The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has updated its crypto activity FAQs, addressing two subjects that sit at the center of the tokenized-collateral debate: investments of customer funds in tokenized forms of permitted investments, and the use of blockchain technology to satisfy recordkeeping requirements. The September 24 release, numbered 9303-26, has been framed in some coverage as a new collateral rule. The documents themselves tell a narrower story, and the difference matters for any futures intermediary weighing how, and whether, to accept crypto as margin.
What the update actually covers
Release 9303-26 names the Market Participants Division, the Division of Market Oversight and the Division of Clearing and Risk as the staff groups publishing the update. It specifies two matters: tokenized versions of investments already permitted for customer funds, and blockchain-based recordkeeping. It traces the FAQ series to March 20, 2026, and points back to Staff Letter 25-39 on tokenized collateral and Staff Letter 26-05 on digital assets accepted as customer margin.
The chronology is the first check on claims circulating about a new collateral permission. The collateral rules, and their conditions, predate the new release. February’s Staff Letter 26-05 lets qualifying futures commission merchants, or FCMs, count certain customer crypto as margin under specified conditions, and it requires at least a 20 percent haircut for most non-stablecoin crypto in specified intermediary calculations.
The original March FAQs also drew a line that survives into the September update: an FCM may not invest customer funds in payment stablecoins under Regulation 1.25 merely because it can accept a qualifying stablecoin as customer margin. An FCM may place its own payment stablecoins into segregated customer accounts as residual interest under the staff letter. Those are different sources of funds and different transactions. A tokenized form of an investment already permitted under Regulation 1.25 is a question about the wrapper on an eligible underlying asset, not a general license for an intermediary to use customer cash to buy bitcoin or a payment stablecoin.
Whose asset, which haircut, who fills the shortfall
The regulatory papers separate movements that a falling market joins together. Staff Letter 26-05 concerns what an FCM may count while evaluating a customer account and segregated funds. A derivatives clearing organization, or DCO, sets its own haircut for assets accepted as initial margin under separate rules, with discretion subject to at least monthly review. A 20 percent charge on an intermediary’s proprietary bitcoin inventory is a third, distinct issue. Applying one number to all three produces a false answer.
A deliberately simple illustration shows the mechanics. A customer posts bitcoin worth 100,000 USD, and the relevant FCM calculation applies a 20 percent haircut. Recognized value is 80,000 USD. If bitcoin’s spot value then falls 15 percent to 85,000 USD and the haircut remains 20 percent, recognized value becomes 68,000 USD. The haircut did not change; the market fell. The account has lost 12,000 USD of recognized collateral value without a single coin leaving custody.
Now assume the margin requirement for the futures position stays at 75,000 USD. Before the move, recognized collateral exceeded the requirement by 5,000 USD. After the move, 68,000 USD leaves a 7,000 USD shortfall. If the position itself simultaneously loses 10,000 USD, the economic pressure compounds, though the precise cash call depends on the account’s other balances, settlement, portfolio margin and the FCM’s rules.
It follows that a 20 percent haircut is not an insurance policy against a 20 percent fall. Starting from 100,000 USD, a 25 percent spot drop leaves the asset worth 75,000 USD and its post-haircut value at 60,000 USD, a 20,000 USD decline in recognized credit from a move the haircut was often assumed to absorb.
A no-action letter, not a rule change
Staff Letter 26-05 is a no-action position: the Market Participants Division says it will not recommend enforcement against an FCM acting within specified conditions. It does not repeal the customer segregation provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act, and it does not promise that a DCO will accept every coin. The letter was originally issued following a request by Coinbase Financial Markets and was reissued on February 6, 2026, to clarify that a national trust bank may qualify as a payment stablecoin issuer for its purposes.
A clearinghouse still has to decide whether a proposed collateral asset carries sufficiently low credit, market and liquidity risk for its clearing program. Chairman Michael Selig has discussed round-the-clock markets and tokenized collateral publicly, and the agency sent a broader crypto market rulemaking, titled “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets,” to the White House for review on September 17, two days after the Senate’s CLARITY Act cloture failure. An agency’s interest in those markets does not eliminate the ordinary margin test.
Why the FAQ update arrives now
The practical question has become more urgent as firms put digital assets into structures usually associated with cash and government securities. The September update addresses the recordkeeping and permitted-investment questions that follow: if a permitted Treasury fund exists in tokenized form, what does an FCM need to know before holding it, and when does a blockchain record satisfy Commission rules written for paper ledgers. The release supports only its stated scope, and market participants would be well advised not to attribute new haircut values or eligibility categories to it ahead of the full FAQ text.
Bitcoin trades near 83,714 USD, Ethereum near 2,686.80 USD and Solana near 119.70 USD as of the 14:46 UTC price snapshot on September 25, 2026.
the 20 percent haircut detail is doing all the work here. thats the number clearing members will actually price in, the rest is paperwork
Agreed on the haircut, though the blockchain recordkeeping section quietly matters more. If auditors can run against chain data the compliance cost drops hard.
chain data cuts both ways tho, every revision is permanent. auditors love it until the first dispute over which fork counts as the record
Which fork counts as the record is getting litigated within a year, calling it now. Chain recordkeeping is great right up until the first dispute.
reorg risk on the recordkeeping leg is the fun edge case nobody priced. wait till the first auditor asks which chain height counts as the official books
20 percent haircut on tokenized tbills means the wrapper saves custody costs but burns capital. clearing members will run that math in one afternoon
one afternoon is generous, the custody savings vs 20 percent capital burn math kills it over coffee. nobody is paying that haircut to hold tokenized tbills
^ and letter 26-05 already priced that haircut for clearing members. the FAQ just confirms nobody at the cftc is in a hurry to widen it
letter 26-05 haircut plus this FAQ means tokenized T-bill margin still eats 20 percent. the spreads will tell you who actually read release 9303-26
Good to see coverage pointing out this is an FAQ update and not a new collateral rule. Release 9303-26 mostly points back to Staff Letter 25-39 anyway.
been waiting on clarity for tokenized customer funds since march. at least fcm s now have the FAQ trail instead of guessing which staff letter applies
the FAQ trail helps but notice what it didnt do, zero movement on the haircut itself. 20 percent on tokenized tbills still prices most FCMs out of offering it
zero movement on the haircut is the whole story. until that 20 percent shrinks, tokenized tbill margin stays a demo product for maybe two FCMs
funny how 9303-26 got covered as a rule change when it mostly points back at 25-39 and 26-05. the FAQ confirmed the status quo and headlines invented the news
The FAQ only clears the tokenized wrapper for assets that were already permitted. The permitted asset list itself did not move.
Good catch that this is an FAQ refresh and not a new rule. The 20 percent haircut from Staff Letter 26-05 was already on the books in February.
^ exactly. half the coverage this morning missed that and called it a collateral rule change. clickbait headline, boring staff FAQ underneath
the Reg 1.25 distinction is doing heavy lifting here. accepting a stablecoin as margin from a customer vs investing customer funds in stablecoins are completely different animals