Regulatory Policy

Focuses on global regulatory developments, policy changes, and compliance requirements. It provides in-depth analysis of government regulations and their impact on the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries, helping businesses and investors proactively manage policy-related risks.

The 'Abnormal' Business of U Merchants? Defense Points and Boundaries of Determination for Three Major Charges

In a case involving a U merchant trading USDT (Tether) with transactions worth billions, the defendant was accused of illegal foreign exchange operations using virtual currency. Despite the large scale and use of multiple bank accounts, which authorities viewed as suspicious, the author argues that the defendant’s actions do not constitute crimes such as illegal business operations, concealing criminal proceeds, or assisting information network crimes. The article explains that OTC trading of virtual currencies like USDT is not illegal in China, and many platforms and individuals engage in it legally. The key is whether the trader knowingly facilitated illegal activities, such money laundering or illegal forex transactions. For illegal business operations, conviction requires proof that the defendant knowingly assisted in illegal forex exchanges, as in a cited case where the defendant helped convert foreign currency to RMB via USDT. For concealing criminal proceeds, the author emphasizes that the funds involved are often the principal amounts from transactions, not criminal profits, so merely handling these funds does not meet the legal definition. For assisting information network crimes, the crime must involve online illegal activities; if forex transactions occur offline despite online communication, it doesn’t qualify. The conclusion stresses the need for strict legal scrutiny and avoiding presumption of guilt based solely on transaction scale or methods.

marsbit3h ago

The 'Abnormal' Business of U Merchants? Defense Points and Boundaries of Determination for Three Major Charges

marsbit3h ago

Prediction Market ETFs: A Foray into the Mainstream or Playing with Fire?

Several major ETF issuers, including Bitwise Asset Management, GraniteShares, and Roundhill Investments, have recently filed applications with the U.S. SEC to launch prediction market ETFs. These ETFs are designed to track the outcomes of U.S. political events, such as the 2028 presidential election and the 2026 midterms, allowing investors to trade election probabilities through traditional brokerage accounts like Robinhood or Fidelity. Prediction markets aggregate crowd-sourced forecasts using real-money contracts, where prices reflect the market’s consensus probability of an event occurring. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi have demonstrated strong predictive accuracy in events like the 2024 U.S. election, often outperforming traditional polls due to their incentive-based structure. The proposed ETFs would track the price movements of these prediction market contracts, with share values fluctuating between $0 and $1. If the predicted event occurs, the corresponding “Yes” ETF would settle near $1; otherwise, it would approach $0. Unlike Bitcoin ETFs, which track asset prices, these are binary outcome products, more akin to options or insurance. If approved, these ETFs could bring prediction markets into mainstream finance, offering new tools for hedging and macro risk management. However, concerns remain about potential market manipulation, public perception influence, and regulatory approval, as the SEC may view them as gambling-like instruments. The move represents a significant test of how “probability as an asset” is accepted in traditional markets.

marsbit16h ago

Prediction Market ETFs: A Foray into the Mainstream or Playing with Fire?

marsbit16h ago

Prediction Market ETFs: A Foray into the Mainstream or Playing with Fire?

A new wave of ETF applications has been submitted to the SEC by asset managers including Bitwise, GraniteShares, and Roundhill Investments. These ETFs aim to track the outcomes of U.S. political elections—such as the 2028 presidential race and 2026 midterm control of Congress—by packaging prediction market contracts into tradable securities. This would allow mainstream investors to use traditional brokerage accounts to bet on electoral results, similar to platforms like Polymarket or Kalshi, but within the regulated financial system. Prediction markets aggregate crowd-sourced probabilities through financial incentives, often demonstrating stronger predictive accuracy than traditional polls, as seen during the 2024 U.S. election. The proposed ETFs would reflect binary event probabilities, with share prices fluctuating between $0 and $1. If the predicted outcome occurs, the ETF value approaches $1; otherwise, it nears zero. Most funds would liquidate after the event settles. This move could significantly broaden participation and liquidity, potentially making prediction markets a tool for hedging policy risks or macro strategies. However, it also raises regulatory and ethical concerns, including potential market influence on public perception and the risk of manipulation. The SEC’s approval remains uncertain, as it may view these products as blurring the line between investing and gambling. The outcome of these applications could signal a major shift in how probabilistic events are traded and perceived in mainstream finance.

Odaily星球日报16h ago

Prediction Market ETFs: A Foray into the Mainstream or Playing with Fire?

Odaily星球日报16h ago

Who Controls the Profit Rights of Digital Dollars? The Wall Street vs. Crypto Capital Game Behind the CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act represents a pivotal U.S. legislative effort to regulate digital assets, moving beyond the infrastructure-focused GENIUS Act. It aims to end "regulation by enforcement" by granting the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over digital commodities and the SEC over investment contracts. A major conflict emerged in the Senate over "yield-bearing stablecoins." Traditional banks, fearing massive deposit outflows and damage to their net interest margins, lobbied for a total ban on third-party stablecoin yields. The crypto industry, led by Coinbase, argued this would stifle innovation, deprive users of rightful earnings from underlying assets like Treasuries, and drive capital offshore. The debate reached a stalemate in early 2026, stalling the bill's progress. White House mediation set a March 1 deadline for a compromise. A proposed solution, the "Digital Markets Restructure Act," introduced a "Yield Neutrality" principle, decoupling yield rights from bank charters, and a "Residual-Risk Assessment Model" to regulate based on actual risk (enterprise, exposure, market) rather than outdated classifications. The outcome will profoundly impact the U.S. financial system: potentially deepening demand for U.S. Treasuries, lowering government borrowing costs, and extending dollar hegemony digitally. It forces traditional banks to digitize and could cause a major schism in DeFi, pushing compliant players toward institutionalization and smaller, non-compliant protocols offshore. The act ultimately decides who controls the profits of the digital dollar.

marsbit23h ago

Who Controls the Profit Rights of Digital Dollars? The Wall Street vs. Crypto Capital Game Behind the CLARITY Act

marsbit23h ago

From 'Punishment' to 'Acceptance': SEC's 2% Discount Tears Open Compliance Gap for Stablecoins

This article discusses a significant policy shift by the U.S. SEC regarding the capital treatment of payment stablecoins held by broker-dealers. On February 19, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets issued new guidance allowing broker-dealers to apply a 2% discount—rather than a punitive 100% haircut—to certain stablecoin holdings when calculating net capital requirements. This change aligns stablecoins with money market funds and other low-risk assets, making it financially viable for regulated entities to hold and use them. The move is seen as a major step toward integrating digital assets into mainstream finance. It follows the passage of the GENIUS Act in July 2025, which established a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The SEC’s guidance is designed to bridge the gap between existing rules and the new law, enabling broker-dealers to use stablecoins for settlement, trading, and tokenized securities without excessive capital penalties. The author highlights that this shift is part of a broader effort by the SEC to move away from enforcement-heavy regulation under former Chair Gary Gensler and toward a more structured, inclusive approach. The change is expected to encourage more institutional participation, improve liquidity, and support the use of stablecoins in cross-border payments and financial inclusion. However, challenges remain, including ongoing tensions between federal and state regulators and pending legislation to clarify the classification of digital assets. The 2% discount symbolizes a meaningful step toward recognizing stablecoins as legitimate financial tools within the U.S. regulatory system.

比推Yesterday 15:34

From 'Punishment' to 'Acceptance': SEC's 2% Discount Tears Open Compliance Gap for Stablecoins

比推Yesterday 15:34

活动图片