Here's how the CFTC could prevent the next FTX

CoinDeskPublicado em 2022-11-18Última atualização em 2022-11-21

Resumo

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission should be responsible for preventing companies like FTX from taking root in the future.

FTX declared bankruptcy this month with $900 million in assets against $9 billion in liabilities. Its founder and former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, is being questioned by police in the Bahamas, and many customers are unable to withdraw their deposits. Its holdings of Serum’s SRM, a token Bankman-Fried developed, dropped from a value of more than $2 billion to less than $100 million. Things got worse over the weekend after FTX was apparently hacked, leading to the loss of an additional several hundred million. Some commentators are already calling it cryptocurrency’s “Lehman moment,” referring to the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers that signaled we were in a financial crisis.

In the wake of this epic collapse, Congress should get its head out of the sand and pass the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act designating the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, to regulate the crypto industry. The agency, which regulates commodities and derivatives trading, has already taken on a role in regulating crypto, sharing duties with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Both agencies are on shaky ground, as no legislation designates either as an enforcement agency or defines whether crypto is a security or a derivative. Both have launched probes into FTX’s handling of customer accounts.

Federal crypto regulation is currently conducted through enforcement actions — lawsuits, fines and audits conducted after an event. But these actions are dependent on the agency’s ability to make a case. As a result, it isn’t always clear what rules are being enforced. Moreover, many actions resulting in crackdowns on crypto firms are legal for traditional firms under certain circumstances. Granting statutory authority to a sole regulator would give the industry clarity and stability. The CFTC is preferable because Chairman Rostin Behnam is perceived as friendlier to the industry than SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

Many of the activities that went on between FTX and Alameda Research that got the firms in trouble were either already illegal or highly regulated for firms dealing in conventional securities or derivatives, and the lack of clear rules in the United States encourages companies to set up shop in countries with little oversight, so risky practices had no consequences until the collapse. Some commentators have compared FTX’s balance sheet to the creative accounting that resulted in the collapse of Enron in 2001.

In particular, its practice of inventing tokens and then basing the value of its own holdings on the value of the small number it sold was similar to Enron’s mark-to-market accounting. FTX issued various tokens, including SRT and FTX Token (FTT), bought some from itself, then used that price to set their valuations. The stock of tokens was then listed as an asset on FTX’s balance sheets or deposited with sister company Alameda Research, an investment firm, to use as collateral.

About $14.4 billion of FTX’s $19.6 billion in assets before last week were represented by coins and tokens FTX created, while just $5.2 billion was in conventional assets. Customer liabilities totaled about $9 billion. Moreover, FTX lent around (at least) $10 billion of its depositors’ money to Alameda. It went under, nonetheless.

Officials such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen are already calling for greater regulation to prevent another FTX-style crash. Yellen said the collapse “shows the weakness of this entire sector.”

Agencies like the SEC and CFTC ensure compliance with regulations by requiring firms to report on their activities regularly, by investigating tips from whistleblowers, and, when all else fails, with enforcement actions that can involve fines, lawsuits or getting a judge to subpoena companies’ records. Since the Enron scandal, accounting firms also have compliance they need to conduct. Destroying documents is a federal crime. Most importantly, the agencies have rules on how securities and commodities can be marketed to the general public, with some being restricted to only firms, individuals with specific attainments like certified financial analysts, and “accredited investors” — people wealthy enough they’re regarded as knowing what they’re doing.

One of the consequences is that prospectuses must be clear on actual risks and expected returns, and ones that are too optimistic can indicate an attempt to defraud people. For instance, Alameda Research reportedly promised investors annual returns of 15% with no risk — an impossibility that would have alerted U.S. regulators when it was made in 2018.

CFTC Chairman Behnam has said that the SEC and CFTC are capable of working together to regulate crypto, but designating one regulator would help clear up confusion immediately and avoid jurisdictional conflicts or institutional “siloing” that could prevent the agencies from communicating with each other.

Quality, sensible reforms will be key to restoring confidence in crypto firms and preventing future problems from spiraling out of control.

Leituras Relacionadas

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

The Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for late 2026, is a major Ethereum hard fork combining the Amsterdam execution layer and Glasgow consensus layer updates. Its primary goal is not simply increasing throughput but restructuring Ethereum's block production, validation, and resource pricing to enable future scaling. Key technical changes include **EIP-7732 (ePBS)**, which formally enshrines proposer-builder separation into the protocol. This decouples consensus and execution tasks, extending the execution payload propagation window to ~9 seconds. This provides more time for node verification, allowing for safer increases in block capacity (Gas limit) in the future. Another core component is **EIP-7928 (Block-Level Access Lists - BAL)**. It mandates a list of all state accessed within a block, moving this feature from an optional transaction-level (EIP-2930) to a mandatory block-level requirement. This explicit access list enables client optimizations like parallel disk reads and state root computations, paving the way for parallel execution. To manage long-term state growth, **EIP-8037** increases the cost of creating new state (e.g., accounts, storage slots), separating the pricing of permanent database bloat from temporary computation. This allows execution capacity to scale more aggressively without causing state size to explode proportionally. The planned upgrade bundle includes around 10 EIPs categorized into: 1) Core protocol restructuring (ePBS, BAL), 2) Resource pricing adjustments (state costs, calldata costs), and 3) EVM/developer improvements. Several other EIPs, including those potentially improving staker exit liquidity (EIP-8061, EIP-8080), are under consideration. The technical development coincides with significant personnel changes within the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol team. The Foundation's official communications frame this as part of a broader shift towards a "coalition of organizations" working on the Ethereum roadmap, citing new entities like ethlabs and the Ethereum Economic Zone. In summary, Glamsterdam represents a foundational re-engineering of Ethereum's block pipeline and economic model—focusing on ePBS, BAL, and multi-dimensional resource pricing—to prepare the network for sustainable, high-throughput scaling in the years ahead.

Foresight NewsHá 7m

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

Foresight NewsHá 7m

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

"Ethereum Foundation Splits? Understanding Ethlabs and Its 'Bright Future'" Former Ethereum Foundation members Ansgar Dietrichs, Barnabé Monnot, Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Josh Rudolf, and Julian Ma have announced the launch of Ethlabs, an independent non-profit research and development lab. Announced on June 22nd, the initiative comes amidst discussions about the need for new organizational structures within the Ethereum ecosystem, a point highlighted by Bankless founder David Hoffman. Ethlabs' mission is to establish Ethereum as the foundational settlement layer for the global economy. The organization positions itself as a bridge connecting frontline developers, applications, and user needs with the core protocol. It aims to translate real-world demands into protocol improvements, industry standards, and deployable products. The founding team brings significant expertise: Dietrichs and Monnot are highly cited researchers in areas like Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and MEV, while Schwarz-Schilling, Rudolf, and Ma contribute backgrounds in economic modeling, consensus research, and applied cryptography. Initial supporters include BitMine, a major corporate ETH treasury; Sharplink, another treasury firm; and Consensys founder Joe Lubin in a personal capacity. Community backers include figures like Uniswap's Hayden Adams and Base's Jesse Pollak. The timing coincides with internal Ethereum Foundation discussions about "spinout" projects. While Ethlabs and the Foundation share research interests like MEV mitigation, Ethlabs frames its role not as a competitor but as part of a shift from a "single-core coordination model" to a "multi-R&D entity collaboration model." It views Ethereum as a public project belonging to all builders, with Ethlabs as one node in a broader governance network. Ultimately, Ethlabs represents an organizational evolution within the maturing Ethereum ecosystem. The key question is whether multiple research bodies can collaborate effectively to advance Ethereum as a competitive global settlement infrastructure.

Odaily星球日报Há 11m

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

Odaily星球日报Há 11m

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

"A Short Seller's Dire Prediction: AI Boom Fading, US Stocks to Peak by Q3 with 30-50% Decline" Prominent macro investors Jeffrey Gundlach and Felix Zulauf warn that the AI-driven market rally is nearing its end, forecasting a major US stock market correction of 30-50%, potentially beginning as early as Q3. Their analysis points to alarming parallels with historical market tops, citing extreme concentration in the top AI-related stocks within the S&P 500. Zulauf's bearish thesis hinges on unsustainable capital expenditure trends among major cloud companies, negative free cash flow emergence, and soaring semiconductor prices. Gundlach highlights dangerous parallels to the 1999 tech bubble peak. A key divergence from conventional wisdom is Gundlach's view that long-term Treasury yields will not fall meaningfully even during a recession, due to America's structurally out-of-control fiscal deficits and soaring interest costs. He warns this could force the government into yield curve control or even a sovereign debt restructuring. Both investors express severe concerns about the opaque private credit market, drawing parallels to the pre-2008 financial crisis environment. They allege widespread rating inflation, misrepresented credit quality, liquidity illusions, and fraudulent asset valuations within this sector. The analysis links the AI boom and private credit crisis through financing costs. They argue that as AI companies' cash flows weaken and they seek funding, a high and sticky long-term interest rate environment will severely stress lower-rated corporate borrowers, exposing cracks in credit markets. Finally, they predict a regime shift where the US dollar weakens and US equities underperform global markets, marking the end of their long dominance. The stage is set for a significant market reversal.

marsbitHá 19m

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

marsbitHá 19m

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbitHá 33m

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbitHá 33m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片