is filed in the Federal Register on Monday. Stakeholders are expected to weigh in on the scope of identity verification, the operational burden on issuers, and the compliance timeline. GENIUS implementation is expected to take effect 18 months after passage, or within 120 days after final regulations are issued, whichever occurs first. That schedule could push issuers to start planning even while the rules remain open for comment, especially if systems need to be redesigned to support customer identification and documentation. As stablecoin rulemaking advances, broader crypto legislation remains unsettled. Congress is still debating the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal intended to reshape how agencies define and enforce crypto rules. Prior reporting suggested some in the White House and Congress expected movement before the August recess, but Democratic concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving lawmakers and elected officials could slow progress. Market participants will be watching for the Federal Register filing and how final requirements define verification and recordkeeping in real-world onboarding. Investors are also tracking whether CLARITY advances, since overlapping regulatory frameworks could influence how stablecoins and other digital assets are governed in the coming years.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have issued a joint request for public comment aimed at clarifying and harmonizing derivatives product definitions and the agencies' respective jurisdictional frameworks.

US financial regulators have released a proposal that would require stablecoin issuers to adopt customer identification practices similar to those used by banks under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), tightening expectations around onboarding, account access, record retention, and sanctions- and terrorism-related screening. The initiative is framed as part of the implementation of the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin-focused law enacted in July 2025. The proposal will be open for public comment for 60 days after it is formally filed in the Federal Register. Agencies behind the proposal include the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). In the notice, they propose treating stablecoin issuers as regulated financial institutions for purposes of verifying customer identity. The GENIUS Act is expected to take effect 18 months after enactment, or 120 days after federal authorities finalize implementing regulations, depending on the timing of the rulemaking process. Regulators describe the customer identification rule as a way to meet Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) requirements under GENIUS. Under the BSA baseline cited by regulators, covered institutions are generally expected to verify the identity of a person seeking to open an account, retain identity information, and apply risk-based determinations, including whether the person may be linked to terrorism or terrorist organizations. For stablecoin issuers, mapping these standards to token-based distribution models raises practical questions, including how to define "customer" and "account" in different business structures, and how to govern identity-data retention, access controls, and audit trails. The proposal also brings into focus operational accountability: which party performs verification (the issuer versus intermediaries), what constitutes sufficient information to "verify" identity, and how records are documented and preserved to support supervisory exams and investigations. While many stablecoin providers and partners already operate onboarding and monitoring programs, the rule would more explicitly anchor identity verification within the same supervisory logic applied to traditional BSA-covered institutions. The customer identification proposal arrives alongside other GENIUS-related activity. Treasury has previously floated GENIUS proposals aimed at illicit-finance risks involving stablecoins. The FDIC has also signaled views on how deposit insurance could apply in limited cases to certain corporate deposits of stablecoin issuers, while not automatically extending that protection to holders. That distinction underscores regulators' broader effort to define how stablecoin activity fits into consumer protection and prudential frameworks. Beyond GENIUS, broader US crypto legislation remains unsettled. The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which would reshape agency roles and enforcement in digital assets, still lacks a firm timeline. Reports suggest some market participants expect movement by the August recess, though political objections remain, including Democratic concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving lawmakers and elected officials. For regulated firms, the takeaway is that GENIUS-specific requirements for stablecoins are advancing even as wider crypto oversight remains in flux. Stablecoin issuers and their compliance teams may need to plan for incremental updates as agencies finalize rules, issue guidance, and Congress debates broader frameworks.