The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission plans to prepare American markets for tokenised assets, blockchain-based settlement and continuous trading, according to chairman Michael S. Selig. Speaking at the 2026 US Treasury Market Conference on 22 September, Selig framed the agency's task as adapting oversight as market structures change — while keeping what he called market integrity, resilience and competitiveness. The plan is directional, not yet a rulebook.
The substance sits in three claims, as reported by Digital Watch Observatory. Tokenised collateral could support what Selig called more dynamic liquidity and market resilience. Blockchain and tokenised assets could enable near-instantaneous settlement and real-time collateral mobility across clearing houses, intermediaries and end users. And the CFTC intends to apply clear, principles-based rules to the emerging sector. Those are the load-bearing statements in the reporting; everything else in the speech was framing.
For readers who follow commodities and derivatives plumbing, the interesting part is not the technology endorsement. It is which questions the chairman flagged as open, and which he answered with adjectives.
What does the CFTC actually propose to do?
Two concrete actions appear in the record, per Digital Watch Observatory. First, the agency has sought public comment on the suitability of certain asset classes for continuous trading. Second, it has issued guidance covering 24/7 trading, clearing and settlement — while stressing that different markets may require different approaches. That last clause is doing real work: it signals the agency does not intend a single template for round-the-clock markets, and it leaves the per-market decisions open. For related coverage, see How Do Money Market Funds Work, and Why Do They Suddenly Grow?. This connects to our earlier piece, How Do Money Market Funds Work, and Why Do They Suddenly Grow?.
Beyond that, the proposal is a posture rather than a programme. The CFTC wants principles-based rules for tokenised finance, and it wants regulatory frameworks to evolve alongside what Selig described as the new frontier of finance, including mass tokenisation and onchain finance. No timeline, no rulemaking schedule and no named asset classes appear in the supplied reporting. A principles-based approach is a legitimate regulatory method, but it is also the format that requires the most follow-through to become binding.
Why does collateral mobility matter more than settlement speed?
Near-instantaneous settlement gets the headlines, but the chairman's more consequential claim is about collateral. The supplied reporting does not describe how margin moves between clearing houses today; what it records is Selig's argument that tokenised collateral could move in real time across clearing houses, intermediaries and end users — which, if realised, would change how liquidity is positioned across the system, not just how fast a trade finalises.
Who bears the risk in that model is the question the speech does not answer. Collateral that moves instantly between venues moves its failure modes too: a problem at one node propagates faster. The supplied reporting records the resilience argument in Selig's favour and does not contain any counter-evidence, so the honest reading is that this is a claim from the regulator, not a tested finding.
Is 24/7 trading a solved question?
No, and the agency says so itself. Derivatives markets increasingly serve participants across global time zones, which is the demand-side case for continuous trading. But the CFTC's own move — seeking comment on which asset classes suit continuous trading, and stressing that different markets may need different approaches — concedes that the answer is not uniform. A Treasury future and a thinly traded agricultural contract do not present the same operational questions.
The public-comment process is where this gets decided. Until commenters respond and the agency acts, the 24/7 discussion remains a consultation, not a policy.
What the speech leaves unresolved
Three gaps stand out. There is no timeline for any rulemaking on tokenised markets. There is no list of which asset classes the CFTC is considering for continuous trading. And there is no stated position on how the agency's principles-based rules would interact with the existing clearing-house framework that the collateral-mobility vision would rewire. None of these gaps makes the speech unimportant; they make it a first marker rather than a policy.
For context on where digital-asset policy stands more broadly, the digital-dollar debate is running on a parallel track — see Where Does the Digital Dollar Actually Stand in 2026? — and the settlement-infrastructure questions overlap. Readers tracking the wider regulatory arc will find more in the Finance News section as comment periods close. This connects to our earlier piece, Where Does the Digital Dollar Actually Stand in 2026?. For related coverage, see Where Does the Digital Dollar Actually Stand in 2026?.
The verdict within the evidence: the CFTC has committed to a direction — tokenised collateral, faster settlement, possible continuous trading — and to a method, principles-based rules. What it has not committed to is a schedule, a scope or a risk framework for the failure modes that instant collateral mobility could introduce. Those are the items to watch at the next comment deadline, whenever the agency sets one.
