The post Moscow Exchange Plans Crypto Trading – Who Holds the Coins? appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

The trade may be simple; the ownership structure is not

Interfax reported that Moscow Exchange plans to begin crypto transactions on December 1 after starting tests with professional participants. Boris Blokhin, the exchange’s senior managing director for sales and business development, said the service would use a partner settlement digital depository, where market participants would open accounts.

That detail matters because a crypto trade can produce several very different forms of exposure. A buyer might receive coins that can be moved to a personal wallet, a custodial claim recorded by a depository, or a security or contract whose value follows a crypto asset. Each route can track the same market price, while giving the holder different rights.

A depository account may create a claim rather than a wallet balance

The reported use of a partner digital depository suggests that custody and settlement could be organised through established market infrastructure. A depository can maintain an ownership record and process settlement between participants without giving each customer a private key or a direct claim on a blockchain address.

MOEX has not yet published the client documents needed to answer the practical questions: whether accounts will be segregated or omnibus, who bears custody risk, whether assets can leave the system, and what happens if a participant or custodian fails. Those terms are central to the product, especially for buyers who assume a Bitcoin trade automatically delivers Bitcoin they can transfer.

Those routes can follow the same BTC chart while offering very different control over the underlying asset, as shown by the differences between Bitcoin held through a listed product and Bitcoin held in a wallet.

MOEX already offers futures, which answer a different need

The exchange already provides crypto-linked futures. Its existing materials describe Bitcoin and Ether futures as a way to gain exposure through the derivatives market.

Futures are agreements linked to price movements. They involve margin, settlement rules and contract specifications, rather than the custody of transferable coins. The planned service could broaden the ways Russian market participants access crypto, though the December announcement does not yet establish where it sits between derivatives exposure and onchain ownership.

Retail access would begin with limits

Interfax reported that unqualified investors would be able to access Bitcoin, Ether and USDT through one intermediary, with purchases capped at 300,000 rubles per year. Qualified investors could access a wider range of cryptocurrencies traded through the exchange or over the counter without that reported limit.

The cap limits the amount an ordinary investor could place into the system over a year. It does not explain whether that investor could transfer assets to an external wallet, hold them in a personal blockchain address, or redeem them through another provider. The exchange’s final rules would need to answer those questions.

READ MORE:

Global Regulators Warn Stablecoins Lack Crisis Oversight

What to check Before using the service

December may reveal whether the service offers crypto ownership or crypto access

Moscow Exchange’s plan points to a more formal route into crypto markets through familiar securities-market infrastructure. The reported depository model could make settlement and compliance easier for regulated participants, while also placing custody between the buyer and the blockchain.

The key document is still missing: the rulebook explaining the customer’s rights after a trade. Until it is published, December 1 remains a planned launch date rather than a complete description of what Bitcoin, Ether or USDT access on MOEX will mean in practice.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. Moscow Exchange’s final product terms and applicable regulations may change before any launch.

The post Moscow Exchange Plans Crypto Trading – Who Holds the Coins? appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/moscow-exchange-plans-crypto-trading-who-holds-the-coins/

The post EU Gives Crypto Platforms Three Months to Clear Stablecoin Holdings appeared first on Coindoo.

ESMA has widened the stablecoin clean-up

In its October 8 opinion, the European Securities and Markets Authority said MiCA-authorised crypto-asset service providers should cease services involving stablecoins that do not meet the regulation’s requirements.

The instruction reaches further than a trading-pair removal. ESMA includes platform operation, exchange services, order execution, investment advice, portfolio management, custody, administration and transfers. In other words, a regulated provider should not leave an alternative route through which a client can add to an affected stablecoin position.

National regulators are expected to require technical, contractual and organisational controls that prevent clients from acquiring or increasing exposure. The three-month period applies when authorities find balances or other exposure that already existed on a platform; it is the outer limit for resolving that legacy exposure.

USDT is the familiar example, although the rule is issuer-based

ESMA’s opinion covers two legal categories. Electronic money tokens, known as EMTs, seek to maintain their value against one official currency. Asset-referenced tokens, or ARTs, refer to another value or to a basket of assets, currencies or rights.

ESMA has not published a permanent list of affected tickers because the legal question concerns an issuer’s MiCA authorisation, rather than a name displayed on an exchange screen. A token can also have several versions on different networks, while its availability can change after an authorisation decision.

For most EU users, USDT is the clearest example. European platforms have already restricted the stablecoin because Tether’s issuer has not obtained the required MiCA authorisation. That does not remove USDT from public blockchains. It changes what a MiCA-regulated provider can offer around the token.

Users looking for an alternative should verify the issuer and the exact token their platform supports through ESMA’s MiCA register, which is updated regularly. A stablecoin’s dollar peg or market size says nothing by itself about its EU authorisation status.

Existing holders need to read the platform notice closely

ESMA has left room for temporary services where they help clients deal with balances already on a regulated platform. A provider may let a customer sell the stablecoin, convert it into another asset, withdraw it to an external wallet or leave it in custody while the position is being resolved.

The opinion does not require every firm to offer every option for the full three months. One exchange may provide conversion into a supported stablecoin, while another may permit only withdrawals. A third may impose an earlier internal deadline after assessing its legal and operational risk.

That makes the platform’s notice more useful than a generic countdown. Our guide to converting USDT to USDC on OKX Europe shows why the available route can depend on the exchange, the token network and the user’s location.

READ MORE:

Greece Plans 10% Crypto Tax With €500 Exemption

A token can remain on-chain while access becomes narrower

ESMA’s opinion addresses authorised crypto firms, rather than the underlying blockchain. Someone can still see an affected token in a self-hosted wallet even after a regulated exchange has stopped supporting fresh purchases or routine trading around it.

That difference is important for anyone weighing a withdrawal. Moving a stablecoin off an exchange may preserve direct control of the tokens, yet it does not guarantee that another regulated platform will accept a later deposit or offer a conversion route. The relevant question is how the next service provider treats that specific token.

For EU users, the immediate task is practical: check which actions their provider still allows for an existing balance and when those actions end. ESMA’s opinion gives national regulators a three-month outer limit to resolve legacy exposure, while each platform’s own policy will determine the choices available to its customers.

The post EU Gives Crypto Platforms Three Months to Clear Stablecoin Holdings appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/eu-crypto-platforms-clear-stablecoin-holdings/

The post Thailand Clears the Way for Bitcoin and Ether ETFs appeared first on Coindoo.

October 16 starts the framework

Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission issued 11 notifications covering the creation, management, custody and trading of crypto ETFs. The package brings the country from consultation to a working rulebook after months of public feedback and regulatory drafting.

The SEC had already outlined the proposed structure in August. It has now set the standards that asset managers, custodians and brokers must meet before a product reaches investors.

The October 16 date applies to the regulations themselves. A manager still needs to assemble the fund, appoint service providers and publish its own documents before it can list shares. The SEC has not identified a first issuer, ticker, fee or opening trading date.

Thailand is starting with Bitcoin and Ether

At launch, the permitted underlying assets are Bitcoin and Ether. The SEC said it will assess future eligible assets by looking at liquidity, broad market acceptance, network security and investor-protection considerations.

Each ETF must track one crypto asset through a passive strategy and keep average net exposure of at least 80% of its net asset value in that asset over an accounting year. A Bitcoin ETF, for example, is expected to provide predominantly Bitcoin-linked exposure instead of mixing its portfolio with unrelated tokens.

The rules also establish a domestic route to crypto ETFs. Shares must list and trade exclusively on the Stock Exchange of Thailand, while the initial rules do not permit alternatives such as depositary receipts linked to foreign crypto ETFs for local retail investors. The policy gives Thai asset managers and digital-asset service providers the first chance to build the market inside the country’s existing securities framework.

Investors would buy shares, not manage coins

A Thai investor using the new product would hold ETF shares through a securities broker. The fund manager and its custodian would be responsible for managing and safeguarding the underlying Bitcoin or Ether, removing the need for each investor to set up a wallet, protect private keys or use a crypto exchange directly.

That convenience comes with a more conventional investment-fund structure. Fund managers must give investors enough information to understand the product, its service providers, its investment mechanics and its risks. Brokerage firms must also provide risk education and obtain an acknowledgement that clients understand the product before they trade it.

The SEC has barred brokers from providing margin loans to buy crypto ETF shares. This limits the ability to increase exposure with borrowed money and keeps the first product set closer to a cash-funded investment fund than a leveraged trading vehicle.

Custody gives the SEC a direct line of oversight

The crypto supporting an ETF must be held by a custodian regulated by the Thai SEC. Eligible digital-asset operators can also apply to supervise these funds, provided they meet the regulator’s standards for capital, staff and operational systems.

Thailand may later allow qualified foreign custodians where their use is necessary and appropriate. The framework places SEC-regulated custodians at the center of safekeeping and fund oversight, giving the regulator clearer visibility over the assets supporting shares listed on the SET.

Asset managers can also outsource digital-asset investment management, though only to licensed digital-asset fund managers. The arrangement separates the roles of managing a portfolio, holding its assets and supervising the fund, mirroring the responsibilities investors already encounter in traditional ETFs.

READ MORE:

XRP Ledger Gives Banks New Wallet Controls

Local funds gain a new route to crypto exposure

The SEC has amended its rules so that Thai mutual funds and private funds can invest in locally established crypto ETFs, subject to existing investment limits. Previously, their crypto-ETF exposure was limited to foreign products.

That change could eventually broaden participation beyond individual brokerage accounts. A Thai fund manager may be able to use a domestic Bitcoin or Ether ETF within a diversified portfolio, provided it follows the limits that already apply to its fund type.

Whether that route becomes widely used will depend on the first products. Fund fees, liquidity, custody arrangements, creation-and-redemption procedures and the quality of market making will determine how useful the ETFs are once trading begins.

The first prospectus will show what the rules mean in practice

The rules are in place; the next decisions belong to asset managers. Their prospectuses will show which asset they choose, what fees they charge, who safeguards the coins and how ETF shares will trade on the SET.

Thailand has created a regulated route for investors who want Bitcoin or Ether exposure through a local brokerage account. The first launch will show whether that route becomes a genuine alternative to buying crypto directly.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice. Product approvals, listings and rules may change.

The post Thailand Clears the Way for Bitcoin and Ether ETFs appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/thailand-clears-the-way-for-bitcoin-and-ether-etfs/

The post Greece Plans 10% Crypto Tax With €500 Exemption appeared first on Coindoo.

The proposal gives investors a 10% rate and key gaps

Reuters reported that Greece intends to apply a 10% capital-gains tax to cryptocurrency profits, while exempting annual gains of up to €500. Officials have not provided a revenue estimate, partly because many Greek investors use overseas trading platforms and the size of the market is difficult to measure.

The rate is simple enough to understand. Applying it correctly may not be. A capital-gains tax needs rules for the purchase price, sale price, trading fees and losses before an investor can work out the taxable result.

The €500 exemption needs more detail

The proposal says annual gains of up to €500 would be exempt, but the final legislation needs to clarify how that threshold works. One approach would tax only the profit above €500. Another would treat €500 as a cut-off, so exceeding it could bring the entire gain into the tax calculation.

The difference is material. Someone making a €600 gain could owe tax on €100 under the first approach, or face a calculation on the full €600 under the second. Greece has not yet published enough detail to tell taxpayers which method it intends to use.

The uncertainty goes beyond the €500 limit. The bill also needs to establish when a crypto gain exists in the first place.

The rate alone cannot tell investors what they owe

A straightforward sale of Bitcoin for euros is relatively easy to describe: the gain is generally the sale proceeds minus the cost of acquiring the asset, after any allowed expenses. Crypto activity often becomes more complicated before the euros ever reach a bank account.

The eventual law or accompanying guidance will need to address how Greece treats token-to-token trades, stablecoin conversions, staking rewards, airdrops and losses from earlier transactions. It also needs a method for calculating the cost basis of assets bought in several batches at different prices.

Until the final text explains those transactions, taxpayers cannot know whether a particular crypto action will create a taxable gain under the new framework.

European reporting rules will make the data trail clearer

Greece’s proposal arrives as the European Union begins implementing its crypto-asset reporting framework under DAC8. The rules require covered crypto-asset service providers to collect and report information about certain customers and transactions, with the first reporting period covering 2026 activity and reports due in 2027.

DAC8 gives tax authorities a standard route to receive information about reportable crypto transactions. Greece’s proposed law would determine how that information feeds into a resident’s tax calculation. The reporting rules and the tax bill therefore address different parts of the same compliance process.

For investors, that makes record-keeping more important even before the Greek bill becomes law. Keeping trade confirmations, euro values at the time of a transaction and fee records is often easier than reconstructing them after several years of activity across multiple platforms.

READ MORE:

Hyperliquid’s $330M HYPE Deal Leaves a Wallet Trail

The 10% rate is lower than Greece’s first public figure

Greek officials discussed a 15% crypto-gains tax with Reuters in June. The current consultation draft uses 10%, while retaining the €500 exemption mentioned in the earlier reporting.

The change makes the proposal less onerous on paper, but Greece has not explained why the rate was revised. It would also sit at the lower end of the range reported across several European jurisdictions, where crypto-gains taxes vary widely depending on holding periods, income brackets and local exemptions.

Investors should watch the final wording, not only the headline rate

For Greek residents, the immediate task is to follow the bill’s progress rather than calculate a tax bill from its headline rate. The effective date, €500 treatment and rules for gains and losses will decide how simple, or demanding, the eventual framework is in practice.

Until parliament passes a final version, the proposal is best read as an important step toward a dedicated crypto tax regime rather than a complete guide to what any individual investor will owe.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax, legal or investment advice. Greek residents should consult a qualified tax professional before making decisions based on proposed legislation.

The post Greece Plans 10% Crypto Tax With €500 Exemption appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/greece-plans-10-crypto-tax-with-e500-exemption/

The post US Treasury Withdraws Proposed Crypto Wallet and Mixer Rules appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Two pending proposals are moving toward formal withdrawal

FinCEN placed a withdrawal notice for its self-hosted-wallet proposal and a separate notice for its cryptocurrency-mixing proposal on public inspection on October 5. Both notices are scheduled for formal publication in the Federal Register on October 6, when the withdrawals will take effect.

The first proposal dates to 2020 and concerned transfers between customers of regulated financial institutions and wallets those customers control themselves. The second came in 2023 and would have applied special reporting and recordkeeping measures to certain transactions involving convertible-virtual-currency mixing with a foreign connection.

They dealt with different parts of the crypto market, yet both raised the same practical question for platforms: what information must a business collect when funds move beyond its own system?

Crypto platforms still have to respond when sanctions rules name particular services or entities. Binance’s restrictions on transfers involving HTX and other platforms showed how compliance action can continue even without a new industry-wide reporting rule.

The wallet proposal focused on transfers leaving an exchange

A self-hosted wallet is controlled by its user rather than by an exchange or another custodian. The 2020 proposal would have added duties for a bank, exchange or other regulated financial institution when its customer sent qualifying amounts to, or received them from, such an external wallet.

For certain transactions above $3,000, the institution would have had to collect and retain information about the counterparty. Qualifying transactions above $10,000 would also have triggered reporting requirements. That created a difficult operational issue: an exchange can identify its own customer, but may have little independent ability to establish who controls a wallet address on the other side of a transfer.

With that proposal being withdrawn, firms will not need to build the specific verification and reporting process FinCEN outlined. Their own risk controls and existing legal duties still shape how they handle transfers to external wallets.

The mixer proposal would have added another reporting duty

FinCEN’s 2023 proposal approached a different risk area. It would have required covered financial institutions to report transactions they knew, suspected or had reason to suspect involved convertible-virtual-currency mixing within or involving a foreign jurisdiction.

The measure focused on information gathered by institutions handling those transactions. It did not create a new criminal prohibition on every form of mixing, although the use of particular services can carry sanctions, criminal or compliance risks depending on the facts and the parties involved.

Its withdrawal means covered firms will not face that proposed special-measure reporting system. It does not alter existing laws that can require a business to review unusual activity, block prohibited dealings or report suspected financial crime.

READ MORE:

Hyperliquid’s USDC Yield Starts Funding HYPE Buybacks

Exchanges still operate under the same core compliance rules

For users, the most practical effect is narrower than the headlines may suggest. A custodial exchange can still ask for information about an external transfer, pause activity it considers suspicious and impose limits under its own compliance programme.

Those decisions are shaped by existing Bank Secrecy Act requirements, sanctions restrictions and the platform’s assessment of risk. Self-hosted wallets remain a normal way to hold crypto, but moving funds between a private wallet and a regulated service does not place that transfer outside financial-crime controls.

The same applies to mixing-related activity. FinCEN has removed one proposed reporting framework, while the duties already governing regulated institutions continue to apply to the activity they handle.

Any replacement would need a new rulemaking process

The October notices end these two proposals in their current form. If Treasury decides to pursue narrower reporting rules for external-wallet transfers or mixer-related activity in the future, it will need to issue a new proposal and open it to public comment.

For now, crypto businesses have a clearer answer about what they do not need to implement. The broader compliance obligations that govern exchanges, banks and other custodial firms remain the working rules of the market.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. Regulatory requirements can change and may depend on the facts of an individual transaction and jurisdiction.

The post US Treasury Withdraws Proposed Crypto Wallet and Mixer Rules appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/us-treasury-withdraws-proposed-crypto-wallet-and-mixer-rules/

The post CFTC Starts Crypto Rulemaking for Leveraged Trading appeared first on Coindoo.

The CFTC has opened a process, not a finished regime

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 5, opening a 60-day period for public comment. The agency will use those responses to decide how a future framework for certain retail crypto transactions should work, so no exchange enters a new federal regime and no new customer protections take effect today.

The proposal focuses on retail trades involving leverage, margin or financing. The CFTC calls these crypto asset transactions, or CTXs.

Why leverage gives the CFTC a clearer role

Buying Bitcoin outright with fully paid funds is different from opening a position with borrowed money or leverage. The second type of trade gives the CFTC a clearer role under its existing authority over certain retail commodity transactions.

That legal boundary explains why the agency can begin this rulemaking without waiting for Congress. It also explains why the proposal cannot create federal oversight for every crypto purchase made on an exchange.

A “crypto asset market” could offer exchanges a federal route

The CFTC is considering a purpose-built category of registered venue called a crypto asset market. It would give exchanges that offer retail leveraged, margined or financed crypto trading a way to operate under a federal market framework.

The consultation asks what that framework should require from the venues that choose it. Its focus extends beyond the assets available for trading to the controls surrounding a customer’s trade and funds.

Reuters reported that specific leverage limits are absent at this stage. The agency is first asking how the products and venues within its jurisdiction should be treated before it develops detailed requirements.

Selig is arguing for rules that act before a platform failure harms customers. The final framework will still depend on which exchanges use the federal route, the safeguards they accept and the CFTC’s ability to supervise them.

READ MORE:

Crypto Searches on Google Slump, but Bitcoin Still Draws Cash

Congress still decides the wider spot-market question

The proposal follows the Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act, which would have given the CFTC a wider and more durable role in overseeing crypto spot markets. The agency is instead working with the authority it already has over a narrower class of retail transactions.

That leaves two regulatory paths. A venue offering retail leverage or financing could seek a federal framework through the proposed crypto asset market category. Ordinary spot platforms would continue to operate mainly under state rules, alongside the CFTC’s existing anti-fraud and anti-manipulation powers.

The comment period will define the proposal’s next shape

The next argument will concern the practical boundaries of the federal route: which platforms would use it, what safeguards they would accept and whether state regulators see it as an improvement or an overlap. The CFTC has opened a path for leveraged retail crypto trading, while the wider question of who oversees the cash spot market remains with Congress.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. The CFTC proposal is subject to public comment and may change before any final rules are adopted.

The post CFTC Starts Crypto Rulemaking for Leveraged Trading appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/cftc-starts-crypto-rulemaking-for-leveraged-trading/

The post EU Questions How Binance Still Serves Crypto Users appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Reuters reported on October 1, citing the Financial Times, that EU and national regulators were questioning Binance’s use of “reverse solicitation.” Binance said it complies with applicable requirements and is “actively working toward becoming MiCA-authorised.”

The scrutiny follows the July 1 end of MiCA’s maximum transitional period, which had allowed some providers to keep operating under national arrangements while seeking authorisation. Coindoo’s earlier reporting on Binance’s Greek licence bid described its application as withdrawn in June, leaving the exchange without the authorisation it had sought.

Reverse solicitation offers a limited route for serving EU customers outside that licensing framework. Whether it applies depends on how the customer reached the provider and which service they requested—details that may be invisible to someone simply opening an app to trade.

Clicking “sign up” does not settle who approached whom

The Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, known as MiCA, allows an EU customer to approach a firm outside the bloc independently and request a crypto service. Under Article 61, that specific service can qualify for an exception to authorisation. Ordinary retail customers can use it; an EU-based provider cannot invoke it to escape licensing requirements.

The European Securities and Markets Authority’s guidelines require that history to be assessed on the facts. A customer declaration cannot override evidence that the firm prompted the approach.

“Contractual arrangements or disclaimers cannot supersede contrary facts.”

That assessment also extends to promotion by affiliates or people acting on the provider’s behalf. An independent review is treated differently, depending on the firm’s involvement. The distinction prevents an exchange from avoiding scrutiny simply by having someone else promote its services.

An existing relationship is not permission to sell everything

For a customer who genuinely approached the provider independently, the exception can accommodate more than a one-off trade. ESMA’s final report explains that an ongoing relationship may continue when the originally requested service requires one. That relationship has no fixed expiry date.

The limits fall on marketing additional products. A provider cannot use the original request to promote new types of crypto assets or services. Even promotion of the same type must remain within the context of the original transaction, rather than treating the account as permanent permission for future offers.

A customer’s interest in one service therefore does not establish that they independently sought every product available through the platform. Assessing continued access requires attention to what the relationship actually covers, rather than assuming that an account opened voluntarily makes all later activity eligible.

READ MORE:

DogeOS Opens a Testnet: What Could Change for DOGE Holders?

An open app does not prove MiCA authorisation

There is another reason access can continue after a provider loses permission to operate normally: customers need a way to leave. In its June 23 wind-down statement, ESMA told unauthorised providers to stop recruiting EU customers and restrict remaining services to an orderly exit. Selling assets, transferring holdings and closing positions can form part of that process; custody may continue only as long as necessary to complete it.

Withdrawal access consequently does not demonstrate permission to offer routine trading. Account notices should explain whether remaining functions support an exit or whether the provider claims another basis for continuing the service.

To understand that basis, users need the company name in their account agreement. A brand may operate through several legal entities, and authorisation held by one does not automatically cover the others. Reverse solicitation itself applies to firms outside the EU, making the identity of the provider particularly important.

That name can be compared with the ESMA MiCA register, alongside the services for which the company is authorised. This gives customers more useful information than a general claim that an exchange complies with regulation somewhere in the world.

The difference affects the protections surrounding their holdings. ESMA warns that customers of unauthorised providers do not benefit from MiCA safeguards, including protections for client assets. Continued access should not be mistaken for those protections.

The reported scrutiny does not establish a breach by Binance. Its practical consequence will depend on whether regulators accept the basis for continued service or require changes. Customers would then need clear notice of how their accounts are affected, particularly if trading access becomes restricted to closing positions and moving assets.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice.

The post EU Questions How Binance Still Serves Crypto Users appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/eu-questions-how-binance-still-serves-crypto-users/

The post SEC Clears 3x Bitcoin and Ether ETPs: How They Work appeared first on Coindoo.

The October 2 order approves Cboe BZX’s proposal to list and trade six products sponsored by Volatility Shares through VS Trust. The lineup covers Bitcoin, Ether, gold, silver, crude oil and natural gas, with each targeting three times its futures benchmark’s daily return before fees and expenses.

The order does not set a first trading day. The sponsor’s August preliminary filing separately makes sales conditional on an effective registration statement, so listing clearance alone does not establish that the products are available to buy.

The return starts with a futures benchmark

Understanding the target begins with what the products would hold. Futures provide price exposure through contracts that expire on a set date. The exchange’s proposal describes benchmarks built from first- and second-month contracts, with the portfolios holding futures and cash or cash equivalents to support those positions.

For the Bitcoin and Ether products, that ties the return target to futures prices, which can move differently from the prices quoted on a spot exchange. A 3% Bitcoin move on a trading app would therefore not, by itself, establish that the Bitcoin product should gain 9%.

As contracts approach expiry, the portfolio replaces them to maintain exposure. The sponsor’s August preliminary prospectus describes this process, known as rolling. The relationship between expiring and replacement contract prices can affect performance, alongside fees and trading costs.

Investors would own shares in the resulting portfolio, with no Bitcoin or Ether to withdraw into a personal wallet. Because the exposure comes through derivatives, money entering these products should not be treated as an equivalent purchase of coins in the spot market.

The portfolio’s legal structure also matters. Although “ETF” appears in the product names, the SEC classifies them as commodity-based exchange-traded products, or ETPs. They are not investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and do not provide the same set of protections as registered funds.

A two-day trade shows why “daily” matters

The products rebalance exposure daily to pursue the 3x target against their updated portfolio value. After a gain, the next session’s return is applied to a larger investment; after a loss, it is applied to a smaller one. This is why the result over several sessions can differ from three times the benchmark’s combined return.

Take a hypothetical $1,000 holding. If the benchmark rises from 100 to 110, its 10% gain would lift the holding to $1,300 at the targeted 30% return. Suppose the benchmark then falls back to 100. That second move is a decline of about 9.09%, producing a targeted loss of about 27.27% on the larger holding.

The benchmark finishes unchanged, but the holding loses approximately 5.45%. Both daily targets have been met; applying the second day’s leveraged decline to $1,300 still leaves less than the original investment. The SEC’s investor bulletin on leveraged products explains why this daily resetting can produce substantial differences over longer holding periods.

Compounding can also increase gains during a steady advance. Under the same exact-tracking assumption, two consecutive 5% benchmark gains produce a combined return of 10.25%, while two 15% gains produce 32.25%. Successive gains and gains followed by reversals therefore lead to different outcomes, even when the daily multiple stays the same.

READ MORE:

NEAR Staking Comes to a U.S. ETF

The purchase price adds another variable

The examples describe a portfolio achieving its target, but an investor buys and sells shares at market prices. The preliminary prospectus notes that those prices can sit above or below the portfolio’s net asset value. Paying a premium that later disappears can reduce the investor’s return even if the underlying portfolio performs as expected.

That makes the benchmark, holding period and actual entry price relevant to the same trade. As FINRA explains, a daily objective cannot simply be extended into an assumption about weekly or monthly performance.

An investor could correctly anticipate Bitcoin finishing higher and still misjudge the return from a daily 3x product. The sequence of price moves and the time spent holding the position are part of the investment, so the multiplier alone cannot describe its likely outcome.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Leveraged products can produce substantial losses, and hypothetical examples do not predict actual returns.

The post SEC Clears 3x Bitcoin and Ether ETPs: How They Work appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/sec-clears-3x-bitcoin-and-ether-etps-how-they-work/

The post U.S. Bank Group Sues OCC Over Crypto Trust Charters appeared first on Coindoo.

The Independent Community Bankers of America filed the case on October 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In its official announcement, ICBA accused the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of granting crypto businesses the credibility of a federal bank charter without the same obligations that apply to community banks.

The group wants the court to invalidate the OCC’s March 2026 chartering rule and its 2021 Interpretive Letter 1176. Its challenge also targets Protego’s conditional approval, making a proposed crypto trust bank a specific test of the agency’s interpretation of the National Bank Act.

Can a trust charter cover business beyond fiduciary services?

Trust banks hold and administer assets for customers, but those services do not always involve the same responsibilities. A custody arrangement may provide safekeeping without giving the custodian the discretionary responsibilities of a trustee administering assets for beneficiaries. Other custody arrangements can involve fiduciary duties.

That distinction is central to the case. ICBA argues that allowing firms to conduct substantial non-fiduciary business through a national trust charter goes beyond what Congress authorized. It also objects to the difference between the regulatory obligations of these institutions and those of traditional community banks.

“Congress did not create the national trust charter as a side door into the banking system,” ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey said.

The OCC says it is clarifying authority it already has. Its chartering bulletin explains that the rule replaces references to fiduciary activities with wording covering trust company operations and related activities. The change took effect on April 1, and the final rule cites the agency’s history of chartering trust banks that provide non-fiduciary custody as support for that position.

These documents set out the OCC’s reasoning before the lawsuit. Reuters reported that the agency declined to comment on the litigation itself.

Protego’s planned services extend beyond safekeeping

Protego’s application illustrates how several crypto services can operate alongside custody under this interpretation. The OCC’s February 13 approval letter concerns National Digital Trust Company, a proposed Protego Holdings subsidiary. Customers would be able to trade custodied assets and participate in lending and borrowing arrangements, while another platform would support customer-directed token issuance.

The OCC attached capital and liquidity conditions to that approval. During its first three years of operation, the proposed bank must maintain at least $15 million in tier 1 capital, a measure of core capital. It must hold the greater of half its tier 1 capital or $7.5 million in eligible liquid assets, plus a separate amount covering 180 days of operating expenses.

The February letter grants only preliminary conditional approval; the proposed bank must satisfy the preopening requirements and obtain final authorization before beginning business. These requirements establish that the approval carries safeguards, while leaving the court to consider whether the OCC had legal authority to grant it under this framework.

A bank charter does not insure the Bitcoin in an account

For customers, an institution’s federal supervision and the insurance status of their holdings are separate matters. The Protego conditions show how a regulator can impose financial safeguards on a custodian without making the assets it holds for customers eligible for deposit insurance.

The FDIC explicitly excludes crypto assets from deposit insurance. Holding Bitcoin with a bank therefore does not give it the protection available to an eligible cash deposit at an FDIC-insured institution.

The SEC is considering a separate custody framework

Investment firms face another set of requirements when arranging custody for clients. The SEC’s October 1 proposal, explained in our coverage of its proposed crypto custody rules, would accommodate qualifying state trust companies and allow adviser self-custody in specified circumstances. It concerns advisers and funds under securities law; ICBA’s lawsuit concerns the OCC’s authority to charter national trust banks.

READ MORE:

Solana vs. Ethereum: Raoul Pal Looks Beyond User Counts

What the lawsuit could change

Filing the case does not itself revoke a charter. ICBA is asking for court orders against both the broader chartering framework and Protego’s approval, so the consequences would depend on which requests, if any, the court grants.

A ruling against the rule or interpretive letter could affect the legal basis for other applications using the same approach. A decision confined to Protego’s approval would have a narrower reach. For crypto firms planning to operate as national trust banks, that scope will determine whether the case changes one proposed institution or the licensing route they hope to use.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice.

The post U.S. Bank Group Sues OCC Over Crypto Trust Charters appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/us-bank-group-sues-occ-over-crypto-trust-charters/

The post SEC Proposes Crypto Custody Rules With a Self-Custody Option appeared first on Coindoo.

Announced on October 1, the framework covers registered investment advisers and regulated funds, including registered investment companies and business development companies. It would also establish conditions for using state trust companies to safeguard crypto assets.

For clients, these changes could widen the investments available through a manager. They would also make the manager’s custody arrangements important to understand, particularly when the firm selecting an investment holds the assets itself.

A token can arrive before a custodian

Crypto custody involves safeguarding the credentials that authorize transactions and controlling who can use them. For an investment firm, deciding to buy an asset is only part of the job. It also needs a lawful arrangement for protecting the client’s holdings.

That can become an obstacle when an asset reaches the market before a permitted custodian supports it. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said in his October 1 statement that “custodial capabilities may lag an asset’s deployment by many months.”

The proposed self-custody route addresses that interval. An adviser could hold an eligible client asset while no qualified custodian is available, provided it can satisfy the proposed safeguards.

Two custody routes, with different responsibilities

Atkins described the proposal as offering “a compliant pathway where none existed before.” Its two additions would accommodate qualifying outside providers and allow an adviser to take custody in specified circumstances.

The adviser amendments cover crypto assets that are funds or securities, while the regulated-fund provisions cover securities or similar investments.

The state trust company route would require due diligence, review of audited financial statements and control reports, and separation of client assets from the provider’s own holdings.

Under self-custody, the adviser would hold the private-key material needed to access client assets. The client would still be relying on a firm to safeguard the investment. For regulated funds, the arrangement would operate through the fund’s adviser with board oversight.

Self-custody would require an ongoing search for alternatives

The full proposing release makes custodian availability a continuing condition. An adviser would have to document its determination initially and at least quarterly. If a qualified custodian became available, it would have to move the assets as soon as reasonably practicable.

Meanwhile, transfers would require joint authorization by at least two designated people. Separate client addresses, cybersecurity measures, reviews and reports on safeguarding controls would provide further checks on the adviser’s handling of the assets.

Those checks matter because the firm would be combining investment decisions with custody. Commissioner Mark Uyeda acknowledged in his accompanying statement that “self-custody creates an inherent conflict of interest,” while emphasizing that an adviser’s fiduciary duty would continue to apply.

READ MORE:

NIGHT Up Over 75%: What Could Put the Rally at Risk?

What a client would need to understand

Consider a hypothetical adviser seeking to add a newly issued crypto security to a client’s portfolio. If no qualified custodian would maintain it, the proposed framework could allow the adviser to hold it directly after meeting the conditions. The client’s exposure would depend on both the investment and the firm’s ability to safeguard access to it.

Before accepting such an arrangement, the client would have several practical questions:

These questions address risks that a price chart cannot show. A token could rise in value while poor key management puts access to it at risk. Equally, effective custody would not prevent losses if its market price fell.

The proposal now goes through public consultation

The custody framework advances the SEC’s broader work on crypto offerings, tokenization and trading. Our earlier coverage of the SEC and CFTC proceeding under existing authority identified custody as an initiative still awaiting a complete proposal. The October 1 release now sets out the proposed operating conditions.

It remains a proposal. The public-comment period runs for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and the Commission would need to adopt final rules before these new routes take effect.

The consultation gives advisers, custodians and investors an opportunity to examine whether the controls are practical to implement. Their responses can also test whether client statements and reviews would provide enough information to scrutinize a firm that both manages an investment and safeguards it.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. The SEC proposal may change during rulemaking.

The post SEC Proposes Crypto Custody Rules With a Self-Custody Option appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/sec-proposes-crypto-custody-rules-with-a-self-custody-option/