CFTC主席摊牌：下一站，加密、算力市场与预测市场

Written & Compiled by KarenZ, Foresight News

More than a hundred years ago, when futures trading was just emerging, it was also called "gambling" by American politicians.

Now, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig has brought this history back to the table.

On August 20, local time in the US, at the first meeting of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC), Selig spent a considerable portion of his remarks revisiting the history of the futures market: commodity exchanges in the 19th century faced obstruction from state "anti-gambling" laws, and commodity options were also restricted for a long time. But ultimately, the US chose to establish a unified federal regulatory framework, allowing new financial products to develop under clear rules.

Selig's point is not complicated: the current debates surrounding Crypto, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets, in his view, are not entirely new. The real question regulators need to answer is not just "whether to allow innovation," but how to bring innovation into a market framework that can be regulated.

Therefore, at this meeting, Selig unveiled for the first time his comprehensive so-called "Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance."

The roadmap has three main tracks: Crypto, the AI computing power market, and prediction markets.

Among these, the signal with the greatest impact on the crypto industry is this: Selig still views Congressional passage of crypto market structure legislation as the preferred path, but he also clearly stated that if such legislation continues to stall, the CFTC is prepared to study establishing a crypto asset market regulatory framework using its existing legal authority.

Track One: If CLARITY Continues to Stall, CFTC Prepares to Act with Existing Authority First

Crypto is the part of this speech with the strongest policy signals.

Selig first reiterated Project Crypto, which the CFTC and SEC are jointly advancing.

In January of this year, the SEC and CFTC upgraded Project Crypto, previously driven by the SEC, into a joint effort between the two regulators, hoping to resolve a core issue that has long plagued the US crypto industry: which Crypto Assets are securities, which are not, and where the regulatory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC lie.

By March of this year, the two agencies further issued a joint interpretative document, classifying Crypto Assets into five categories based on characteristics and functions: Digital Commodities, Digital Collectibles, Digital Tools, Stablecoins, and Digital Securities. The document explicitly discusses situations where certain Crypto Assets are not securities, as well as how activities such as Protocol Mining, Protocol Staking, Wrapping, and Airdrops are treated under federal securities laws.

However, for Selig, explanations from administrative agencies are not enough.

In his remarks, he still regarded Congressional passage of crypto asset market structure legislation as the more important and more durable solution, explicitly mentioning the CLARITY Act.

One of the core significances of the CLARITY Act is to further delineate the regulatory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC over the digital asset market through legislation, and to establish a statutory regulatory framework for related markets.

What is truly noteworthy is the "Plan B" Selig provided afterwards.

He said that if CLARITY ultimately continues to stall, the CFTC will use its existing authority to begin establishing a regulatory framework for the Crypto Asset market. To this end, he has instructed CFTC staff to begin researching rulemaking proposals.

According to Selig's described vision, this framework could potentially allow existing CFTC registrants, as well as currently unregistered Crypto Exchanges, to be designated by the CFTC as a special type of Designated Contract Market (DCM), termed a "Crypto Asset Market."

These markets could then offer trading in Crypto Assets with leverage or margin under CFTC oversight and specially designed rules.

The word "could" here is very important. Selig's exact words were that staff have begun exploring rules, and that the relevant framework could enable such arrangements. Therefore, this cannot yet be interpreted as "the CFTC has approved Crypto Exchanges transitioning to DCMs," nor as an effective market access system.

Additionally, Selig disclosed another effort worth attention from the DeFi industry: he has instructed CFTC staff to communicate directly with developers of Onchain Finance Protocols to study how developers can offer related protocols in a legal and compliant manner within the US.

This also does not provide specific exemption standards or regulatory conditions, but it at least indicates that when the CFTC discusses crypto regulation next, the scope is not limited to centralized trading venues like Coinbase and Kraken. Onchain finance protocol developers have also been included in the discussions on designing the regulatory framework.

Track Two: Turning GPU Computing Power into a Market That Can Be Priced and Hedged

Compared to Crypto, Selig's approach to AI is quite different.

The CFTC is not responsible for regulating AI models themselves. What Selig is targeting is another asset behind AI: Compute, i.e., computing power.

As the demand for high-performance GPUs in large model training and inference continues to grow, computing power has become one of the most important factors of production for AI companies.

Selig's assessment is that as computing power becomes scarcer and more economically valuable, the demand for establishing spot, forward, and derivatives markets around it will also emerge.

In simple terms: companies purchasing computing power today often face issues of price volatility, long-term supply, and resource allocation; if a more mature and transparent Compute Market forms in the future, it could achieve price discovery like energy or other commodity markets, while also enabling risk management through forwards and derivatives.

Selig stated that the CFTC has already partnered with the US Department of Commerce and, a week before this speech, issued a request for comment regarding Compute Markets. The next step will be to study the relevant regulatory framework based on market feedback.

This means that the CFTC's so-called "AI regulation," at least for now, does not equate to regulating large models themselves. For a derivatives regulator, the more direct entry point is: when computing power becomes a priceable, tradable, and hedgeable economic resource, how should the corresponding financial markets operate?

Track Three: Prediction Markets Are No Longer Just About "Whether They Can Be Done," CFTC Begins Discussing "How They Should Be Regulated"

With the rapid development of platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi, a long-standing issue has become increasingly acute: do event contracts covering sports, politics, etc., fall under federally regulated commodity derivatives, or should they be subject to state gambling regulations?

Selig's stance in this speech was very clear.

His position is that Congress has granted the CFTC exclusive regulatory authority over commodity derivatives on Designated Contract Markets (DCMs); as long as they are legitimate derivatives, the CFTC will continue to uphold this federal regulatory authority, including defending its jurisdiction in court.

However, he also acknowledged that the CFTC has historically never established a sufficiently complete regulatory system for event contracts that addresses their specific risks.

Notably, Selig did not simply summarize the path for prediction markets as "opening up." Instead, he laid out a fairly specific regulatory work plan in his speech.

First, the CFTC has proposed amending Rule 40.11.

US law allows the CFTC to restrict Event Contracts involving specific categories like war, terrorism, assassination, gambling, and illegal activities based on the public interest. However, current regulations do not adequately define key concepts like "gaming" or "involve," nor do they establish a complete standard for assessing the public interest.

Selig stated that the new Rule 40.11 proposed by the CFTC in June of this year aims to make these standards more specific and establish a contract-by-contract review mechanism.

Second, the CFTC has proposed redesigning the data reporting regime for fully collateralized event contracts. In the past, some event contracts have long relied on regulatory "no-action letters" to handle reporting obligations. In June of this year, the CFTC proposed a new regulatory plan, hoping to turn this temporary arrangement into a formal, unified reporting system.

Third, and a step more worthy of attention in the next phase: Selig stated he expects the CFTC to soon propose a series of amendments to CFTC Regulations Part 38 and Part 40, to update the DCM core principles and product listing rules applicable to Event Contracts.

In particular, he explicitly mentioned retail consumer protection, product governance, market design, and incentive programs.

This means the CFTC's current policy direction for prediction markets is not simply debating "whether prediction markets are gambling," but is entering a more specific second phase: if they are treated as regulated financial markets, what listing, governance, reporting, and consumer protection rules should exchanges follow?

The Most Heated Moment of the Meeting Also Occurred Over Prediction Markets

Compared to AI, the tension over prediction markets was significantly higher. This divergence erupted directly at the meeting.

CME Group Chairman and CEO Terry Duffy first clearly stated he is a strong supporter of the crypto market (supporting it since 2017, and being the first to list crypto futures on CME), and also holds a positive view on AI's application in risk management. However, when the topic turned to prediction markets, his attitude became extremely harsh.

Duffy pointed out the current chaos in prediction markets without reservation, mentioning the "Maduro contract" (related to political events) and the "teleprompter situation" contracts, saying outright that such products clearly have room for manipulation. Additionally, some sports event contracts are not only outcome-oriented but also involve individual performance, making them susceptible to human interference. Listing easily manipulable contracts would damage the entire industry's reputation and runs counter to President Trump's goal of "making America the crypto capital."

Selig directly interrupted Duffy, pointing out that the contracts he cited were not listed within the US but on overseas platforms.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara then fired back directly: "Since we've been called out, I'd like to ask, has CME ever had any market manipulation problems in its history?"

Duffy did not back down: "If you want to debate, I'm happy to. But I have more people in my regulatory department than you have in your entire company."

Lara retorted: "Then maybe you should learn about efficiency."

Duffy delivered the final devastating blow: "Then maybe you should learn what a credible market looks like."

This exchange actually explains exactly why the CFTC is amending its rules. What prediction markets truly need to address is which events are suitable as contract underlying assets, what product review responsibilities exchanges should bear, how to monitor market manipulation and information advantages, and what protections retail users should receive.

What Did This First Meeting Actually Establish?

The CFTC's Innovation Advisory Committee's role is to advise the CFTC on issues at the intersection of technology, law, policy, and finance. Committee members' views do not automatically represent the CFTC, nor do they become effective regulations simply because of one meeting discussion.

The current IAC membership spans the crypto and traditional financial markets, including Coinbase, Uniswap Labs, Ripple, Kraken, Gemini, Solana Labs, Chainlink Labs, Polymarket, and Kalshi, as well as leaders from institutions such as CME Group, Nasdaq, Cboe, ICE, DTCC, Franklin Templeton, and Robinhood.

But when viewing this meeting alongside Selig's speech, it at least makes clearer what the CFTC plans to do next:

In crypto assets, it will prioritize waiting for Congress to establish market structure, but simultaneously prepare to study using existing authority to establish the CFTC's own crypto market rules. In AI, it will attempt to develop computing power into a new commodity market with price discovery and risk hedging functions. In prediction markets, it will prepare to establish more systematic rules around event contract admission, data reporting, market oversight, and consumer protection.

These three matters seem quite different, but the CFTC's regulatory approach is actually consistent.

Selig repeatedly returned to one point in his speech: after financial innovation emerges, rather than waiting for controversy to disappear, it's better to establish market operating rules as early as possible.

So, what's truly worth noting from this first IAC meeting is this: when the underlying assets of the next-generation financial market become the crypto market, the computing power market, and the prediction market, how should the original commodity and derivatives regulatory framework be extended to cover them?

Judging from the roadmap Selig unveiled, the CFTC has already decided to get started.