# Passive futures software gets targeted CFTC relief as CLARITY digital asset bill stalls

> The CFTC's latest position gives qualifying passive software providers a conditional route to futures-market access without introducing-broker registration. The CLARITY Act remained stalled after the US Senate's Tuesday procedural vote fell short of the required 60 votes, with the motion to proceed failing 49-50.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Crypto · **Published:** 2026-09-18 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/crypto/clarity-dijitala-eseta-vidheyaka-atakane-ke-bicha-paisiva-phyucharsa-sophtaveyara-ko-cftc-ki-chuninda-rahata-33090 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** CFTC no-action relief, CLARITY Act, crypto regulation, passive futures software, tokenized securities, US Congress, finance

Congress has not yet produced a comprehensive law for digital asset markets, so the CFTC is using a narrower tool to make room for financial technology innovation. Its widened no-action position is aimed at passive software providers that meet defined requirements and help users reach regulated futures markets. The policy draws a line between a connection service and the regulated firms that execute or intermediate trades, leaving the latter under supervisory focus. In practical terms, the agency is adjusting how a technical role is treated without waiting for the stalled federal bill.

## Eligibility is tied to a narrow software role
In its letter, the relevant division has kept the position open to any provider that satisfies the listed conditions. For an eligible provider and its relevant personnel, it will not recommend enforcement merely because the provider lacks introducing-broker registration or the related registration for an associated person. The scope covers the supply and promotion of software that links users to registered futures commission merchants, designated contract markets, and introducing brokers. Users still carry out trades through registered futures commission merchants. That detail is important because the measure changes the treatment of the software layer rather than removing the regulated intermediaries from the transaction chain.

## The line between a tool and an intermediary
The policy is aimed at companies whose programs open a route to regulated futures markets but do not enter transactions in a way that would normally make registration necessary. That separation lets qualifying technology providers support trading activity without automatically being treated as the entity handling the trade. Regulatory attention stays with firms and venues directly responsible for execution and intermediation. It is a focused adjustment for passive technology, not permission for a company to perform a broker function while calling the service software. The distinction also recognizes that a user's route to a market can involve both a technical connection and a regulated transaction, with each part carrying a different role.

## What remains outside the relief
The CFTC position does not say that every trading-related technology business can avoid registration. Its protection is tied to the passive role described in the conditions and to the absence of the introducing-broker and associated-person registrations covered by the position. A provider that moves into executing, intermediating, or otherwise performing the functions of a regulated market participant would fall outside the narrow description used for this relief. The practical test is therefore the software's actual function, not simply the label attached to the product. This allows innovation to proceed in a limited area without rewriting the registration duties of the firms and venues handling the trade.

## Compliance continues while the position is used
A firm using the position must first check the CFTC's criteria and continue satisfying them throughout the period it depends on the relief. The requirement is ongoing, so an initial review cannot be treated as the end of the compliance work. The provider must keep the software's role and its links to registered participants within the stated boundaries, including the way the product is provided and marketed. The position resolves a narrow registration concern, but it does not create a permanent federal market-structure law. It also does not announce a broad change to the duties of the registered firms and venues at the other end of the connection.

## A parallel SEC experiment in tokenized stocks
The SEC is taking a separate route in tokenized securities. Its temporary and conditional Innovation Exemption opens a narrow lane for trading tokenized NMS stocks at selected on-chain venues, identified as Tokenized Securities Venues (TSVs). The setup lets the SEC study venue operations and collect material that may shape later regulatory policy. A venue using the exemption must satisfy rules on public notice, transaction transparency, coordinated trading halts, books and records, and technology safeguards. Public notice and transparency provide visibility into venue activity, while halt coordination addresses interruptions to trading. Recordkeeping and technology protections give the regulator information and a basis for oversight. Because the permission is temporary and conditional, it functions as a controlled observation period as well as a limited trading allowance.

## Why the conditions matter
The exemption's requirements are part of the reason the SEC can treat the arrangement as temporary and conditional. Public notice and transaction transparency make it possible to see what is happening at a venue, while coordinated stoppages address the response when trading cannot continue normally. Books, records, and technology safeguards provide controls for an experimental venue and information for review. These conditions also help the SEC gather information across venues, which could inform future policy. The exemption is therefore a bounded test, not an unrestricted opening for tokenized stock trading.

## A Senate vote left the federal bill in limbo
The agency actions followed a setback for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act. Tuesday's procedural tally stopped the motion to proceed at 49-50, below the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the measure. With the bill stalled, the approaching congressional recess before the November midterm elections leaves the schedule for further market-structure talks unclear. Lawmakers remain divided over the broader legislation, so the timing of another attempt is not established. The failed vote did not produce a replacement framework, and the recess adds a calendar obstacle to renewed negotiations. That is the immediate backdrop for the agencies' narrower actions: they can address specific innovation-related questions now, but they cannot settle the full set of digital asset market rules on their own.

## What the legislative delay means
The stalled bill leaves the agencies working with separate tools instead of a single congressional framework. The CFTC can address the passive-software registration question, and the SEC can study tokenized venues, but neither action coordinates the entire digital asset market. This may make it easier to move on narrow issues in the near term. It also means market participants will continue to face different rules for futures software, tokenized securities, and other digital asset activities until Congress acts. The uncertainty concerns the scope and timing of a broader law, not whether the agencies have taken any action at all.

## Existing authority offers flexibility, not a final settlement
The CFTC and SEC moves illustrate how agencies can use powers they already have to grant targeted relief while Congress works through a larger policy dispute. One action concerns passive software connected to regulated futures markets; the other concerns limited activity at selected tokenized securities venues. Each can reduce uncertainty for eligible participants in its own area by clarifying the conditions under which the activity can proceed. Neither is a substitute for a nationwide market-structure framework, and neither resolves every registration or intermediation question. The immediate result is flexibility within existing authority, while the larger legal structure remains unresolved.

## The next checkpoints for providers and venues
Software providers will need to keep their services aligned with the CFTC's criteria for as long as they use the position. TSVs relying on the SEC exemption will remain subject to the operational, transparency, recordkeeping, and technology requirements while the venues are observed. The CLARITY Act has no clear next date in the available information, especially with the congressional recess and November midterm elections ahead. Participants therefore need to separate temporary agency flexibility from a durable law that Congress has not yet enacted. Until that broader legislation advances, the measures will operate as limited responses to specific parts of the market rather than a complete regulatory settlement.

## What this means for you
The biggest practical effect is that qualifying technology companies can support some futures access without introducing-broker registration, but the relief is conditional and narrow.

- **Software providers:** Eligible providers and relevant personnel can avoid an enforcement recommendation based solely on not registering as an introducing broker or an associated person of one. They must meet the CFTC's conditions and remain compliant for the entire period in which they rely on the position.
- **Futures users:** Passive software can connect users with registered futures commission merchants, designated contract markets, and introducing brokers. The main execution and intermediation activity therefore remains with regulated firms and venues.
- **Tokenized venues:** The SEC's temporary exemption permits limited trading of tokenized NMS stocks on certain on-chain TSVs. Operators must follow requirements covering public notice, transaction transparency, trading stoppages, books and records, and technology safeguards.
- **Crypto participants:** The CLARITY Act remains stalled, so a comprehensive federal market-structure framework is not yet in place. Participants should treat agency relief as temporary and check the eligibility conditions attached to each service.

## Why this happened
The relief is tied to two clear facts: the software is passive, and comprehensive federal legislation for digital asset markets has not advanced through the US Congress. The CFTC used a limited no-action approach under its existing authority, while the SEC created a separate temporary exemption to learn how tokenized securities venues operate.

- **Immediate cause:** Passive software connects users with regulated futures markets without directly participating in transactions in a way that would traditionally require registration. That distinction allowed the CFTC to offer a narrow enforcement position for eligible providers and relevant personnel.
- **Legislative blockage:** The US Senate did not reach the 60 votes needed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in Tuesday's procedural vote, and the motion to proceed failed 49-50. Congress is approaching its recess before the November midterm elections, leaving the timing of further market-structure negotiations uncertain.
- **Conditions define the scope:** The relief applies to providing and marketing passive software that connects users with registered futures commission merchants, designated contract markets, and introducing brokers. Providers must assess the stated conditions and remain compliant for the full period of reliance.
- **Earlier history:** The available information does not describe a comparable earlier action or its outcome. It would therefore be unsupported to treat this measure as a confirmed extension of a specific past precedent.
- **Next steps:** Eligible software providers must continue meeting the CFTC's requirements, while the SEC can observe TSV operations and collect information for future policy. No clear next date is given for the stalled CLARITY Act, so the broader framework remains dependent on future congressional negotiations.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What relief did the CFTC give passive software providers?
The CFTC widened no-action relief for qualifying providers. They can help users reach regulated futures markets without registering solely as introducing brokers for that function.

### 2. Can every software provider use the relief?
No. The relief is available only to providers that meet the CFTC's stated conditions, and they must remain compliant for as long as they rely on it.

### 3. Which registered entities can the software connect users to?
The software can connect users with registered futures commission merchants, designated contract markets, and introducing brokers. Users still trade through registered futures commission merchants.

### 4. Does the measure eliminate all registration duties?
No. It addresses the limited registration issue for eligible providers and their relevant personnel, including the failure to register as an introducing broker or associated person.

### 5. What does the SEC Innovation Exemption do?
The SEC's temporary, conditional exemption permits limited trading of tokenized NMS stocks on certain on-chain venues. Those venues are called Tokenized Securities Venues, or TSVs.

### 6. What conditions must a TSV meet?
A TSV must follow rules on public notice, transaction transparency, coordinated trading stoppages, books and records, and technology safeguards. Those conditions keep the exemption temporary and bounded.

### 7. What happened in Tuesday's CLARITY Act vote?
The motion to proceed failed 49-50 in Tuesday's procedural vote. The measure needed 60 votes to advance.

### 8. What is the CLARITY Act's status now?
The bill remains stalled as Congress approaches its recess before the November midterm elections. The timing of further market-structure negotiations is uncertain.

### 9. Can the agency actions replace federal market-structure legislation?
No. The CFTC and SEC measures provide targeted relief under existing authority, but they are not substitutes for a federal market-structure framework.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._