CFTC主席：Clarity法案若未通过将单方面加强加密监管

I'm Tyler Kendall here at the CFTC, where I'm joined now by the agency's chair, Michael Seelig. Mr. chairman, it's nice to see you as always. I saw you yesterday at the white House for this event alongside President Trump, where he was really pushing for passage of the Clarity Act. Let's just get a lay of the land first. Senate's going to vote on this September 15th. How confident are you and the administration it's going to get over the finish line?

We're very optimistic that we're going to get clear rules of the road for crypto asset market structure on the books, and this vote is critical. We've got to get the Democrats to come along with us. They have really obstructed we want their support. This should be bipartisan. The bill passed the House in a bipartisan fashion. And we've got this bill in the Senate. It's very similar. We want to get it across the line.

It needs to be a fair bill, a bill that isn't targeting the president or anybody else. It should be neutral and apply to everybody in the same way. We're really excited to get this bill across the line. CFTC stands ready to implement upon the passage of the bill. Just to quickly follow up on that, was there any discussion yesterday about any updated ethics provisions related to the bill? Well, the ethics probation is under negotiation.

We're looking forward to seeing a fair ethics provision that's not targeting the president or anybody else. As I said, if clarity stalls or fails to pass, the CFTC has signaled that it's prepared to unilaterally dial up oversight. What would that look like? What sort of rulemaking are you prepared to take in that scenario? The CFTC has a lot of authority, and we're not afraid to use that authority. The president has promised market structure for the crypto industry, and that's what we're going to do, whether we have a bill or not.

But we're optimistic the bill is going to set the standard. We really want the United States to lead. And having legislation clear law on the books is the most surefire way to lock in crypto market structure. And so that's what we're focused on today. But for my clarity, if clarity doesn't pass, you're still going to pursue regulation related to this. Well, absolutely. It's really important that we have market structure.

We can do that through rules. We can do that through laws. The CFTC has a lot of authority under its existing statutes, as do other agencies. And if we have to utilize that authority to create rules without the supporting legislation will do it. But of course, legislation is the priority. That's what we want to see. America needs clear rules on the books. We'll use rules if we have to, but we're going to focus on the lot today, right?

Because, uh, in theory, the or not in theory. In reality, the Clarity Act is there to codify this into law. So I'm just wondering how you're thinking about the future here to ensure that if there is a Democratic CFTC under a different administration, it wouldn't unwind all the work that you'd be doing. We're, of course, going to look to the bipartisan efforts on the Hill no matter what. If we have legislation will implement that legislation, if we don't have legislation, will, of course, utilize that existing work that's been developed on the Hill and utilize our existing authorities and do what we can to set rules of the road for crypto.

But the bill is really the priority. The bill has to get passed. Last question on this. Just to try to get a little bit more information, is there a timeline that you're looking at where you would act? Are you already preparing any of this action or does it have to happen once we see ultimately, the fate of that bill? I've asked the staff to explore and evaluate potential rule makings utilizing our existing authority, but we're focused on the bill today until we get that across the line, until we have an answer on where the bill's going.

We're not going to propose any new rules. Okay. Fair enough. I have to ask you about the other side of this remit as well. Of course. Prediction markets. This might be the first election where the public at large seems hyper aware of prediction markets. How are you thinking about policing against insider trading when it comes to political event contracts? And in particular, should we expect the CFTC to release any specific guidance ahead of the midterms?

Absolutely. We're utilizing all of our authorities to police these markets. They are derivatives markets within our exclusive jurisdiction, and we take that responsibility very seriously. There's two things that we're looking for. One is insider trading as you mentioned. The other is just fraud or manipulation. We saw a number of cases. Some of them have become public. Others were still investigating where there's just fraud, right?

Somebody makes a statement and then takes a position on the other side. That, of course, is not legal within our framework. But there's also insider trading where people are misappropriating nonpublic material information that they obtain, whether it's from their employer, from their client, whatever. Right. They take that information and they trade on it. That's insider trading. It's no different if it's a security, a commodities contract or an event contract.

And so we take that responsibility very seriously. But any firm guidance from your agency ahead of Election Day? We've put out a number of, uh, advisories and reports and that sort of thing. We've settled a handful of actions will continue to do so in terms of our enforcement advisories. We believe that the rules are very clear, our statutes very clear. There isn't really any needed guidance necessarily on insider trading or manipulation.

We may put out further advisories, but we're focused on building the policy side, the rulemaking, and then policing these through actual investigations and bringing actions against bad actors, just as you did bring up investigations very quickly. Can I ask you, uh, related to news of the day the markets are watching any sort of update when it comes to the conflict in Iran? Can you give us any update on your investigation into those suspicious late time trades linked to the war?

I can't talk to any investigations. I appreciate the effort there, but no, I can't speak to that. All right. Let's think broadly about legal strategy. And the CFTC. We saw this federal judge the other week rule against you in Wisconsin when it comes to sport events, contracts, letting state regulators move forward in terms of classifying them as gambling. Can you just talk to me a little bit more about your strategy and how the agency plans to sustain this exclusive jurisdictional argument if you keep getting these mixed rulings from the lower courts?

We haven't lost in a single federal appellate court. We don't intend to. If we do, that's going to create a split, and we'll see it at the Supreme Court. That's our focus. We want this to be clear, codified law on the books, and we'll take it all the way up to the Supreme Court. So if it goes to the Supreme Court, though, and the judge rules that sport contracts are gambling. How will that impact the CFTC and these companies that you regulate?

To the extent the Supreme Court were to rule against us. Of course, will follow the law. All right. I wanted to ask you about the agency's June 2026 proposed rule, which does put some of these guardrails in place. Do you think that you'll be able to finalize this before the end of the year? And with everything that is going on in this market right now, what is most important to you in terms of an inflation and also consumer protections in terms of really getting it on the books?

We're making fantastic progress in finalizing these rules. We received a lot of really substantive and helpful comments, both through the advance notice, proposed rulemaking and the newer rule 4011 rulemaking proposal, and we're hoping to finalize that very soon. We're also moving forward with we'