1. CFTC Proposes Comprehensive Prediction-Market Public Interest Framework
On June 12, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (RIN 3038–AF65) to amend its rules concerning event contract derivatives traded on prediction markets. The proposal further specifies the types of event contracts that may be subject to a determination that they are contrary to the public interest under Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) Section 5c(c)(5)(C), such that they may not be listed for trading or accepted for clearing on or through a CFTC-registered entity.
The proposed amendments introduce several key elements. First, the CFTC proposes a definition of “gaming” and a rule regarding when event contracts “involve” an underlying activity. Second, the proposal sets out factors the CFTC would apply in its public interest determination, including (i) price discovery and information aggregation utility, (ii) potential threats to market integrity, and (iii) compliance and self-regulatory challenges arising from the prediction market’s capacity to administer the contracts. The proposal also includes public interest factors specific to each enumerated activity (unlawful activity, terrorism, assassination, war, and gaming). Notably, the CFTC emphasizes a three-step inquiry before it may determine an event contract is prohibited: (i) whether the contract qualifies as an “event contract”; (ii) whether the contract “involve[s]” an “Enumerated Activity”; and (iii) whether the contract is affirmatively contrary to the public interest. The Federal Register notice is available here.
2. CFTC Sues New Mexico Over State Enforcement Against CFTC-Regulated Prediction Markets
On June 12, the United States and the CFTC filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (Case No. 26-cv-1912) against the State of New Mexico, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Attorney General Raúl Torrez, and four members of the New Mexico Gaming Control Board. The suit seeks to block New Mexico’s enforcement of its gambling laws against CFTC-regulated designated contract markets (DCMs) that offer event contracts. The CFTC asserts that the event contracts targeted by New Mexico are “swaps” under the federal CEA and that New Mexico’s attempt to prevent a CFTC-regulated DCM from offering CFTC-approved financial products “intrudes on the exclusive federal scheme Congress designed to oversee United States commodity derivatives markets.” The United States and CFTC have sued several other states on the same basis in recent months.
The CFTC notes it has approved various DCMs that offer event contracts (including Kalshi, Polymarket, Gemini Titan, and the North American Derivatives Exchange), monitors more than 3,000 self-certified event contracts, brings enforcement actions against CEA violations including insider trading, and has signed memoranda of understanding with Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League. See the CFTC's press release here.
3. CFTC Division of Market Oversight Issues No-Action Letter for Digital Commodity Perpetual Futures Conversions
On June 12, the CFTC’s Division of Market Oversight (Division) issued CFTC Letter No. 26-19, granting conditional no-action positions to Bitnomial Exchange LLC and Coinbase Derivatives LLC (and any other DCM meeting the stated conditions), permitting the removal of expiration dates from existing perpetual-style digital commodity futures contracts, effectively converting them into true “Digital Commodity Perpetual Futures Contracts.” The letter follows the CFTC’s May 29 order (May 29 Order) confirming that listing perpetual futures contracts referencing the spot price of bitcoin or other digital commodities with “deep, active, and continuous” spot market trading as futures contracts would not violate the CEA or CFTC regulations. The Division noted that due to prior regulatory uncertainty, the exchanges had listed perpetual-style contracts with long-dated expiration dates (up to 25 years), despite their fundamental mechanics being identical to true perpetual futures, including their reliance on periodic funding rate mechanisms to maintain price parity with the underlying spot price.
The no-action positions are subject to eight conditions, including (i) only amending contracts referencing digital commodities consistent with the May 29 Order, (ii) soliciting feedback from market participants with open positions on potential adverse impacts, (iii) providing at least five calendar days’ notice of the removal of existing contracts’ expiration dates, (iv) providing an opportunity to close out open positions under existing terms, (v) providing appropriate risk disclosures, (vi) amending no other material contract terms beyond the expiration date, (vii) filing amendments under Regulation 40.6(a) or 40.5, and (viii) notifying the Division and certifying compliance with the conditions. The CFTC’s press release and a link to Letter No. 26-19 is available here.
4. OCC Proposes GENIUS Act Reporting Forms for Payment Stablecoin Issuers
On June 11, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued OCC Bulletin 2026-24, proposing new weekly and quarterly reporting forms for permitted payment stablecoin issuers and foreign payment stablecoin issuers subject to the OCC’s jurisdiction under the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (12 U.S.C. 5901 et seq.). The GENIUS Act was enacted on July 18, 2025, and the OCC issued a proposed implementing rule on March 2, 2026.
The proposed weekly reporting form (Form PS-01) would include eight schedules: (i) General information on largest stablecoin holders (by wallet address), exchanges, trading volume, and top counterparties; (ii) Issuance and Redemption data and secondary market price/trading activity; (iii) Reserve Assets composition by type, fair value, and amortized cost; (iv) Cash Balances, including insured and uninsured deposits at depository institutions and Federal Reserve Bank balances; (v) U.S. Treasury Securities including CUSIP numbers, fair value, maturity, coupon rates, and custodian information; (vi) Reverse Repurchase Agreements; (vii) Money Market Mutual Funds; and (viii) Other Instruments. Weekly submissions are due every Wednesday by 5 p.m. ET through OCC BankNet.
The proposed quarterly reporting form mirrors the Call Reports required of national banks and federal savings associations but is streamlined for the comparatively simple business model of a stablecoin issuer. Quarterly schedules cover (i) Income Statement, (ii) Balance Sheet, (iii) Off-Balance Sheet Items, (iv) Capital and Operational Backstop, and (v) Memorandum items including stablecoin issuances, redemption and burn data, blockchain information, and custody activities. The OCC intends to publish quarterly report information to ensure public transparency. The OCC’s press release is available here.
5. Fintech and Banking Groups Weigh In on FDIC’s GENIUS Act Stablecoin Rulemaking
In June 2026, several bank and fintech groups sent letters to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), urging the FDIC to align with the OCC before either agency finalizes its rules in connection with stablecoin oversight standards. The FDIC’s April 2026 proposal would govern stable-value token issuance by subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised banks, drawing heavily on standards already proposed by the OCC under the GENIUS Act framework signed into law last July. Both the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Blockchain Association warned that inconsistencies between the agencies (e.g., the definition of “customer,” the yield prohibition, deposit insurance eligibility, and reserve concentration limits) could create risks relating to regulatory arbitrage and consumer confusion.
The Blockchain Association broadly supports the FDIC’s principles-based approach, commending its flexible stance on reserve diversification, multibrand issuance, and discretionary remedies for reserve shortfalls. The ABA, by contrast, advocates for robust enforcement of the yield prohibition, including through indirect distribution arrangements, to prevent deposit flight from the banking system, particularly community banks, and urges standardized capital floors for nonbank issuers, strong consumer protections, and clarity on the applicability of existing frameworks. Additionally, the ABA specifically flagged a timing ambiguity in the GENIUS Act’s effective-date provision, cautioning that a single agency’s unilateral finalization could trigger compliance obligations before a complete framework is in place. The ABA’s letter is available here. The Blockchain Association’s letter is available here.
