The American crypto regulation horses to draw: the CFTC charts a new map

December 2025 marks a turning point in the history of U.S. financial regulation. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced the establishment of the “CEO Innovation Committee” within its Digital Asset Markets Advisory Committee, a move that reveals a profound transformation in the regulatory philosophy toward cryptographic assets.

Strategic composition of the committee: a calculated balance

The list of 12 key stakeholders assembled is no coincidence. The committee includes leaders from major traditional financial sector players—such as the heads of CME Group in Chicago and Nasdaq—alongside prominent figures from the contemporary crypto landscape. Prediction market platforms, often operated on the fringes of official regulation, also have direct representation at the decision-making table.

This heterogeneous composition sends an unequivocal message: the goal is not to stifle innovation but to integrate it into a constructive regulatory framework. Regulators and market operators are called to jointly shape the future—i.e., to draw the guidelines that will govern upcoming digital markets.

From conflict to dialogue: a paradigm shift in regulation

For decades, the relationship between supervisory authorities and emerging sectors has been characterized as antagonistic: regulators built barriers, industry sought loopholes. This initiative by the CFTC represents a conscious move away from that model.

The momentum is real. The global cryptocurrency and derivatives market is expanding at an exponential rate, while the American regulatory landscape remains fragmented, with responsibilities divided between the SEC and the CFTC. This uncertainty has already caused the U.S. system to lose ground in the international competition for innovation and capital attraction in the sector. The committee is a proactive response: to build consensus before setting rules, rather than imposing constraints and facing resistance later.

By including both established and peripheral actors, the CFTC pursues three essential objectives: to acquire up-to-date market knowledge and prevent rules from becoming obsolete before they are even applied; to identify and resolve conflicts of interest early in the policy design process; and to demonstrate on the global stage America’s capacity to lead technological innovation rather than merely react to it.

The six pillars of reform: complex issues demanding innovative solutions

The committee will not deal with generic topics but will confront six frontier areas particularly challenging for the traditional regulatory system.

The tokenization of physical assets—government bonds, real estate, commodities—represents a trillion-dollar opportunity but raises unresolved regulatory questions. Simultaneously, the defining issue of crypto assets remains central: while the SEC emphasizes their security-like nature, how will the CFTC define the status of commodities under its jurisdiction? This definitional dilemma is at the root of current regulatory fragmentation.

24/7 continuous trading, unlike traditional sessions, requires a complete reimagining of risk monitoring systems, clearing infrastructures, and operational protocols. Perpetual contracts—derivatives without expiration based on funding rates—operate under risk logic radically different from conventional futures, demanding new regulatory tools.

Prediction markets, especially those related to political events, represent the boldest front, situated at the intersection of finance, law, and public policy issues. Finally, standards for blockchain infrastructure—from clearing to custody—constitute the invisible foundation upon which the entire ecosystem rests.

Addressing these six areas simultaneously reveals a systemic ambition: not minor regulatory adjustments but a profound restructuring of the regulatory framework.

From announcement to action: a still uncertain path

However, the creation of the committee is only the first chapter. The journey from consultation to actual consensus, and ultimately to the production of legally binding rules, will be long and complex. Procedural questions remain unresolved: when will the committee meet? Will discussions be public? What form will the outcomes take—a non-binding white paper, legislative recommendations to Congress, or a pilot program by the CFTC itself?

Expectations and uncertainties coexist in the market. On one hand, the openness signals a genuine willingness for constructive dialogue, offering the sector the highest level of direct communication. On the other hand, the diversity of interests represented—traditional exchanges seeking fair competition, crypto platforms aiming for regulatory legitimacy, prediction markets desiring legal recognition—could hinder the achievement of true consensus.

Nevertheless, the establishment of this committee has already shifted the narrative. Cryptocurrency regulation in the United States is no longer merely a dichotomy of “pro” and “against,” but opens up to a more constructive question: how can regulators and operators co-design the future— the constraints and enablers that will allow digital innovation to thrive safely?

The outcome of this experiment will not only have local implications. It could serve as a governance model for the digital era, exportable internationally and capable of redefining the role of supervisory authorities in the 21st century.