#监管政策与市场影响 The 2020 version of the CFTC's "Actual Delivery" guidelines, I thought at the time, was problematic. The rules were too complicated, and each state had its own understanding of enforcement. The boundary between futures and spot markets was drawn very firmly, which actually limited institutional participation. Now that this old framework has been revoked, it indicates that regulators have finally acknowledged a reality: the rules from four years ago are indeed outdated.

Back in 2020, the market was still debating whether Bitcoin futures qualified as true hedging tools, and institutions were still on the sidelines. But now, Ethereum spot ETFs have been approved, and the market has already spoken with its feet. This revocation of the guidelines by the CFTC is less about policy adjustment and more about acknowledging that the market has outpaced regulation.

But there's a detail worth pondering: revoking old rules does not mean new rules are in place. During the gap period, the gray areas in the market could actually expand. I've seen this rhythm many times—policy vacuum often leads to the most intense arbitrage. Those with keen senses will do everything they can before new regulations are officially announced.

The key point is the "Reassessment of Delivery Standards" proposed by the Presidential Working Group. This is not a minor adjustment; it's asking a more fundamental question: does the method of digital asset delivery need to be completely redefined? If the standards truly change, the market landscape seen by new entrants in 2024 and by us OGs will be entirely different. History always repeats itself this way—policy turning points often mark the start of wealth redistribution.