The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Market Participants Division recently sent a key enforcement signal regarding "passive software providers": provided that the software is used solely to assist users in trading with regulated futures commission merchants (FCMs), introducing brokers (IBs), or designated contract markets (DCMs), and meets a series of specific conditions, staff will not recommend enforcement action solely because these software providers are not registered as IBs or their associated persons. This is seen by the industry as a relaxation from case-by-case treatment to a general pathway for the crypto industry — various crypto wallets, data websites, and online tool platforms can, within the commonly understood boundaries of not holding assets, and not making trading decisions on behalf of users, theoretically provide users direct access to regulated prediction markets and other CFTC-regulated products without the initial burden of compliance as "unregistered intermediaries." However, this "no action position" remains merely a policy stance at the enforcement level, rather than formal legislation or a rule revision; the key "specific conditions" have not been fully disclosed in public materials, leaving the real safe zone filled with gray areas: tool providers can approach the regulatory doors but must self-certify as "passive" under an opaque condition framework, opening a gap for compliance while introducing new uncertainties in the regulatory coordinates.

CFTC Opens Access for Passive Software

In this no-action position signed by CFTC Market Participants Division, the clearly named protagonist is — "passive software providers." The premise is also clearly defined: these tools can only help users access already regulated FCMs, IBs, or DCMs and cannot independently open new trading counterparties and venues. The commitment from CFTC staff also defined a boundary: under specific conditions, they "will not merely" suggest enforcement action solely because the software provider is not registered as an IB or its associated persons. In other words, as long as the tool remains at the level of helping users send instructions to compliant intermediaries and markets, it will not temporarily be treated as a role requiring registration as a broker, but this is solely the current attitude of the enforcement team and does not erase the registration obligation from the rules.

This precisely delineates the line drawn between passive software and traditional introducing brokers from a regulatory perspective: the latter are viewed as typical "active intermediaries," focusing on customer acquisition, relationship maintenance, and product matching, while the former is only permitted to exist as a "dumb pipeline," designed within the boundaries of not holding assets and not making trading decisions on behalf of users. Because the specific terms of the "specific conditions" have not been fully disclosed externally, tool providers can only rely on the commitment of "no recommendation for enforcement" itself — it is not a new rule, nor an exemption clause, but an internal discretion occurring in the enforcement office, where any innovation beyond the passive boundaries may be reclassified back into traditional intermediary obligations in the future.

From Phantom Case to General Exemption

This "dumb pipeline" imagination has not appeared for the first time on the regulatory end. According to a single source report, CFTC had, as early as March this year, made a no-action arrangement concerning the crypto wallet Phantom, also focusing on how non-custodial wallets can access compliant paths to CFTC-regulated products. The background description indicates that at that time, staff acknowledged in the case that if the wallet only transmits instructions between users and regulated FCMs, IBs, or DCMs, without holding assets or making decisions on behalf of users, it would be able to obtain enforcement leniency under certain conditions. However, these specific arrangements were never fully publicized; all that could be seen from the outside was a narrative from a single-source case, rather than formal rule texts.

Because the details of the Phantom case are not transparent, the general no-action position issued by the Market Participants Division is viewed by the industry as "writing the case logic into a reusable template." Also under the premise of clearly stating that software can only assist users in trading with regulated intermediaries or exchanges while meeting specific conditions, CFTC staff expressed that they would not recommend enforcement solely because a provider is not registered as an IB or its associated persons. This remains merely a policy stance on the enforcement level, yet substantively completes a transition from “case-specific leniency” to “industry guidance.” More importantly, from the Phantom case to the general pathway for passive software, CFTC has drawn an anticipatable line between tool-based intermediaries and traditional IBs: who can continue to act as a dumb pipeline, and who may be redefined as a regulated intermediary will be the key reference for market participants recalibrating their risk boundaries in every future enforcement case.

Compliance Red Lines for Wallets and Websites Accessing Futures

For non-custodial wallets and website front-ends, this no-action position truly relaxes the definition of "dumb pipeline," rather than the overall regulatory intensity. The position text clearly states that software can only be seen as a passive tool when it is helping users transact with regulated FCMs, IBs, or DCMs. In other words, as long as the front-end does not hold user assets or make decisions on behalf of users, it remains on the "connector" side; once substantive decisions are made in areas such as key custodianship, order routing priority, or automated strategies, it could potentially be pulled back from the tool role to a regulated intermediary position. Under this premise, the industry judges that the barriers for crypto wallets, websites, and other online platforms accessing regulated prediction markets and other CFTC-regulated products have been partially lowered, but this convenience comes at the cost of strictly self-certifying as "non-custodial, non-decision-making."

Opportunities and limitations have been magnified to detail in the front-end interaction layer. For wallets hoping to embed prediction market or futures interfaces, the new space means being able to directly display CFTC-regulated product quotes and order entry in the application, allowing users to complete transactions through regulated intermediaries while leveraging the no-action position to reduce the risk of being identified as introducing brokers. However, the "specific conditions" in the position have not been made public, so platforms can only design interfaces based on the general boundaries of "only connecting, not controlling" and "only displaying, not advising": who is executing behind the order button, whether risk prompts are sufficiently visible, and whether default options may be interpreted as investment advice will all become evidence reviewed in future enforcement. To uphold this red line, tool providers may need to prominently display the identity of regulated intermediaries on the interface, require users to actively confirm their choices, and avoid setting key parameters like leverage and stop-loss on behalf of users in risk control modules. Similar to the emphasis from Palantir CEO in the AI field that "tool providers must also bear legal responsibility for consequences," this position does not provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for front-end developers but merely draws an anticipatable line in a new gray area; who can stabilize this line under non-fully transparent conditions will determine their access limits and compliance costs for futures and prediction market businesses.

Looking at Tool Provider Obligations from AI Responsibility Debate

In the AI field, Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, offered a viewpoint in an interview with CNBC that draws another line for "tool providers." He explicitly asserts that companies developing and deploying AI systems should bear legal responsibility for the consequences of their technologies themselves, rather than simply outsourcing the risks to government regulation; regarding the idea of embedding third-party security assessment agencies within corporations, Karp also reminds that this mechanism itself is complex and that only truly knowledgeable technical individuals can ensure the division of responsibility is effectively managed. This advocacy contrasts with CFTC's no-action position on passive software: the regulatory body has not announced "tool providers bear no responsibility," but rather, under the premise of acknowledging technological complexity, it chooses not to prioritize enforcement against unregistered IBs under specific conditions, while retaining their obligations in risk warning and compliance design.

From the front end of crypto trading to AI tools, a common challenge exists: where does one qualify as "purely a tool" and where does one begin to bear "behavioral responsibility"? CFTC's choice to provide an operable boundary with its no-action position — as long as the software remains at the level of helping users transact with regulated FCMs, IBs, or DCMs, and does not make trading decisions on behalf of users, they will not currently hold them accountable as unregistered IBs; while Karp demands that AI companies actively take responsibility for their consequences. This combination of relaxation and tightening indicates that in future scenarios where crypto derivatives and AI tools intersect, the allocation of responsibilities will evolve into a layering of multiple constraints: on one side, regulatory agencies adjust their attitudes through updates to no-action positions or case enforcement; on the other side, tool providers self-enhance responsibilities in technical architecture and risk control design. It will be difficult for anyone to simply dismiss their role in the risk chain with "I am just writing code."

Regulatory Games and Uncertainties after Relaxing Exemptions

For crypto tool developers, this no-action position effectively tears open a "technical buffer zone" within CFTC's regulatory framework: as long as the product stays close to the common boundaries of non-custodial, passive forwarding, and user self-determination, there exists an opportunity to access regulated products like prediction markets without being immediately classified as introducing brokers; for front-end teams, compliance design shifts from "can we access" to "how to access without crossing the line." Platforms gain a testing space to experiment with A/B testing architectural experiments around access points, risk warnings, and transaction routing, but must also accept the reality of potentially having exemptions rescinded by the CFTC at any time — this position has neither been written into rulebooks nor has a termination point; if cases arise of template abuse, or circumventing regulatory marketing of high-risk derivative products, tightening conditions for updates to the position or case enforcement can occur almost without notice. For users, it appears to offer more compliant channels and friendlier front-end choices, but behind the scenes, the tool layer may need to thicken risk filtration, suitability reminders, and access controls, even laying down interfaces for future AI compliance solutions: from automated questionnaires and risk profiles before trading to embedding third-party assessment logic into risk control engines, the question of who bears responsibility for these judgment errors will, in the long term, remain in a tension that is both collaborative and adversarial, influenced by CFTC's shifting enforcement attitudes and public pressure on AI enterprises to bear their own consequences.

Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefit for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefit for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。