The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has opened a path for offshore crypto exchanges to legally serve American users, provided they comply with established oversight rules. The move, announced through the Foreign Board of Trade (FBOT) framework, signals a shift toward regulatory inclusion rather than outright exclusion.

In contrast, the Philippines has recently taken a more restrictive stance. Under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) new guidelines on Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs), unlicensed foreign exchanges are being blocked by local internet service providers, with warnings extended to influencers and promoters.

U.S Sets Precedent For More Inclusive Compliance Policy

The CFTC clarified that offshore platforms can apply for FBOT registration, granting them access to U.S. markets if they meet compliance standards. This framework doesn’t loosen oversight; instead, it extends regulatory reach by requiring reporting, transparency, and adherence to U.S. law.

By keeping global exchanges within a supervised perimeter, the U.S. ensures that liquidity and trading activity remain accessible to its citizens without pushing them to unregulated, riskier channels.

Question Arises: Is PH’s CASP Guidelines Healthy In The Long Run?

The Philippine SEC, meanwhile, has been implementing a containment approach. Platforms like Binance, Bybit, and OKX have been flagged as operating without licenses and are now inaccessible via standard Philippine IP addresses. The stated goal is investor protection: shielding Filipinos from fraud, scams, and systemic risks associated with unregulated players.

However, this presents an evident trade-off. With limited choices among licensed local exchanges, Filipino traders face fewer options—and some may turn to virtual private networks (VPNs) or informal channels, ironically exposing them to the very risks regulators seek to minimize.

The divergence highlights two regulatory philosophies: U.S. regulators are aiming to channel activity into compliance. Whereas, Philippine regulators are seeking to curb activity by cutting access, with emphasis on putting safety first. 

Both approaches reflect their local market realities, yet raise the same central question. Would inclusive regulation prove itself to be a better approach or would protective restrictions really save people from crypto’s risks?

For American traders, the CFTC’s move may signal a more mature integration of crypto into mainstream financial systems. For Filipinos, the current regulatory framework puts the burden on local exchanges to step up—delivering the kind of user experience and reliability that can compete with global platforms.

Whether the Philippine model will eventually adapt toward inclusion, as in the U.S., remains uncertain. For now, the two approaches underscore a global regulatory debate: should innovation be guided or gated? 

‍