> Most securities law is written from an investor-protection perspective. Not swaps clearing. When everyone is writing bilateral swaps and nobody knows how much

> Most securities law is written from an investor-protection perspective. Not swaps clearing. When everyone is writing bilateral swaps and nobody knows how much counterparty risk is accumulating with whom, you get a ticking time bomb. (This is what turned AIG into a systemic risk.) I imagine the next shoe to drop will be these firms' compliance departments. Certainly I agree with you that, in principle, this is legitimate enforcement. They do have the authority to regulate this as you are saying they do. But you and I both know that there are no serious concerns within the CFTC about counterparty risk here, and that has nothing to do with their motivations. They are very clearly not trying to protect anyone - at least not from derivatives counterparty risk. And they are most definitely not trying to protect Citadel, Jump, et al, nor anyone else from them.