CFTC Revises Crypto Tokenization Rules as CLARITY Act Remains Stalled

Key Takeaways

• The CFTC has revised its framework for tokenized assets and distributed ledger recordkeeping systems for registered entities.
• Approved entities can now hold customer assets in tokenized formats when specific requirements are satisfied.
• This regulatory adjustment follows the Senate’s inability to move forward with the CLARITY Act legislation.
• Both the SEC and CFTC are proceeding with crypto frameworks using their current regulatory powers.
• A coalition of state attorneys general has opposed the legislation, citing concerns about diminished state regulatory authority over securities.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has refreshed its framework governing tokenized assets and distributed ledger technology for recordkeeping purposes. The agency disclosed this regulatory update through an official notice issued Thursday.

This revised framework targets registered entities operating in the cryptocurrency sector. It builds upon initial guidance that the CFTC introduced back in March.

UPDATE: CFTC now lets US brokers invest customer funds in TOKENIZED assets and keep records on-chain.

CFTC staff updated their crypto FAQs today, adding four new answers and revising one:

Tokenized investments:

Brokers and clearinghouses can invest customer funds in… pic.twitter.com/NaxVdntImk

— Coin Bureau (@coinbureau) September 24, 2026

According to the revised language, approved entities may now hold customer assets in tokenized formats. The critical requirement is that tokenized versions must provide holders with identical legal protections and economic benefits as their conventional counterparts.

Additionally, the CFTC indicated it would accept blockchain-based recordkeeping systems under these modified regulations. CFTC Chair Michael Selig stated the revisions aim to provide greater regulatory transparency for the digital asset sector.

Legislative Setback Prompted Regulatory Action

This guidance update emerged shortly after the US Senate’s unsuccessful attempt to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The proposed legislation aimed to delineate oversight responsibilities between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission for digital asset markets.

Following the vote’s collapse, industry observers widely anticipate that comprehensive crypto market structure legislation won’t emerge from Congress until at least 2027. This legislative vacuum has compelled regulatory agencies to develop frameworks independently.

The CFTC has already submitted a comprehensive crypto market oversight proposal to the White House for consideration. The SEC has similarly maintained an active posture. Shortly after the legislative setback, the SEC announced an order establishing a temporary framework for tokenized equity trading.

Before the vote, SEC Chair Paul Atkins indicated his agency’s readiness to advance crypto regulatory proposals regardless of Congressional action. The SEC has additionally put forward regulations addressing specific investment contracts involving digital assets.

Perspectives From Industry Leaders And State Officials

Cryptocurrency sector leaders had championed the CLARITY Act and anticipated its passage. Following an earlier unsuccessful procedural vote, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong expressed frustration that the industry cannot afford continued Congressional delays.

Summer Mersinger, who leads the Blockchain Association and previously served as a CFTC commissioner, emphasized that regulatory clarity would attract additional capital to the sector. She suggested clear frameworks would facilitate deeper integration between crypto and traditional financial systems.

However, the legislation faces opposition from multiple quarters. A cross-party coalition of state attorneys general submitted correspondence to the Senate Banking Committee expressing opposition to the CLARITY Act. Their primary concern centers on potential erosion of state authority over securities market regulation.

These state officials emphasized the importance of maintaining state enforcement capabilities to safeguard consumers from fraudulent schemes. Aaron Klein from the Brookings Institution argued that capital market oversight belongs at the federal level, while states should focus their resources on fraud prosecution and scam prevention.

Mersinger countered that state enforcement mechanisms typically activate only after violations have already harmed victims. She advocated for federal oversight as a proactive measure to prevent consumer harm.

The CLARITY Act’s prospects may not be entirely extinguished. Senator Thom Tillis switched his position to vote against the measure. This strategic parliamentary maneuver preserves his option to introduce a reconsideration motion for the legislation during a future Senate session.

Meanwhile, federal agencies continue advancing regulatory frameworks within their existing statutory authority, declining to wait for Congressional direction.