The staff position broadens a prior wallet-specific framework, but it is conditional, limited to registration questions and reversible by a future commission.
By The Third AnglePublished 5 min read
The CFTC says its no-action position applies to qualifying passive software providers under specified conditions. Photo: Scott Graham / Unsplash · Unsplash License
A broader version of Phantom relief
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Market Participants Division issued a no-action position Thursday for providers of passive software that helps users connect to registered derivatives markets. The CFTC’s Release 9300-26 says the position is similar to relief in Staff Letter 26-09, which had been associated with crypto wallet provider Phantom, but is now broadly available to qualifying providers. The Block independently reported the move and placed it alongside the SEC’s same-day tokenization exemption.
Under the letter, staff will not recommend enforcement against a provider or relevant personnel for failing to register as an introducing broker or associated person of an introducing broker, provided specified conditions are met. The relief covers software that facilitates and markets trading with registered futures commission merchants, introducing brokers and designated contract markets.
The key caveat is no-action relief is not law. It is a staff position about enforcement recommendations, and it does not make an unregistered derivatives business legal across the board.
What passive means in practice
The CFTC’s announcement is aimed at software that acts as a pipeline rather than a dealer or trading venue. A qualifying provider can give users tools and interfaces for reaching registered intermediaries without taking custody of customer assets or making trading decisions on a user’s behalf. The exact conditions in the staff letter determine whether a product stays inside that boundary.
That distinction matters for self-custodial wallets, front ends and other crypto applications that want to expose regulated futures or event-contract markets. A user interface can look lightweight while still creating regulatory questions if it controls orders, routes trades, solicits customers, handles funds or receives transaction-based compensation.
Developers should therefore read the letter’s definitions, disclosure requirements, policies and procedures rather than treating the headline as a blanket exemption. The CFTC position addresses introducing-broker registration concerns; it does not erase duties that can arise under commodities, anti-fraud, customer-protection or market-integrity rules.
Relief today, uncertainty tomorrow
The timing is notable. The CFTC acted hours after the SEC issued its own temporary innovation exemption for limited on-chain trading of tokenized stocks. Together, the actions suggest both agencies are using existing staff and exemptive authority to answer narrow infrastructure questions while Congress’s broader Clarity Act remains stalled.
That approach can give builders a usable compliance framework faster than formal rulemaking, but it is less durable. No-action positions can be narrowed, withdrawn or replaced by a future commission, and they do not bind courts or necessarily protect a business from every enforcement theory.
The next evidence will be adoption by software providers, published compliance practices and any follow-up rulemaking that turns temporary guidance into a stable regime. A clearer path is not permanent safe harbor. Companies should obtain legal advice for their own products and continue monitoring the CFTC’s conditions and future interpretations.
