SEC and CFTC launched joint review of derivatives definitions amid regulatory uncertainty.
CME lawsuit challenges CFTC approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures offered by Kalshi.
Mike Selig says outdated Dodd-Frank ambiguities have hindered competition and innovation.
Less than 24 hours after CME Group announced plans to sue the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) over Bitcoin perpetual futures, U.S. regulators, the SEC and CFTC, jointly opened a public consultation seeking feedback on how derivatives products should be defined and regulated.
This shows that even regulators acknowledge existing rules may no longer fit today’s markets.
SEC and CFTC Public Comment On Derivatives Product
On 18 June, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and CFTC jointly requested public feedback on how digital asset derivatives should be classified, regulated, and supervised.
They said they want public input on whether current definitions created under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act still properly reflect modern financial products and trading practices.
Meanwhile, the review covers several key areas, including the definitions of swaps, security-based swaps, mixed swaps, event-based contracts, and emerging products that have gained popularity in recent years.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said the agencies are trying to remove uncertainty that has persisted for years.
“Clarification is long overdue on Title VII definitional issues, including event-based products.”
Responding to Atkins, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig acknowledged that uncertainty has become a problem for both regulators and market participants.
“Today’s joint request for public comment presents an opportunity to address longstanding ambiguities within Title VII of Dodd-Frank that have stifled fair competition and responsible innovation.”
The public comment period will remain open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
CME Lawsuit Warning Changed The Stance
This joint statement request comes just a day after CME CEO Terry Duffy revealed plans to sue the CFTC over its approval of Bitcoin perpetual futures for Kalshi.
According to Duffy, Kalshi’s perpetual contracts do not meet the legal definition of futures under Dodd-Frank and should instead be classified as swaps, which are subject to different regulations and participation requirements.
“If anything, these products that he supposedly approved as futures are not futures, they would be swaps.”
The dispute has quickly become one of the most important regulatory battles in crypto because it goes beyond Kalshi itself.