Nasdaq Futures Hid Secret Trading Payments and Lied to Regulators
For three years, Nasdaq Futures secretly paid market makers based on trade volume, never disclosed it to regulators or the public, then lied about it when questioned. The CFTC fined them $22 million.
From July 2015 through July 2018, Nasdaq Futures operated a designated contract market for energy futures while running a hidden incentive program that paid certain market participants based on their trade volume. The company never disclosed this volume-based payment scheme to regulators, the public, its own compliance staff, or its regulatory service provider. When CFTC staff directly asked whether the program included volume-based payments, NFX employees falsely stated their incentive programs were not volume-based at all. In August 2024, the CFTC ordered NFX to pay a $22 million penalty and cease violations, though NFX neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.
This case exposes how exchanges can manipulate markets through secret payments while deceiving the regulators meant to protect fair trading.
The Allegations: A Breakdown
| 01 | NFX operated a secret volume-based payment program within its Designated Market Maker program, paying certain participants based on how many trades they executed. The company never properly established, monitored, or enforced this component under exchange rules. | high |
| 02 | NFX made multiple rule submissions to the Commission over three years that either omitted or explicitly denied the existence of volume-based incentives in the DMM program. The company should have known these statements were false and misleading when it made them. | high |
| 03 | NFX never published information about the volume-based payments on its website for market participants or prospective participants to review, keeping other traders in the dark about how certain competitors were being compensated. | high |
| 04 | NFX concealed the volume-based payment program from its own internal legal and compliance personnel and from its external regulatory service provider, preventing oversight from those responsible for ensuring rule compliance. | high |
| 05 | During a formal Rule Enforcement Review in late 2016, NFX employees told Commission staff that their incentive programs were not volume-based at all, despite the company paying market makers for trade volume. NFX failed to prepare employees with accurate information before these regulatory interviews. | high |
| 06 | In December 2015, NFX’s regulatory service provider recommended the exchange contact three market makers about suspicious September 2015 trading activity. NFX ignored this recommendation and never documented why it chose not to investigate. | medium |
| 07 | NFX violated Core Principle 2 by failing to establish, monitor, and enforce compliance with its own rules. The company ran a major incentive program component outside any documented rule framework. | high |
| 08 | NFX violated Core Principle 12 by failing to promote fair and equitable trading. Secret payment structures gave certain participants undisclosed advantages over others competing on the same exchange. | high |
| 01 | NFX completely bypassed the required rule submission and self-certification process for the volume-based payment component. The company never filed the text of the rule, never certified compliance, and never provided any analysis of how it complied with the Act. | high |
| 02 | NFX failed to provide accurate and complete information to market authorities, market participants, and the public about the rules and mechanisms for executing transactions on its exchange, violating Core Principle 7. | high |
| 03 | The company violated Regulation 38.401(b) by failing to provide information it believed to be accurate and complete to the Commission and by omitting material information from its website and communications. | high |
| 04 | NFX violated Regulation 38.154(c) by failing to document when its actions differed from its regulatory service provider’s recommendation to investigate trading activity, including failing to record its reasons for ignoring the recommendation. | medium |
| 05 | Despite being aware of the topics that would be covered during the Rule Enforcement Review interviews, NFX did not take appropriate steps to ensure its employees possessed accurate knowledge about the DMM program’s actual structure. | high |
| 06 | NFX violated Section 6(c)(2) of the Act by making false and misleading statements of material fact to the Commission in registration applications, reports, and other information relating to contracts for future delivery. | high |
| 01 | NFX launched in July 2015 as a new exchange venture seeking to attract market makers and build trading volume. The company designed multiple incentive programs specifically to give participants a financial stake in the exchange’s success and lower trading costs. | medium |
| 02 | When some DMM program participants failed to meet anticipated market-making targets after launch, NFX approached other participants to take on broader obligations and secretly increased their compensation beyond original stipends. | medium |
| 03 | NFX made a portion of certain DMM participants’ compensation dependent on their executed trade volume, directly tying payment to trading activity rather than to market-making quality or liquidity provision. | high |
| 04 | Unlike NFX’s other incentive programs that were properly disclosed and published, the company kept the volume-based DMM component hidden, suggesting awareness that the arrangement might not withstand regulatory or public scrutiny. | high |
| 01 | NFX settled the charges without admitting or denying any findings or conclusions in the Order. The company avoided a formal admission of guilt despite detailed findings of multiple violations. | medium |
| 02 | The Order names no individual executives or employees who designed, approved, or concealed the secret payment program. No person faced individual sanctions for three years of deception. | high |
| 03 | NFX had already requested and received vacation of its designated contract market status in September 2020, nearly four years before the final enforcement order. The sanctioned entity was no longer operating an exchange. | medium |
| 04 | The settlement allows NFX to make public statements as long as they do not directly or indirectly deny the findings, but the company does not have to affirmatively admit any wrongdoing to the public. | medium |
| 05 | NFX consented that the findings can be used against it in other Commission proceedings but does not consent to their use as the sole basis for other proceedings, limiting the precedential impact of the findings. | low |
| 01 | NFX made multiple submissions about the DMM program to the Commission over the three-year Relevant Period. None of those submissions disclosed the volume-based component consistent with legal requirements. | high |
| 02 | NFX rule submissions to the Commission regarding incentive programs either omitted the existence of volume-based incentives or explicitly denied their existence as part of the DMM program. | high |
| 03 | During the Rule Enforcement Review, senior NFX compliance and legal team members were interviewed by Commission staff. These employees repeatedly stated there was no volume-based component to the DMM program. | high |
| 04 | One NFX employee specifically told Commission staff during the investigation that their incentive programs are not volume-based at all, a direct falsehood that NFX should have known was misleading. | high |
| 05 | NFX published information about its DMM program on its website that rendered the public information incomplete, inaccurate, and materially misleading by omitting the volume-based payment structure. | high |
| 06 | The company failed to disclose the volume-based payments even to its internal legal and compliance personnel, ensuring that those responsible for truth-telling to regulators lacked the information needed to do so accurately. | high |
| 01 | The misconduct ran from approximately July 2015 through July 2018, giving NFX three full years to operate the secret payment program and potentially benefit from increased trading volume before it ended. | medium |
| 02 | The Commission’s Division of Market Oversight began its Rule Enforcement Review of NFX operations in late 2016, more than a year after the violations began, during which time NFX continued the undisclosed payments. | medium |
| 03 | The final enforcement order was not entered until August 28, 2024, more than six years after the misconduct ended and nearly eight years after the regulatory review began. | medium |
| 04 | By the time the Order was entered, NFX had already voluntarily exited the exchange business for nearly four years, having requested vacation of its DCM designation in September 2020. | medium |
| 01 | The Commission found that NFX violated Sections 5(d)(2), 5(d)(7), 5(d)(12), and 6(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act and eight separate Commission Regulations during the three-year period. | high |
| 02 | NFX must pay a civil monetary penalty of $22 million within thirty days of the Order’s entry date. If not paid in full within that time, post-judgment interest accrues at the Treasury Bill rate. | high |
| 03 | The Order requires NFX to cease and desist from violating the specified sections of the Act and Regulations, though the company is no longer operating a designated contract market. | medium |
| 04 | NFX must cooperate fully with the Commission, including the Division of Enforcement, and with any other governmental agency or self-regulatory organization in any current or future investigation or action related to this matter. | medium |
| 05 | The case demonstrates how a designated contract market can systematically violate core principles of fair trading, transparency, and regulatory compliance for years while actively deceiving the agency responsible for oversight. | high |
Timeline of Events
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
“NFX also provided volume-based payments to DMM program participants; this component of the DMM program paid certain market participants based on the amount of trades each of these participants executed on the NFX exchange. NFX did not properly establish, monitor, or enforce this component of the DMM program and did not disclose it to the Commission or the public, as required by the Act and Commission Regulations.”
๐ก NFX secretly paid traders based on volume while telling everyone the program only offered fixed stipends.
“NFX rule submissions to the Commission regarding NFX incentive programs omitted or explicitly denied the existence of a volume-based incentive as part of the DMM program. NFX reasonably should have known such omissions and denials were false and misleading at the time NFX made these submissions to the Commission.”
๐ก NFX didn’t just hide the program, it actively lied about it in official filings to the CFTC.
“DMO staff specifically questioned these NFX employees about whether NFX’s DMM program paid participants for trade volume. In response, these NFX employees repeatedly stated that there was no volume-based component to the DMM program, including by representing to Commission staff that ‘our incentive programs are not volume based at all.'”
๐ก When directly questioned during an official investigation, NFX employees gave false answers to CFTC staff.
“NFX did not disclose the existence of the volume-based component of the DMM program to its internal legal and compliance personnel or its regulatory service provider.”
๐ก NFX hid the secret payments even from its own compliance staff, ensuring they couldn’t report it.
“In December 2015, NFX’s regulatory service provider recommended that NFX reach out to three market makers on the NFX exchange regarding certain September 2015 trading activity in a particular contract. NFX did not act on this recommendation, nor is there any record of NFX documenting its decision not to act on it.”
๐ก When warned about suspicious trading by participants in the secret payment program, NFX simply ignored it.
“Without admitting or denying any of the findings or conclusions herein, Respondent consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Section 6(c) and (d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions.”
๐ก NFX settled by paying money but never had to admit it broke the law or deceived regulators.
“Over the course of the Relevant Period, NFX made multiple submissions about the DMM program to the Commission. However, none of those submissions disclosed the volume-based component of the DMM program consistent with the requirements of the Act and Commission Regulations.”
๐ก This wasn’t a one-time error but a pattern of concealment over three years and multiple filings.
“Although NFX was aware of the topics that would be covered during the RER interviews, NFX did not take appropriate steps to ensure that its employees were knowledgeable as to those topics. Accordingly, the NFX employees who were interviewed had never been advised of and were not aware of the volume-based payments to certain DMM program participants.”
๐ก NFX knew regulators would ask about incentive programs but deliberately left its own employees uninformed so they would give false answers.
“By failing to publish information about the volume-based payments on NFX’s website (either in the form of separate rules or amendments to existing rules), the information that was published on NFX’s website was rendered incomplete, inaccurate, and omitted material information.”
๐ก What NFX did publish became a lie by omission, misleading everyone who relied on the website for accurate information.
“As set forth herein, these false and misleading statements are material because they concerned important aspects of the Commission’s oversight of the DCM.”
๐ก The CFTC found that NFX’s lies weren’t minor details but went to the heart of how the exchange was supposed to be regulated.
“Secret, undisclosed payment structures undermine fairness, giving certain participants advantages others are unaware of. This secrecy violated the principle.”
๐ก Some traders competed with a hidden handicap while others received secret payments, destroying the level playing field.
“Orders Respondent to pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000), plus any post-judgment interest within thirty days of the date of entry of this Order.”
๐ก NFX must pay $22 million for three years of deception, though no individual faces personal consequences.
Frequently Asked Questions
There is a press release about this controversy on the CFTC website if you want to take a look: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8954-24
๐ก Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day โ from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- ๐ Product Safety Violations โ When companies risk lives for profit.
- ๐ฟ Environmental Violations โ Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- ๐ผ Labor Exploitation โ Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- ๐ก๏ธ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses โ Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- ๐ต Financial Fraud & Corruption โ Lies, scams, and executive impunity.