CFTC Broadens No-Action Relief for Crypto Wallet Interfaces, Leaves Tornado Cash Developers Uncovered

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has expanded regulatory relief for software providers that connect users to CFTC-regulated derivatives markets. The move could make it easier for crypto wallets to offer access to products such as perpetual futures and event contracts without registering as introducing brokers. The relief, though, does not extend to developers facing criminal allegations like those tied to the Tornado Cash case. CFTC extends earlier Phantom relief On September 17, the CFTC's Market Participants Division issued a new no-action position that builds on relief previously granted to crypto wallet provider Phantom in March. Under the updated approach, other qualifying software firms can rely on the same position without seeking individual permission. In practice, a wallet could add a section that lets users view and trade regulated derivatives. The software provider may promote the feature, route customers to a specific registered firm, and receive a portion of trading-related revenue. The key condition is that the provider remains an interface—not a trading venue—and users execute trades only on CFTC-registered exchanges. Any intermediaries involved must be CFTC-registered, and customer funds must stay with regulated entities rather than the software provider. The no-action stance also draws clear boundaries: the provider cannot control customer assets, determine execution, or send buy/sell signals. Firms relying on the relief would still be expected to make disclosures, keep records, and submit to CFTC oversight. Why it does not shield Tornado Cash developers The letter adds to the broader debate over when software developers may be treated as financial intermediaries. It indicates that simply providing access to financial products—without taking custody of money or actively participating in trading—can fall short of brokerage activity. Its legal scope remains limited. The CFTC's position relates to registration obligations under derivatives law and does not bind the Department of Justice or alter other federal statutes governing money transmission, sanctions, or money laundering. Roman Storm's prosecution, for example, stems from allegations tied to operating a crypto-mixing service rather than from providing a passive interface to a registered derivatives firm. Looking ahead, defendants may point to the distinction between passive software and an active intermediary. That argument would be potentially persuasive but not controlling for courts, and would depend on facts such as the developer's lack of custody over funds and a non-participatory role in transactions. Summary Eligible software providers can connect users to regulated derivatives markets without registering as brokers solely for offering an interface. The relief does not protect developers from exposure to money-transmission, sanctions, or money-laundering allegations.