In December 2025, within the U.S. financial regulatory system, an unusual “recruitment” and “alliance” quietly took shape. Policymakers in Washington, D.C. are attempting to face the disruptive challenges brought by crypto assets in an unprecedented way.
I. A Carefully Balanced “All-Star” List
● On December 11, Caroline Pham, Acting Chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, announced the official establishment of the “CEO Innovation Committee under the Digital Asset Markets Advisory Committee.” Although the name of this institution is somewhat lengthy, its inaugural members sent shockwaves through both Wall Street and the crypto world.
This 12-person list is a carefully crafted balancing act:
● Traditional Pillars: Leaders of traditional financial giants such as Terry Duffy, CEO of CME Group, and Adena Friedman, CEO of Nasdaq, are among them. They represent the core interests and century-old experience of regulated markets, symbolizing financial stability.
● Crypto-Native Forces: CEOs of leading crypto exchanges such as Kraken, Gemini, and Crypto.com occupy key seats. They bring firsthand experience in new business models such as perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading—realities that regulations must address.
● Frontier “Disruptors”: Most notably, prediction market platforms Polymarket and Kalshi have been included. These platforms, once under scrutiny for operating in regulatory gray areas, now have their founders directly invited to the table. This strongly suggests that regulators do not intend to stifle but rather to clarify and integrate such cutting-edge innovations.
This list deliberately avoids being a mere gathering of either the “crypto circle” or the “traditional circle.” Its core objective is centered on one keyword: dialogue.
II. Strategic Intent: From “Building Walls” to “Building Roads”
● This move by the CFTC marks a strategic shift in regulatory philosophy. In the past, the relationship between regulators and emerging industries was often described as a “cat-and-mouse game,” with one side building high walls and the other seeking loopholes. The establishment of the “CEO Innovation Committee” is more like inviting the main “road builders” to jointly draw up a future map of traffic rules.
● This shift is driven by profound real-world pressures. The crypto market and its derivatives trading are expanding rapidly worldwide, but the U.S. regulatory framework is fragmented, with unclear jurisdiction between the SEC and the CFTC. This uncertainty has caused the U.S. to fall significantly behind in attracting crypto innovation and capital. Several bipartisan proposals in Congress aim to explicitly expand the CFTC’s authority over the digital asset spot market. The CFTC’s move can be seen as “warming up” its capabilities and building consensus for possible new statutory mandates.
● By bringing the industry’s most core and challenging participants into a formal advisory framework, the CFTC hopes to achieve multiple goals:
1. First, to directly acquire cutting-edge market knowledge and avoid regulatory detachment from reality;
2. Second, to resolve potential major disagreements at the early stage of policy design, improving the enforceability of future rules;
3. Third, to demonstrate America’s ability to integrate and lead innovation in the international regulatory competition.
III. Subtle Timing and Considerations of “Policy Legacy”
● The committee’s establishment comes at an exceptionally delicate moment of power transition. Its main driver, Acting Chair Caroline Pham, is a recognized advocate of regulatory innovation. She has repeatedly emphasized that regulatory agencies must proactively understand technology rather than react passively. This committee is a concentrated embodiment of her personal regulatory philosophy.
● However, Pham’s term is about to end. The new chair, Mike Selig, nominated by President Trump, has already been approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee and awaits a full Senate vote. Selig, with experience handling crypto cases at the SEC, is considered a pragmatist.
Therefore, the committee’s rapid establishment on the eve of the outgoing chair’s departure is widely interpreted as Pham’s attempt to leave a “policy legacy”—creating an institutionalized high-level dialogue mechanism that, regardless of her successor’s preferences, will be difficult to bypass or abolish, given its composition of top industry leaders.
● This also casts a layer of uncertainty over the committee’s future. Will the new chair fully support and make it a core focus, or adjust its agenda, or even sideline it? The variables brought by this leadership change are a political backdrop that must be considered when assessing whether the committee can produce substantive results.
IV. Six Core Issues: Tackling the Toughest Questions Head-On
The committee is not engaging in empty talk; its work is precisely focused on six specific and highly challenging frontier areas. Each topic is a direct challenge to the existing regulatory system:
1. Tokenization: How should tokens backed by physical assets (such as government bonds or real estate) be regulated? This concerns the compliant path for trillions of dollars in traditional assets to move on-chain.
2. Crypto Assets: While the SEC emphasizes the “securities” nature, how will the CFTC define the “commodity” characteristics under its jurisdiction? This is central to the division of regulatory authority.
3. 24/7 Trading: How can financial infrastructure, risk monitoring, and even industry professionals adapt to a market that never closes? This fundamentally disrupts the entire traditional system built on the concept of “trading days.”
4. Perpetual Contracts: These crypto market-specific derivatives, with no expiration date and settled via funding rates, have risk structures completely different from traditional futures and require an entirely new regulatory toolbox.
5. Prediction Markets: This is the boldest topic. Should, and how can, prediction markets involving political and sports events be regulated as legitimate financial derivatives? This involves the intersection of finance, law, and social policy.
6. Blockchain Infrastructure: How should regulatory standards be set for underlying “pipes” such as trade settlement and asset custody? This is the cornerstone for the safe operation of the entire market.
Bringing these six major challenges to the table simultaneously shows that the CFTC does not intend to make piecemeal changes, but rather aims for a systematic framework overhaul.
V. The Long Road from Dialogue to Results
Establishing the committee is only the beginning of the story. The journey from dialogue to consensus, and then to producing legally effective regulatory frameworks, is long and winding.
● Details such as when the first meeting will be held, in what format (public or closed-door), and whether discussions will be transparent have not yet been announced. The bigger suspense lies in the form of the outcomes: will it be a non-binding industry white paper, concrete legislative proposals submitted to Congress, or pilot regulatory rules issued by the CFTC itself?
● The market’s expectations are mixed with doubts. The expectation is that this is indeed a positive signal of regulatory thaw, providing the industry with the highest-level direct communication channel. The doubts lie in the divergent interests of the giants—traditional exchanges focus on fair competition, crypto platforms seek regulatory recognition, and prediction markets crave legitimacy—can the committee reach consensus internally, or will it become just another talking shop?
In any case, the establishment of the CFTC “CEO Innovation Committee” has already rewritten the narrative of U.S. crypto regulation. It is no longer a simple story of “regulation versus anti-regulation,” but opens a more complex and constructive chapter: In a regulatory vacuum, how can rule-makers and the regulated jointly build the first safety barriers?
The success or failure of this experiment will not only determine the competitiveness of the U.S. market, but may also provide a key model for financial governance in the global digital era.
