UK Regulator FCA Plans to Deliver a Market Abuse Regime for Crypto This Year

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2024-03-18Last updated on 2024-03-19

Abstract

The U.K. has been refining it approach to regulating the crypto sector.

The FCA plans to help deliver a market abuse regime for crypto this year.
The regime would apply to anyone committing market abuse on a crypto asset that is trading on a U.K. exchange, regardless of where they are based.

23.8K

The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) intends to deliver a market abuse regime for crypto this year, according to its business strategy on Tuesday.

The business plan set out an agenda to protect consumers, ensure market integrity and facilitate international competitiveness. Last year, the government issued a consultation that included plans for a market abuse regime for crypto assets.

“The market abuse offenses would apply to all persons committing market abuse on a crypto asset that is admitted (or requested to be admitted) to trading on a U.K. crypto asset trading venue," the government said in its crypto consultation response in October. "This would apply regardless of where the person is based or where the trading takes place."

The proposed regime would, for example, require crypto exchanges to detect and disrupt market abuse behaviors.

The FCA is the main crypto regulator in the country. So far, the FCA implemented a promotions regime for crypto that includes requirements like adding risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for first-time buyers. It has also been consulting on a regime for stablecoins.

In its strategy for 2024 to 2025, it also said that it intends to recover “GBP 6.2m [$7.9 million] of costs for the new regulation of stablecoins and wider regime and GBP 200,000 for extending the financial promotions perimeter.” But it did not set out how it planned to do so.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Recommended for you:

CoinDesk reached out for further comment.

Edited by Parikshit Mishra.

Hyperliquid Sued by Two Major Traditional Exchanges

Hyperliquid, a cryptocurrency derivatives platform, is facing formal complaints from two major traditional exchanges, CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) and ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, parent company of the New York Stock Exchange). The firms have jointly approached the U.S. Congress and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), urging stricter regulatory oversight of Hyperliquid's operations. The action highlights growing tensions between established traditional financial institutions and emerging crypto-native platforms in the derivatives market.

链捕手28m ago

Hyperliquid Sued by Two Major Traditional Exchanges

链捕手28m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit42m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit42m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手42m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手42m ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

Bitcoin's recent recovery from February lows is approaching a critical supply cluster between $84,000 and $88,000, which holds the largest concentration of Bitcoin supply on the current chart. This zone represents the cost basis for short-term holders (investors who bought within the last 155 days) and is stacked with "trapped" sellers who bought near those levels and are now at breakeven. Technical analysis suggests the rally faces significant resistance in this area. Two primary scenarios are outlined: a direct push into the $84k-$86k zone followed by a rejection and pullback to $70,000 support, or a more volatile path involving a dip before testing the supply cluster. A weekly close above $84,000 would weaken the bearish rejection case, but a decisive break above $86,900-$88,000 is needed for a stronger bullish confirmation. Bitcoin is currently trading around $80,430.

bitcoinist49m ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

bitcoinist49m ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures