Fraud trial of Mango Markets exploiter behind alleged $116M theft pushed to April
Lawyers representing the $116 million Mango Markets exploiter have convinced a judge to postpone the fraud trial until April 8, 2023.
Avraham Eisenberg’s fraud trial was set to commence on Dec. 4 but several circumstances impacted his trial preparations, according to his lawyers, who filed a successful motion for a continuance to District Court Judge Arun Subramanian on Nov. 2.
“As discussed in today’s conference, the motion for continuance is GRANTED. Trial in this case will begin on April 8, 2024,” Subramanian stated in a Nov. 3 court filing.
U.S. prosecutors contested the motion for continuance but were unsuccessful. Subramanian also ordered United States prosecutors and Eisenberg’s lawyers to submit a revised schedule for pretrial motions and submissions by Nov. 7.
Despite confessing his involvement in the Mango Markets exploit, Eisenberg plead not guilty to three criminal counts for commodities fraud, commodity manipulation and wire fraud in June.
In the motion, Eisenberg’s attorneys said they needed more time to sift through discovery materials submitted by U.S. prosecutors.
“The government has produced voluminous discovery in this case on a rolling basis […] which the defense is still analyzing and conferring with the client about.”
The lawyers added that they lost time to prepare with Eisenberg when he was “unexpectedly” transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn on Oct. 26.
Eisenberg wasn’t permitted to transfer the discovery materials, which he annotated along with other legal paperwork relevant to the trial.
“The move to the MDC has already, and will continue to, severely inhibit defense counsel’s access to Mr. Eisenberg,” the lawyers added.
MCD is the prison which former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried returned to after he was convicted on all seven fraud-related charges on Nov. 2.
Related: How low liquidity led to Mango Markets losing over $116 million
The Securities and Exchange Commission also charged Eisenberg on Jan. 20, alleging that he manipulated the Mango Markets governance token, MNGO, by taking out “massive loans” against its inflated collateral and draining Mango’s treasury of around $116 million.
Mango Markets is now also suing Avraham Eisenberg, seeking the return of the remaining $47 million he stole.https://t.co/7pDoHuigH4 https://t.co/H48nPPl13h
— web3 is going just great (@web3isgreat) January 26, 2023
It followed Eisenberg’s arrest in Puerto Rico about three weeks earlier on Dec. 27.
Eisenberg publicly confessed to the exploit on Oct. 15, 2022, arguing that his actions were completely legal. He initially sent back $67 million to Mango Markets’ decentralized autonomous organization as part of a bounty deal. However the team behind Mango Markets later sued Eisenberg for $47 million in damages plus interest.
Magazine: Should crypto projects ever negotiate with hackers? Probably
The South African Reserve Bank issued its second financial stability report for 2025, identifying digital assets and stablecoins as a new risk as the number of users in the country continues to grow.
In a report released on Tuesday, South Africa’s central bank identified “crypto assets and stablecoins” as a new risk for technology-enabled financial innovation. The bank reported that the number of combined users on the country’s three largest crypto exchanges reached 7.8 million as of July, with about $1.5 billion held in custody at the end of 2024.
“Due to their exclusively digital – and therefore borderless – nature, crypto assets can be used to circumvent the provisions of the Exchange Control Regulations,” said the report, referring to regulations to control the inflows and outflows of funds to South Africa.
In addition to crypto assets like Bitcoin (BTC), XRP (XRP), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL), the central bank said that there had been a “structural shift” in the adoption of stablecoins based on a significant increase in trading volume since 2022:
“Whereas Bitcoin and other popular crypto assets were the main conduit for trading crypto assets until 2022, USD-pegged stablecoins have become the preferred trading pair on South African crypto asset trading platforms […] This is due to the notably lower price volatility of stablecoins compared to unbacked crypto assets.”
Related: South Korea stablecoin framework stalls as regulators split over banks’ role
The Financial Stability Board, a financial watchdog for entities in the G20, reported in October that South Africa had “no framework in place” for regulating global stablecoins, and only “partial regulations in place” for cryptocurrencies. The central bank said that “risks may build up undetected” from crypto, posing a threat to the country’s financial stability until an appropriate regulatory framework is established.
Different story with South Africa’s government on crypto
The central bank’s warning echoed similar sentiments from 2017, when deputy governor Francois Groepe said issuing digital currencies would be too risky for the country.
However, among policymakers in South Africa’s government, the sentiment may be slightly more bullish.
In 2022, the country’s Financial Sector Conduct Authority designated cryptocurrency as a financial product and subsequently issued licenses for crypto companies to conduct business.
Magazine: Ethereum’s Fusaka fork explained for dummies: What the hell is PeerDAS?
Prediction platform Polymarket has received regulatory approval from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission to operate an intermediated trading platform.
In a Tuesday notice, Polymarket said the CFTC issued an Amended Order of Designation, which will allow the company to “operate an intermediated trading platform subject to the full set of requirements applicable to federally regulated US exchanges.” According to Polymarket, the approval will result in the platform onboarding brokerages and customers directly and facilitating trading on US venues.
“This approval allows us to operate in a way that reflects the maturity and transparency that the US regulatory framework demands,” said Polymarket founder and CEO Shayne Coplan.
The regulatory approval came about five months after the CFTC and the US Department of Justice closed an investigation into Polymarket regarding whether the platform accepted trades from US-based users. The FBI reportedly raided Coplan’s home as part of the probe into the prediction platform, seizing his electronic devices.
Related: US regulator moves to drop appeal against Kalshi
The predictions platform is subject to oversight and regulation from the CFTC while operating in the United States. A market structure bill moving its way through Congress could also expand the CFTC’s authority over digital assets.
CFTC leadership in flux
The CFTC notice under acting chair Caroline Pham came as the US Senate is expected to soon vote on the nomination of SEC official Michael Selig as the next chair of the commodities regulator. Lawmakers in the Senate Agriculture Committee voted along party lines to advance Selig’s nomination.
Even if Selig were to be confirmed, the CFTC would continue to have four empty commissioner seats. As of Tuesday, US President Donald Trump had not announced any potential replacements for the regulator’s leadership.
Magazine: Sunny Lu: Getting scammed for 100 Bitcoin led him to create VeChain
Key takeaways:
-
The SEC introduced new post-shutdown guidelines that explain how registration statements, including crypto ETF filings, progress through Sections 8(a) and 461 of the Securities Act.
-
Generic listing standards approved in September 2025 removed the need for individual 19(b) approvals for qualifying crypto ETPs.
-
The government shutdown created a backlog of more than 900 filings, pushing issuers to rely on the automatic 20-day effectiveness mechanism under Section 8(a).
-
The new SEC instructions allow issuers to choose between automatic effectiveness or requesting accelerated effectiveness under Rule 461 for faster launches.
After years of slow progress and periodic regulatory pauses, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has released new guidelines that may speed up the approval timeline for cryptocurrency exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
These updates follow an extended, record-long government shutdown that halted progress on more than 900 pending registration filings across financial markets. As federal operations resumed, the SEC issued technical guidance outlining how issuers can advance ETF applications under Sections 8(a) and 461 of the Securities Act of 1933.
This article explains what changed, why it matters and how the updated procedures could shorten timelines for new crypto ETF launches in the US.
The regulatory freeze: A look back
For most of 2025, ETF issuers, especially those focused on crypto, were already dealing with a heavy procedural load. Following the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 and Ether ETFs in May 2024, the filing activity has surged, coming from firms seeking to list products tracking altcoins such as Solana (SOL), XRP (XRP), Chainlink (LINK), Dogecoin (DOGE) and others.
The regulatory process for many of these products still required individualized review under Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This meant issuers depended on the SEC to publish proposed rule changes, open public comment periods and issue approval or denial orders. Timelines varied widely.
Pathway to generic listing standards
On Sep. 17, 2025, the SEC approved generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares on Nasdaq, the Chicago Board Options Exchange BZX Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange Arca. This changed the regulatory process by removing the need for individual Section 19(b) rule change approvals for every qualifying crypto ETF.
The new standards were announced alongside the approval of the first multi-crypto asset ETF, the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund, which holds Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and other coins.
This streamlining removed the years-long bottleneck that had previously stalled products, but the immediate push to launch was halted by the government shutdown.
The shutdown backlog
During the 43-day shutdown, more than 900 filings were submitted but could not be processed. ETF issuers were left with no review mechanisms, no staff communication and no way to advance pending filings.
In this environment of regulatory paralysis, the only path forward for some issuers was to use an existing mechanism: the automatic 20-day effectiveness provision under Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. This allowed registration statements filed without a delay-in-time clause to automatically become effective after 20 days if the SEC did not take action or object. This mechanism was helpful for the launch of several funds, including Canary Capital’s spot XRP ETF.
The crisis and the reliance on a technical workaround highlighted the need for a more efficient and formal review process.
This approach was referenced directly in the SEC guidance published after operations resumed. Once the SEC reopened, staff was instructed to resume work promptly and orderly. Issuers immediately requested clarity on how filings submitted during the shutdown would be sequenced or amended.
What the SEC’s new guidelines actually change
On Nov. 13, 2025, the SEC published a detailed set of technical clarifications explaining how it would process the shutdown-period backlog.
The SEC’s new guidance was applied to issuers such as Bitwise, which had an XRP ETF filing pending but had not yet completed the Section 8(a) process.
The post-shutdown guidance created two primary mechanisms to move stalled applications toward launch.
Automatic 20-day effectiveness
As a remedy for filings submitted during the shutdown, the guidance confirmed that registration statements filed without a deferral would gain automatic effectiveness after 20 days under Section 8(a). The SEC also clarified that staff would not recommend enforcement action even if the filing does not include Rule 430A information.
Request for acceleration via amendment
For issuers who want a faster approval timeline or who want to restore active regulatory oversight, the SEC guidance clarified that it may add an amendment deferral and then formally request acceleration under Rule 461. This allows issuers to move beyond the automatic 20-day countdown and seek accelerated effectiveness. The SEC also noted that the division would review filings in the order in which they were received.
Did you know? The generic listing standards apply only to exchange-traded products (ETPs) that hold an underlying commodity, such as digital assets, that trades on an ISG-member exchange or is subject to a regulated futures market with appropriate surveillance sharing.
What this means for crypto ETF issuers moving forward
The SEC’s guidance does not guarantee faster approval for every crypto ETF. Substantive legal review remains unchanged. What has changed is the friction in the process. The automatic-effectiveness mechanism under Section 8(a) now plays a larger role because filings submitted without a delay clause during the shutdown can become effective after the standard 20-day period unless the SEC intervenes.
Rule 461 allows an issuer to request that the SEC accelerate the effective date of its registration statement to a specific time. To do this, an issuer must first amend its filing to return it to the standard delayed status and then submit a formal Rule 461 request to the SEC. This request is not a mere formality. It serves as confirmation that the issuer, underwriters and advisers are fully aware of, and accept, their legal and antifraud liabilities under the Securities Act.
By combining a Rule 461 acceleration request with the new generic listing standards, which bypass the older Section 19(b) delays, issuers have streamlined the entire process. This combination makes the path for compliant altcoin ETPs quicker and more predictable, allowing managers to target specific launch windows with greater certainty.
Why speed doesn’t mean safety
While the SEC has accelerated the timing of approvals, it has also emphasized that core investor protection rules have not been relaxed.
The primary takeaway for issuers is that fast approval does not reduce their legal responsibility. The SEC’s post-shutdown guidance clarifies that the liability and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws still apply to all registration statements, including those that become effective automatically under Section 8(a).
This is backed by the core of the Securities Act of 1933: Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2). These rules impose strict liability under Section 11 and a heightened liability standard under Section 12(a)(2) for any material false statements or omissions in the registration documents. In simple terms, if the prospectus is misleading, the issuer is liable, and investors do not have to prove that the company acted carelessly or intentionally.
The burden of ensuring accuracy remains with ETF providers, who must conduct thorough internal checks and due diligence to meet this high standard, especially when timelines are compressed.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024