On September 27, 2026 a deadline expires at the US Securities and Exchange Commission about which nothing has yet been written in German. It does not concern the approval of another crypto fund but the rail beneath it: the question of the conditions under which US exchanges will in future be allowed to list options on crypto ETFs without asking the regulator separately each time. If you hold a crypto ETP on Bitcoin, Solana or XRP in a German portfolio, there is nothing you can do on that day. You will notice the consequence all the same, and in a place few investors watch: in the bid-ask spread of your own security.
This guide explains what the filing numbered SR-ISE-2026-42 contains, why September 27 will in all likelihood not be a decision day at all, and which four things you can check on your own product instead of waiting for a US authority.
What actually happens at the SEC on September 27
The filing comes from the options exchange Nasdaq ISE and was printed on August 13, 2026 in the Federal Register, the official gazette of the US federal agencies. That printing starts a statutory clock.
A 19b-4 filing is the technical term for a rule change that a US exchange submits to the SEC. The regulator then has 45 days to approve the filing, to reject it or to institute formal proceedings. Counted from August 13, that period ends on September 27, 2026.
Three routes are open to the agency on that day. It can approve, it can institute so-called proceedings and thereby take up to 90 days from the date of printing, or it can reject. The second option is the usual course for filings of this magnitude. Running the 90 days through, one arrives at November 11, 2026. Anyone writing September 27 into the calendar as decision day will probably have to strike it out again afterwards.
SR-ISE-2026-42 explained: from case-by-case filing to a rule test
To understand why the filing was made at all, it helps to look at the current state of affairs. Options on spot Bitcoin ETFs have existed on US exchanges since 2024. The road there was laborious: every single listing needed its own filing with the SEC, its own comment period and its own approval. The options on the largest Bitcoin fund were cleared by exactly that route through Nasdaq ISE in the autumn of 2024.
How slow the procedure is can be seen in the counter-example from the same year: the NYSE withdrew its plan to list options on Bitcoin ETFs. We described the episode in our report on the NYSE withdrawal. Taken together, the two events produce the picture of a rail that does exist but has to be laid anew for every additional fund.
That is precisely what SR-ISE-2026-42 seeks to replace. In place of the case-by-case review, a rule test is to apply: a list of measurable criteria a fund has to meet. If they are met, the exchange may list the options without going back to the regulator for that one product. The filing expressly names funds holding Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, Chainlink and Hedera.
The two thresholds in the filing: 85 percent of NAV and $700 million daily market value
At its core the rule test consists of two numbers, and both are set so that only large, liquid products reach them.
The first concerns the composition of the fund. NAV stands for net asset value: the sum of what the fund holds, less its liabilities. Under the filing, at least 85 percent of NAV must be accounted for by assets for which a tradable futures market exists. For the remaining 15 percent there is a buffer in which other digital commodities may also sit. A fund one quarter of which consists of exotic tokens therefore fails the test.
The second number concerns each of those assets individually. Per digital commodity, the filing requires an average worldwide daily market value of $700 million. That is the hurdle that turns a catalogue of criteria into a selection: this threshold separates the two dozen largest assets from the long remainder.
There is a third condition on top, less conspicuous in daily practice but the decisive one in supervisory terms. The derivatives on the fund’s holdings must trade on a market monitored by a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group — an association of exchanges and supervisory bodies that share trading data with one another in order to detect market manipulation. That surveillance, too, must cover at least 85 percent of NAV. Without that evidence, the SEC has in the past hardly ever given its consent.
Why ‘digital commodity’ instead of ‘crypto asset’ is more than a change of wording
One change in the filing reads like cosmetics and is not. The term crypto asset is replaced by digital commodity, borrowed from an existing Nasdaq rule for commodity trusts.
Behind it lies a question of jurisdiction that has been unresolved in the United States for years: is a crypto asset a security and therefore a matter for the SEC, or a commodity and therefore a matter for the futures regulator, the CFTC? Classifying a product as a commodity places it in a framework for which tried and tested options and surveillance rules have existed for decades. The filing thus anticipates a classification that the US legislature actually meant to make itself and to this day has not conclusively made. How slow that process is we described in our piece on the new SEC approval rules for crypto funds.
For you as a reader, that is why this inconspicuous filing deserves attention: it moves no prices, but it moves the category in which regulation happens.
Why you as a German investor cannot buy any of these US ETFs
Here the US part of the story ends and the German one begins. The funds whose options are at issue cannot be bought through your broker in Germany, and that is not the broker’s doing.
The reason is the European UCITS directive. It requires investment funds sold to retail investors to hold a minimum spread of assets. A fund holding one single asset does not meet that requirement. A pure Bitcoin ETF in the legal sense therefore cannot be set up in the EU.
What trades in Europe instead are ETPs and ETNs. An ETN is in legal terms a debt security: a bond issued by the provider whose redemption is measured against the price of an asset. That is an important difference from a fund, because fund assets are ring-fenced and protected if the management company becomes insolvent. With a debt security they are not. Most European issuers address this issuer risk by actually buying the underlying coins and depositing them with a regulated custodian. Which securities those are in detail, and how to recognise a properly collateralised one, is set out in our guide to what you can actually buy in Germany instead of a crypto ETF.
These securities trade on Xetra, Gettex, Spectrum and the regional exchanges, that is, through the same account that holds your equities. Whether your provider offers all those venues is not a side issue, and the differences are larger than many expect; a look at our comparison of crypto brokers shows which venues are available where.
The transmission path: how options trading works through market makers on your spread
That leaves the question of why a US rulebook for options should reach a German portfolio at all. The route runs through the dealers who quote your prices.
A market maker is a trading firm that undertakes to quote a buying and a selling price continuously. The difference between the two is the spread, and it is the price you pay on entry and exit without seeing it on the statement as a fee. That spread is not arbitrary: it covers the risk the dealer takes on when buying a security from you and holding it on his own book for a while.
That risk is precisely what he hedges, and the cheaper the hedge, the tighter he can quote. A deeper options market on large crypto funds gives him more tools for that: more maturities, more counterparties, lower cost per dollar hedged. That cheapening does not stay confined to the US products, because the same firms often also serve the European ETPs and hedge against the same underlying markets.
A word of caution is in order here: this is a mechanism, not a promise. Spreads also depend on the time of day, on market conditions and on how many dealers serve a particular security at all. Anyone promising you that your bid-ask spread will narrow after an SEC decision is claiming more than can be evidenced. What can be said is that the direction of this relationship is well understood, and it points downwards.
What to check on your crypto ETP: spread, trading venue and collateral
Instead of waiting for September 27, you can measure the four quantities at issue on your own security. None of them requires a paid tool.
First, the bid-ask spread. Open your broker’s order screen and look at the bid and ask price of the same security. The difference, divided by the mid-price, gives the spread in percent. Measure it twice: once in the morning and once after the close on the German exchanges. With many crypto ETPs there are worlds between those two readings, and that is information about your security, not about the market.
Second, the trading venue. The same security can cost different amounts on Xetra and at an over-the-counter venue. Compare the two before your next order instead of accepting the default setting’s suggestion.
Third, the collateral. The key information document and the prospectus state whether the security is physically backed, who the custodian is and whether you have a claim to delivery of the coins. This point determines your tax position later, see below.
Fourth, the running costs. The total expense ratio is in the key information document. Set it against the spread: with a security you hold for a long time the running costs weigh more heavily; with frequent switching it is the other way round.
Tax: why the claim to delivery decides the holding period on an ETP
In the taxation of crypto ETPs in Germany a great deal hangs on a single feature of the security, namely whether it grants you a claim to delivery of the coins deposited.
The common reading in advisory practice: if the security grants a claim to delivery of the coins and is physically backed, it tends to be treated for tax purposes like the asset itself — that is, as a private disposal transaction under section 23 of the Income Tax Act, with the familiar one-year holding period, after which a gain remains tax-free. If that claim is absent, classification as a capital claim under section 20 of the Income Tax Act is the closer fit, and then withholding tax applies regardless of how long you have held the security.
The words ‘tends to’ and ‘closer fit’ are deliberate. This classification is contested in the individual case, it hangs on the specific design of the particular security, and it has shifted several times in recent years. What applies to your product belongs settled before the purchase and not in the year of disposal, when nothing about the design can be changed any more. Evidence for both sides is best collected as you go; which tools take that off your hands is set out in our overview of crypto tax tools. Binding advice on the matter, however, comes neither from a tool nor from this article, but from your tax adviser or your tax office.
A marginal point that is often confused: the European crypto regulation MiCA governs crypto service providers and certain tokens. An ETP is a financial instrument under MiFID II and falls into the securities world. So anyone checking an issuer’s MiCA status is not checking the security in their portfolio.
The two caveats you have to read along with this
Two limitations to close with, without which this text would look wrong in four weeks.
The first caveat concerns the date. September 27 is the 45-day mark, not the date of a decision. If the SEC institutes formal proceedings, the matter shifts to the 90-day mark around November 11, 2026, and even that can be stretched further in certain constellations. Extensions are the rule with filings of this kind. So if nothing happens at the end of September, that is not a failure of the filing but the expected course.
The second caveat concerns the subject matter. This is about options on crypto ETFs, not about the funds themselves and certainly not about the approval of new spot products. An SEC approval therefore brings not a single new fund to market and changes nothing about the fact that these funds remain unavailable to you in Germany. The filing makes hedging cheaper for those who trade it anyway. Anyone reading the episode as the starting gun for a new wave of products is reading it wrongly. How an expiry date on the futures market, by contrast, feeds straight through to leveraged positions, we worked through using the example of the Bitcoin options expiry in September.
Options on crypto ETFs: what to take away
- Measure your spread before you think about the SEC. Two readings on a single trading day, morning and evening, tell you more about your actual trading costs than any US headline. If you find conspicuous spreads, compare the security and the trading venue against the alternatives in the crypto broker comparison.
- Check the collateral and the claim to delivery of your ETP in the key information document. Both are set out there in black and white, and both determine issuer risk and tax treatment later on. Which security serves which purpose in Germany is sorted out in our guide to crypto ETFs and their tradable alternatives.
- Put November 11 in your calendar instead of September 27. Until then the matter is open, and until then nothing changes in your portfolio. Anyone thinking about an entry in that period should compare the trading routes beforehand in our overview of crypto exchanges.
The full wording of the filing is in the official notice in the Federal Register of August 13, 2026; the complete submission including the catalogue of criteria is in SEC release 34-106067.
(As of September 24, 2026. This article is not investment advice. Prices and fee structures change; check the terms with the provider before you buy.)
Be the first to comment