Quantum update 71: US CFTC | Chairman Selig Unveils Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance Covering Crypto Market Structure, Compute Markets and Prediction Markets | September 2026

US CFTC | Chairman Selig Unveils Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance Covering Crypto Market Structure, Compute Markets and Prediction Markets

On 20 August 2026, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered remarks at the inaugural meeting of the Innovation Advisory Committee, setting out a regulatory agenda he calls the Roadmap for the New Frontier of Finance, spanning crypto asset market structure, compute markets and prediction markets regulation.

• The US CFTC stated that it"stands ready" to implement the CLARITY Act immediately if passed. Seligfurther suggested staff to begin exploring rules codifying CFTC market structure for crypto assets under existing authorities, creating a new type of designated contract market known as a "crypto asset market" through which current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges could offer leveraged or margined crypto trading under purpose-fit rules.
• The mechanism rests on the Dodd-Frank provision bringing retail commodity transactions on a leveraged, margined or financed basis within USCFTC jurisdiction as futures, giving spot crypto exchanges a federal registration home without new legislation; Selig was explicit about the sequencing, stating the US CFTC will give CLARITY "its breathing room for a vote" but staff will "move swiftly to propose these new rules" if the bill stalls, so a federal pathway is coming by one route or the other.
• The historicalanchor by recounting how nineteenth-century state anti-gaming and anti-bucket shop laws against grain futures were resolved by exclusive federal jurisdiction under section 2(a)(1)(A) of the USCommodity Exchange Act in 1974, Selig is previewing the pre-emption argument the US CFTC will run in the Kalshi litigation and its successors over event contracts.
• Amendments to Rule 40.11 defining "gaming" and establishing public interest criteria (removing the risk of rejection "based upon arbitrary whims or political biases"), a modernised reporting framework for fully collateralised event contracts, and forthcoming amendments to Parts 38 and 40 instituting consumer protection requirements alongside expectations for product governance, market design and incentive programmes.
• Retail-facing platforms may consider to keep a close watch onproduct governance, market design and incentive programme rules would reach the promotional mechanics, contest structures and gamification features that have drawn the sharpest public criticism, showing theUS CFTC pairing federal pre-emption with substantive standards rather than defending an unregulated field.
• Selig confirmed the partnership with the Department of Commerce and framed the 19 August 2026 request for comment (covered separately in this issue) as the first step towards a gold standard regulatory framework for compute markets, while staff have also been directed to engage with developers of on-chain finance protocols on legal and compliant pathways for offering protocols in the United States.

To read this news in detail click here

 

Hong Kong SFC Issues Circular on Simplified eDDA Deposit Risks for Internet Brokers and Virtual Asset Trading Platforms

On 20 August 2026, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issued a circular (reference SFO/IS/033/2026) to licensed corporations, SFC-licensed virtual asset service providers and associated entities on mitigating risks in receiving client deposits through simplified Electronic Direct Debit Authorisation (eDDA) arrangements under the Faster Payment System, with internet brokers and virtual asset trading platform operators the principal audience.

• The structural point is where liability sitsunder a simplified eDDA arrangement the licensed firm, not the client, initiates the setup request as payee on client-supplied information, and where the payer bank requires no confirmation from the account owner, the SFC states the firm "bears primary responsibility for ensuring that it has obtained proper authorisation from the bank account owner", a convenience purchased with firm-level liability reinforced by indemnities firms typically give their payee banks.
• Two risk categories follow directly: impersonation and unauthorised access risk, where stolen personal and bank account information is used to initiate setup requests without the account owner’s knowledge, and indemnity and financial risk, where erroneous setup requests containing inaccurate client-supplied information expose the firm to bank claims.
• The verification expectations are anchored to existing conduct obligations (paragraph 4.3 of the Code of Conduct and paragraph 11.10 of the VATP Guidelines) and are specific: where the payer bank requires no owner confirmation, firms should verify account ownership independently through a single small value transfer test checked against the firm’s own bank deposit records, not deposit records supplied by clients, with identification information in setup requests matched against the firm’s existing client records.
• The red flag list deserves particular attention from platform operators: alongside repeated setup failures, deposits inconsistent with client profiles and suspicious deposits converted into virtual assets and withdrawn shortly after, the SFC flags a new setup request paired with the whitelisting of a new wallet address in either order, linking fiat entry through eDDA to virtual asset exit through withdrawals as a single fraud surface rather than separate controls, with reporting to the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit or the Anti-Deception Coordination Centre where warranted.
• Read with the SFC’s November 2025 circular on layering activities, the supervisory direction is clear: deposit channels at brokers and virtual asset trading platforms are now a defined area of scrutiny, and firms should map their payer banks’ confirmation practices, read bank indemnities together with client agreements, embed the transfer test in onboarding flows and calibrate deposit limits and withholding periods to client risk profiles, or expect supervisory questions.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US CFTC Requests Comment on Listing Compute Derivatives Contracts as AI Computing Power Emerges as a Regulated Commodity Class

On 19 August 2026, the CFTC issued a request for comment on compute derivatives, published in the Federal Register on 21 August 2026 (RIN 3038-AF77), concerning derivatives contracts referencing the price of access to computing power, with comments due by 20 October 2026.

• CFTC estimates that installed compute implies a gross service flow of US$430 billion to US$1.3 trillion per year, roughly 1.4 to 4.0 per cent of US GDP, while Chairman Selig calls compute the commodity of the intelligence economy and anchors the request in the White House AI Action Plan of July 2025 and Executive Order 14179, a derivatives regulator citing presidential AI strategy as context for a listing framework.
• The contemplated underlier is access to rented compute capacity from hardware the purchaser does not own, such as the hourly rental price of compute from a B200 chip, or alternatively a stated volume of LLM inference tokens; the CFTC preliminarily expects most compute derivatives to be cash settled given the infrastructure challenges of physical delivery, drawing the historical parallel to electricity, a commodity that cannot be stored yet whose derivatives markets matured.
• The manipulation problem sits at the centrei.e. under Core Principle 3 a designated contract market may list only contracts not readily susceptible to manipulation, yet in compute the parties best positioned to influence any reference price are the same concentrated group that supplies the capacity and administers the posted rates from which an index would be computed, so the viability of the entire product class rests on whether an index methodology can be governed against its own contributors.
• The geopolitical dimension is treated as a first order settlement input rather than background. Compute capacity sits under export control regimes, national security review and semiconductor trade policy in a way agricultural and energy commodities do not, and the CFTC asks what disclosure considerations arise from offering retail participants a contract settling against "a geopolitically sensitive commodity", alongside AML and KYC questions for intermediaries building compute futures compliance programmes.
• The perpetual compute futures questions connect this request to the first CFTC-regulated bitcoin perpetual and the US CFTC’sengagement on perpetuals for non-crypto assets. A funding rate mechanism born on offshore crypto venues is now contemplated as market structure for the commodity underpinning artificial intelligence, as clear a statement as exists of crypto market design migrating into the regulated mainstream.
• The record built through this consultation will shape how any compute contract submission is assessed against Core Principles 3, 4 and 5 and the Appendix C Guidance, so compute providers, AI developers, data centre operators and prospective index administrators have a sixty day window to shape the standards they will later be measured against, with empirical and data-driven input particularly encouraged.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US CFTC | Chairman Selig Outlines Crypto and Compute Agenda at White House Innovation Meeting and Confronts State Challenges to Prediction Markets

On 19 August 2026, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered remarks at a White House innovation meeting hosted by President Trump with technology and crypto industry leaders, mapping the CFTC’s agenda across crypto, compute and prediction markets.

• The administration’s digital asset record as Selig presents declares that "the era of political lawfare, de-banking, and regulation by enforcement is over", he credited the administration with codifying the GENIUS Act, establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve, drawing a clear line between crypto securities and commodities and launching the first US crypto perpetual contract.
• Compute received its own billing as "digital oil". Selig confirmed he is working with Commerce Secretary Lutnick to make America "the compute capital of the world", describing compute as possibly the most important commodity of our time, on the same day the CFTC issued its request for comment on compute derivatives (covered separately in this issue).
• InJuly 2026 the New York Attorney General sued Kalshi, a CFTC designated contract market, as an unlicensed gambling operator, the CFTC responded on 11 August 2026 with an emergency order directing Kalshi to continue providing its event contracts in the state, and operator Novig has filed pre-emptive suits against New York and three other states, a live federal pre-emption contest that will be resolved by courts, not speeches.
• On legislation, Selig confirmed the CFTC stands ready to implement the CLARITY Act once signed and will "use every tool available" in the meantime, previewing the regulatory roadmap he presented the following day at the Innovation Advisory Committee’s inaugural meeting (covered separately in this issue), whose more than thirty members include senior executives of Robinhood, Nasdaq and CME.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US SEC Proposes Regulation Crypto Assets With US$75 Million Fundraising Exemption, US$5 Million Startup Exemption and Investment Contract Safe Harbor

On 18 August 2026, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed Statement on Regulation Crypto Assets, the USSEC'sfirst formal crypto offering rulemaking, creating a tailored securities offering framework for investment contracts involving non-security crypto assets.

• The 402-page proposing release adding a new Part 228 to Title 17 CFR: a US$5 million startup exemption over four years, a US$75 million-per-12-months fundraising exemption, and a conditional investment contract safe harbour,calibrated deliberately above Regulation Crowdfunding's US$5m cap and Regulation A Tier 2's US$75m ceiling, but with disclosure built for token economics rather than share capital.
• The safe harbor answers the question that has shadowed token offerings since the DAO Report: a non-security crypto asset ceases to be subject to an investment contract once the issuer certifies that all promised "essential managerial efforts" have ended locating the exit in Howey's own logic (the security is the contract, not the asset) rather than creating a new legal test.
• Chairman Atkins frames the departure in unusually blunt terms for a regulator: the prior approach "actively undermined capital formation… in the form of regulation by enforcement and disingenuous offers to 'come in and register'", applying 1930s-era rules to crypto assets in a "square peg in a round hole" fashion that drove investment offshore.
• State-law preemption is the structural cleanup nobody else could deliver: the proposal would preempt the fifty-state blue-sky overlay for exempt offerings and extend that preemption to certain secondary market transactions, removing the aftermarket uncertainty that made even compliant primary offerings hard to build on.
• The lineage is explicit and matters for durability: Atkins credits Commissioner Peirce's 2020 "Running on Empty" safe harbor proposal as the origin of today's rulemaking, while stating that "legislation remains indispensable" to protect the framework from being unwound by "a future rogue regulator",an explicit SEC endorsement of the CLARITY Act as the backstop this rulemaking cannot provide alone.
• Comments are due 60 days after Federal Register publication, and issuers relying on either exemption remain fully subject to antifraud and anti-manipulation provisions throughout, the exemptions relieve registration, not honesty.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US SEC | Former Tricolor Executives Charged over Alleged US$1.9 Billion ABS Fraud

On 18 August 2026, the SEC commenced civil enforcement proceedings in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against three former senior executives of Tricolor Holdings, LLC, alleging a scheme involving double-pledging of subprime auto loan receivables and manipulation of collateral and servicing data.

• The mechanics are old-fashioned fraud wearing a securitisation wrapper: double-pledging of the same subprime auto loan receivables across multiple asset-backed offerings, with delinquent, defaulted or outright fictitious loans allegedly booked as eligible collateral or reported as current across 14 ABS offerings that raised over US$1.9 billion between 2013 and 2025.
• The alleged concealment reached into the data layer itself: loan identifiers, delinquency information, borrowing-base reports and monthly servicing reports were allegedly altered as Tricolor came under liquidity and covenant pressure, a collateral gap independently estimated at US$675–800 million by the bankruptcy trustee's forensic firm.
• The collapse followed a predictable sequence once lenders looked closely: discrepancies surfaced in August 2025, double-pledging was detected, funding was pulled, and Tricolor filed Chapter 7 within weeks, on 10 September 2025, leaving roughly US$945.4 million in principal outstanding across seven offerings.
• The criminal track is already well ahead of the civil case: Kollar and Seibold pleaded guilty in December 2025 to bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and destruction of evidence, while Chu faces a superseding indictment from June 2026,the USSEC's civil claims (Securities Act s.17(a), Exchange Act s.10(b)/Rule 10b-5, control-person and aiding-and-abetting liability) seek injunctions, disgorgement, penalties and officer-and-director bars on top.
• The firms relying on management certifications or aggregated servicing reports for collateral eligibility may consider to independently verify ownership, lien status and loan performance at the individual-asset level.

To read this news in detail click here

 

Australia: ASIC Warns AI Deepfakes Are Driving More Sophisticated Investment and Crypto Scams

On 17 August 2026, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) warned consumers about investment scams using generative artificial intelligence, deepfake videos and fabricated online content designed to make fraudulent investment opportunities appear legitimate.

• The scam architecture as described byASIC is a full "web of deception", andnot a single fake ad, which includes fabricated news articles, manufactured reviews, AI-generated celebrity endorsement videos and scripted follow-up calls are built around a fictitious investment brand before a consumer ever hands over money, with small early "profit" payments used deliberately to build trust before the real ask.
• ASIC removed over 19,400 online scams in FY26, up 182% on FY25's 6,915, with cryptocurrency investment scam takedowns specifically up almost 30% to 3,106,phishing hyperlink takedowns rose fastest of all, up 279%.
• A volume of search results, favourable reviews and "polished content" can itself be manufactured, so online searching is explicitly called out as insufficient verification, real diligence means checking the AFSL number against ASIC's own public register and confirming it matches the actual promoting entity, not just its existence.
• Deepfaked social proof has a real, quantified cost: impersonation of named Australian public figures drove AU$7.4 million in reported Scamwatch losses in FY26 alone, and ASIC notes impersonation targets shift quickly to track the news cycle.
• The practical takeaway for compliance and brand-protection teams alike is to assume identity misuse will happen and build monitoring for it, ASIC's own "Stop, Check, Protect" consumer guidance (stop before transferring funds, check independently via trusted contact details, report to Scamwatch/cyber.gov.au) is really a description of the verification gap scammers are now engineering around.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US SEC Division of Corporation Finance Ends All Rule 14a-8 No-Action Responses on Shareholder Proposal Exclusions

On 14 August 2026, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance issued an updated statement discontinuing, effective immediately, all responses to Rule 14a-8 no-action requests, including the one exception previously preserved for Rule 14a-8(i)(1) requests.

• The withdrawal is total, i.e.the one exception preserved from the 2025–2026 pilot (responses to Rule 14a-8(i)(1) requests) is now also gone, and the Division will no longer issue no-objection letters on Rule 14a-8(j) exclusion notices at all.
• Companies still carry the procedural obligation without the procedural safety neti.e. Rule 14a-8(j) notices must still be filed (via the online Shareholder Proposal Form; the old email address no longer works) ordinarily 80 days before the definitive proxy statement, but exclusion decisions now rest entirely on the company's own legal judgment, with no staff view to point to if challenged.
• November 2025 statement already confirmed prior no-action letters were non-binding informal views, and Chairman Atkins previewed this outcome on 9 July 2026, calling staff "interposition" between companies and shareholder proponents "unnecessary" to resolve inclusion disputes.
• The practical consequence is that exclusion decisions move from an administrative process to litigation risk. Companies should support each exclusion with a written analysis addressing the specific Rule 14a-8 basis, relevant precedent (now explicitly non-binding either way) and case laws.
• A modernisation proposal for Rule 14a-8 itself has been signalled but not yet published.
• The rule operates for the first time in decades without any administrative referee at all.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US CFTC: Innovation Advisory Committee to Examine Crypto Assets, AI and Prediction Markets at Inaugural Meeting

On 13 August 2026, US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael S. Selig released the agenda for the inaugural Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC) meeting, confirming that crypto assets, artificial intelligence and prediction markets will be discussed at the 20 August 2026 session in Washington.

• The agenda confirms what the January 2026 renaming from "Technology Advisory Committee" to "Innovation Advisory Committee" foreshadowed: crypto assets, artificial intelligence and prediction markets are now formally grouped as a single regulatory subject area for the US CFTC’sadvisory infrastructure, not three separate workstreams.
• The Committee sits under the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a discretionary body, so its output is advisory rather than binding, but its composition and remit ("recommendations concerning the impact and implications of technological innovation in financial services") signal where Chairman Selig intends CFTC rulemaking priorities to be shaped next.
• Public comment stays open past the meeting itself, until 27 August 2026, and the CFTC has flagged the agenda may still change to accommodate other IAC priorities, firms with a direct stake in crypto derivatives, AI trading systems or event-contract regulation have a real window to influence the discussion before it hardens into policy recommendations.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US CFTC | Chairman Michael Selig Announces Inaugural Innovation Advisory Committee Meeting on 20 August 2026

On 10 August 2026, the CFTC announced the inaugural meeting of its Innovation Advisory Committee, to be held in Washington on 20 August 2026 and livestreamed through the CFTC's website.

• The Committee itself is not new machinery but a rename with an expanded mandate: launched by Chairman Selig in January 2026 as a renamed and broadened version of the former Technology Advisory Committee, its amended charter now covers the "impact and implications of technological innovation in financial services and markets" generally, not just derivatives-specific technology questions.
• Scheduling the inaugural meeting for 20 August 2026 in Washington, with public livestreaming, signals the CFTC wants this body visible rather than a quiet internal advisory exercise,consistent with Chairman Selig's public framing of it as a venue for "American innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, and builders."

To read this news in detail click here

 

US CFTC | Chairman Selig Outlines Innovation-Led Approach to Crypto, Stablecoins and Derivatives Regulation

On 6 August 2026, CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig outlined his approach to financial innovation and international derivatives regulation in an opinion piece published by The Economist, addressing crypto assets, stablecoins, perpetual futures and prediction markets.

• Selig states "America is not in the business of importing regulatory trends", explicitly rejecting reliance on international consensus where it diverges from developments in US markets, a materially different posture from the harmonisation language typically used by G20 financial regulators.
• Three concrete workstreams are flaggedwhich includes USCFTC examination of regulated stablecoins as derivatives collateral, engagement with market participants on perpetual futures for non-crypto assets, and continued build-out of round-the-clock trading infrastructure,none of these announce new rules, but all three identify where CFTC rulemaking attention is currently directed.
• Selig directly contests the position of nine European regulators characterising event contracts as gambling rather than financial instruments, arguing they are "traded on marketplaces and not wagers placed with a 'house'" and that the European framing misunderstands both their structure and their price-discovery function.
• Selig cites derivatives markets exceeding US$1.2 quadrillion in notional value, with nearly half falling within CFTC jurisdiction, and frames CFTC-regulated Bitcoin futures and the 2026 approval of the first "true" Bitcoin perpetual futures contract as the model for extending crypto-market infrastructure into the broader financial system rather than the reverse.

To read this news in detail click here

 

Cayman Islands: CIMA Warns BitMart Is Not Regulated or Authorised to Provide Virtual Asset Services

On 6 August 2026, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) issued a public notice concerning the regulatory status of BitMart and several related entities, stating that BitMart has never been registered, licensed, regulated or otherwise authorised by the Authority to conduct virtual asset service provider business in or from the Cayman Islands.

• BitMart, BitMart Exchange and eight named GBM and Bachi-related entities have "never been" registered, licensed or authorised by CIMA to conduct virtual asset service provider business in or from the Cayman Islands, despite complaints suggesting otherwise had been represented to the public.
• Under the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (2024 Revision), any person carrying on virtual asset services as a business in or from the Cayman Islands must be registered with, or where applicable licensed by.
• The notice followed multiple public complaints specifically about claimed Cayman Islands regulatory status, whichprompted CIMA to act publicly.
• Any claim of Cayman Islands regulation or licensing by BitMart or the named GBM/Bachi entities should be treated as false until independently verified against CIMA's own public register, with complaints routed to financial crime or regulatory enforcement authorities in the complainant's own jurisdiction.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US SEC Establishes Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit in Enforcement Division Under Timothy Zimmerman

On 5 August 2026, the SEC announced the establishment of a dedicated Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit within its Division of Enforcement, to be led by Mr Timothy Zimmerman and staffed by both attorneys and accountants with specialised financial reporting, accounting and auditing expertise.

• The unit is a dedicated enforcement capability, staffed jointly by attorneys and accountants, under the Division of Enforcement's specialised units structure under Principal Deputy Director Osman Nawaz, reporting a clear chain of accountability rather than an ad hoc task force.
• Timothy Zimmerman, who joined the Division only in May 2026 as senior advisor to the Director, brings twelve years at an international law firm and a recent role as Deputy General Counsel at a major accounting and professional services firm.
• Director David Woodcock's framing ties the unit to a broader post-return staffing review ("assessing every aspect of our staffing to ensure that we are aligned to deliver results in our core mission areas"), suggesting this is one output of a wider enforcement reorganisation rather than an isolated addition.
• The remit spans both fraud and non-fraud misconductincludingaccounting and financial reporting fraud sits alongside "broader violations involving the accounting and auditing profession" generally.Auditors and accounting professionals, have an statutiory obligationthe SEC's 2013 Financial Reporting and Audit Task Force.

To read this news in detail click here

 

US SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda Backs Technical Amendments Restoring Rule 0-1(a)(7) to Reflect Federal Court Vacatur

On 4 August 2026, USSEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda issued a statement supporting the Commission's adoption of technical amendments to Rule 0-1(a)(7) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, updating the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect a 2006 DC Circuit vacatur.

• The 75% independent-director and independent-chair requirements were vacated by the DC Circuit in 2006 for an Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment failure, yet the vacated text remained in the CFR for nearly twenty years until this amendment finally removed it.
• The amendments restore the simple-majority disinterested-director requirement that predated the 2004 expansion, while leaving unchanged the other governance standards (independent legal counsel, annual board evaluations, quarterly executive sessions of disinterested directors, and authority to retain advisers) that were never subject to the vacatur.
• The amendments impose no new substantive obligation, the Commission found good cause to skip notice-and-comment and made the change effective immediately on 6 August 2026,an unusually fast turnaround that itself signals the change's non-controversial character.
• For funds and business development companies relying on Rule 0-1(a)(7) exemptive conditions, nothing about board composition requirements actually changes in practice, since the simple-majority standard has governed since July 2006 regardless of what the uncorrected CFR text said.

To read this news in detail click here

 

UK FCA Finalises Transaction Reporting Reform in PS26/15, Cutting Industry Costs by £100 Million While Keeping Cryptoasset Derivatives in Scope

On 3 August 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published Policy Statement PS26/15, finalising reforms to the UK transaction reporting regime expected to cut firms' reporting costs by more than £100 million a year, with the new regime coming into force on 3 April 2028.

• Transaction reporting fields fall from 65 to 52, FX derivatives exit the regime entirely (relying instead on UK EMIR data), and reporting ends for roughly 7 million EU-venue-only instruments, together cutting industry cost from an estimated £493 million to £385 million annually, a £108 million saving.
• Cryptoasset derivatives unlike FX derivatives (which duplicate EMIR data) and EU-only instruments (now out of scope entirely), crypto derivatives remain fully reportable under the new 52-field schema with no scope relief, the FCA's clearest signal yet that transaction-level visibility into crypto derivatives remains a live supervisory priority even as the wider regime is cut back.
• The implementation ofthe full regime doesn't commence until 3 April 2028, but the UKFCA allows some firms to adopt certain changes early from 3 August 2026,except the validation rules and schema needed to support some of those early changes won't be finalised until after an October 2026 consultation, so moving too early risks report rejections.
• The default look-back period for correcting historical errors falls from five years to three (cutting resubmission volumes by roughly a third), though the FCA retains discretion to demand the full five years in exceptional cases, a genuine compliance-cost reduction, not merely a headline number.
• A joint FCA/Bank of England Transaction and Post-Trade Reporting Industry Harmonisation Taskforce held its inaugural meeting in July 2026 and will shape further convergence between MiFIR-style and EMIR-style reporting, firms building reporting-change programmes should design for continued change beyond the 2028 commencement date, not treat it as final.

To read this news in detail click here

 

Singapore MAS | MAS and ABS Establish AI Risk Taskforce to Strengthen Financial Sector Cyber Resilience

On 28 July 2026, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) established the AI Driven Cyber and Technology Risk Taskforce (ACT), an industry-wide initiative to strengthen cyber and technology resilience against risks posed by frontier artificial intelligence models.

• MAS and ABS sit alongside DBS, OCBC, UOB, the Singapore Exchange, NETS and Banking Computer Services, spanning banking, market infrastructure and payments in one body, rather than a bank-specific or product-specific initiative.
• The frontier AI's ability to rapidly identify and exploit vulnerabilities and to automate cyber attacks at scale, not generic cybersecurity hygiene requiresresponse to a step-change in attacker capability rather than routine resilience work.
• Three concrete steps have been taken i.e.industry-wide sharing of AI cybersecurity use cases and experience, proof-of-concept trials validating advanced AI-enabled defensive tools against the current threat landscape, and development of formal guidance on measures, controls and solutions for financial institutions, with members having already been working together informally since May 2026, ahead of the formal announcement.
• MAS's own regulatory pattern (as seen with FEAT, Veritas and Project Mindforge) has consistently moved from voluntary industry-developed guidance to supervisory expectation, so institutions should expect ACT's eventual output to function similarly regardless of its initially voluntary framing.

To read this news in detail click here