Over the past week, regulators in both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong have voiced words of caution regarding varying virtual assets.  Both regulators were concerned in particular about the integrity of the cash markets for virtual assets and products giving retail investors both direct and indirect exposure to virtual assets.

More than $45 million in recent awards should remind businesses to proactively look within and implement effective whistleblower programs to protect themselves from potential enforcement actions.

This past week has seen two novel developments in the spoofing theories of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The first involves alleging that orders placed on a foreign market that were immediately canceled after the fill of an order on a U.S. exchange (and vice versa) constitute violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The second involves allegations that a trader’s mere flashing of large orders — posting and then quickly canceling orders — without placing a genuine order on the opposite side of the market violates the CEA’s anti-disruptive trading provisions.

With the flurry of subpoenas and investigations into companies in the blockchain space that has erupted in the first eight months of this year, 2018 is on track to be "the year of the crypto investigation."

In case the intrepid and hardy souls bravely blazing entrepreneurial paths in the New World of virtual currencies do not have enough regulatory hazards to navigate, one few seem to have considered to date is the possible application of the Model State Commodity Code (“Model Code”). Depending on how its thirty-three year old provisions are interpreted, the Model Code’s prohibition on the sale of commodities for speculative or investments may possibly be applied to some virtual currency businesses.

The CFTC’s proposed minimum capital requirements for SDs and MSPs have met with criticism from industry on a variety of points. These include the use of initial margin, reliance on notional amounts, effect on smaller SDs, inconsistency with the SEC’s proposed capital rule, duplicative reviews for internal capital models, and reporting requirements.