Connect with us

Crypto World

Odds extremely low if not passed before April, Exec

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

The push for a clearer regulatory framework around digital assets in the United States remains one of the thorniest policy debates in Washington, with a fast-approaching deadline that could determine whether key crypto legislation advances in the near term. The US CLARITY Act, designed to bring regulatory clarity to exchanges, wallets and developers, faces a narrow window to secure traction. A crypto executive warned that if the bill does not move through committee by the end of April, the odds of its passage in 2026 look markedly worse. The clock is ticking as lawmakers weigh competing priorities and a crowded calendar in both chambers.

Key takeaways

  • The CLARITY Act has a tight timetable: committee advancement by the end of April is framed as a prerequisite for any chance of floor action in 2026, according to industry observers.
  • Senate leadership has signaled appetite to prioritize other measures, such as the SAVE Act, before considering crypto market structure legislation, complicating the CLARITY Act’s path.
  • Stablecoin rewards stand out as a major hurdle, but observers warn they may not be the final obstacle; the bill could face concerns over DeFi, developer protections and the scope of regulatory authority.
  • While some lawmakers have been optimistic about an April timeline, independent analysts have warned that a delayed vote could push enactment further into the decade, potentially into 2027 or beyond.
  • Public commentary from political leaders underscores a broader need for compromise, with lawmakers and industry participants acknowledging concessions are likely on both sides.

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The regulatory spotlight on crypto remains intense as U.S. policymakers balance investor protection, financial stability and innovation incentives amid a shifting macro and regulatory backdrop.

Why it matters

The debate over the CLARITY Act crystallizes the broader tension between fostering innovation in the crypto sector and imposing safeguards that could stabilize a fragmented market. The central question for many stakeholders is whether a coherent, principles-based framework can be achieved without stifling experimentation, especially in areas like DeFi and wallet infrastructure where developers argue that current rules are vague or uneven in their application. Advocates say a well-defined set of rules would reduce uncertainty for exchanges, custodians and developers, potentially attracting more legitimate players into the U.S. crypto ecosystem. Opponents, however, warn that rushed legislation could impose overly broad or ambiguous standards that hamper innovation or push activities offshore.

The dialogue around stablecoins—sometimes framed as the bill’s linchpin—highlights the delicate balance lawmakers seek between consumer protection, financial-market stability and the speed at which new technologies evolve. Critics worry that focusing too narrowly on yield practices of stablecoins could miss larger questions about how stableassets interact with traditional banking rails and what protections should apply to on-chain protocols and developers. In the broader arc, the conversation signals a broader shift in how policymakers envisage regulatory authority across on-chain and off-chain activities, from scripting and DeFi governance to KYC/AML compliance for crypto service providers.

Advertisement

Within the policymaking process, internal dynamics also matter. For instance, a key Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee indicated that compromises will be necessary as both crypto advocates and banking interests push for favorable terms. The reality, many observers say, is that lawmakers will walk away with some concessions from both sides, rather than a pristine, perfect bill. This moderation could be the only viable path to a workable framework that gains bipartisan support while addressing substantive risk concerns. In parallel, commentary from industry leaders underscores a pragmatic approach: the CLARITY Act may not be the final word on regulatory design, with evolving oversight, enforcement priorities and technology-neutral standards likely to shape subsequent iterations.

On the legislative calendar, optimism about an April passage has given way to caution as Senate leadership weighs competing bills and priorities. Notable voices in the debate have warned that the timing is everything: a late ballot or postponed committees could push key decisions beyond midterms into a new political reality, complicating any immediate enactment. The urgency is partly tethered to the fact that other measures—such as voter verification initiatives under the SAVE Act—may receive precedence, effectively delaying crypto-specific legislation even if inputs from the crypto industry are deemed constructive.

Beyond the ideological divides, the policy conversation intersects with broader market dynamics. Investors and builders watch how regulators will interpret new authority in areas like stablecoins, on-chain governance and DeFi protocols. As discussions unfold, the industry continues to push for clarity about which actors would be regulated, what standards would apply, and how enforcement would be structured, all with an eye toward reducing the current patchwork of rules that many consider a drag on capital formation and innovation. The evolving dialogue suggests that even if a form of CLARITY bill emerges, its practical impact will depend on the specifics of the final text and the regulatory guardrails that accompany it.

One notable takeaway from industry commentators is that the debate over stablecoin yields may not be the definitive obstacle. While yield-related concerns dominate headlines, the bill’s proponents and opponents alike acknowledge that other contentious topics — including DeFi governance protections, developer liabilities, and the scope of regulatory authority — could surface once the immediate yield question is addressed. In short, passage hinges on a broader consensus about how a modern financial system can responsibly integrate programmable digital assets without creating systemic risk or stifling innovation.

Advertisement

A tweet from a prominent industry voice captured the urgency of the moment, underscoring the need for movement. The message, shared with the broader crypto community, signals that stall events could set the stage for a longer regulatory drag and a more uncertain roadmap for developers seeking clarity on permissible activities. The tweet and related discussions reflect a wider industry appetite for predictable rules, even as stakeholders acknowledge that any final framework will require careful calibration to satisfy both market participants and lawmakers.

On the political front, the rhetoric around crypto regulation remains varied. A senior Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee recently spoke about the need for compromise, noting that both crypto and banking lobbies will likely walk away with some dissatisfaction. The sentiment mirrors a broader pattern in which policymakers recognize that a workable framework will emerge only through negotiation, careful drafting and a willingness to adjust expectations on both sides of the aisle. The legibility of this compromise—how clearly it delineates responsibilities, protections and oversight—will greatly influence the sector’s trajectory in the coming years.

In parallel, some observers have floated more cautious timelines. While a handful of lawmakers previously suggested an April path, industry-facing research from investment banks has offered more conservative forecasts, predicting that market-structure legislation could slip into 2027 or even later, with enactment potentially delayed until 2029 if the political dynamics shift post-midterms. Such projections illustrate how the regulatory road map remains uncertain, even as the appetite for a formal, nationwide framework persists among many industry participants and policymakers alike.

Across the spectrum, the insistence on a credible regulatory approach—one that supports innovation while protecting investors—remains a central theme. The ongoing negotiations produce a mixed signal: steady calls for a clear regime juxtaposed with pragmatic caveats about timing, political capital and the potential need for additional adjustments beyond a single bill. That tension is likely to define the near-term landscape for the U.S. crypto industry, as stakeholders monitor committee votes, floor calendars and the evolving posture of the administration toward market structure proposals.

Advertisement

What to watch next

  • Committee movement on the CLARITY Act by end-April and any statements detailing a concrete floor timeline in May.
  • Interactions between crypto and banking lobbies shaping compromise terms ahead of any Senate action.
  • Further discussions on stablecoins, DeFi protections and regulatory reach that could affect the final text.
  • Public comments and lobbying activity around the SAVE Act and its scheduling relative to crypto legislation.

Sources & verification

  • Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital, comments on the April committee deadline and the 2026 passage odds, via X: https://x.com/intangiblecoins/status/2032853696824873429?s=20
  • US Senate leadership and timing remarks on crypto market structure legislation and prioritization of the SAVE Act: https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-senate-thune-crypto-market-structure-april
  • TD Cowen’s assessment that crypto market structure legislation may not pass until 2027 and could take effect in 2029: https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-crypto-market-structure-bill-delayed
  • Public statements around stablecoin yields and regulatory hurdles, including comments from Senator Bernie Moreno: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-us-clarity-act-coinbase-brian-armstrong-bernie-moreno
  • President Donald Trump’s remarks criticizing banks for stalling the bill: https://cointelegraph.com/news/trump-takes-swipe-banks-over-stalled-crypto-bill
  • Senator Angela Alsobrooks on the need for compromise in crypto-banking discussions: https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-banks-need-to-be-unhappy-crypto-bill-advance-senator
  • Context and related analyses including industry perspectives on regulatory paths and market structure narratives: https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
  • Additional industry commentary from Sandeep Nailwal’s discussion post: https://x.com/sandeepnailwal/status/2032228011651842197?s=20

Regulatory clock tightens for the CLARITY Act and what it means for the market

The central dynamic in Washington is a race against time — and a race against competing agendas. The CLARITY Act is designed to provide a formal blueprint for how a wide range of crypto activities should be regulated, from centralized exchanges to wallets and on-chain developers. Yet the bill’s fate currently hinges on committee momentum and the willingness of lawmakers to balance the interests of a crypto industry that argues for clarity with the concerns of the traditional financial-oversight establishment that pushes for stronger guardrails.

Industry voices argue that clarity, even if imperfect, can catalyze investment and innovation by reducing the ambiguity that currently deters new entrants and strains compliance budgets. Proponents suggest that a well-structured framework could offer a predictable operating environment, enabling legitimate actors to navigate the regulatory landscape with greater confidence. Opponents, conversely, warn that hasty policy could overreach, potentially constraining experimentation or inadvertently stifling emerging technologies. In this context, every procedural milestone — committee votes, floor time, and regulatory clarifications — could meaningfully shift the market’s risk and liquidity dynamics.

The debate also intersects with broader macro factors affecting risk appetite in the crypto space. As policy discussions unfold, traders and investors monitor liquidity conditions, stance of regulators, and any shifts in capital flows tied to ETF and futures product developments. The regulatory frame could influence how institutional participants allocate capital to crypto strategies, how custodians structure risk controls, and how developers plan project roadmaps in a landscape that remains sensitive to political signals and regulatory expectations.

Ultimately, the CLARITY Act’s trajectory will be read through the lens of bipartisan compromise. If lawmakers arrive at a version that allocates clear responsibilities, certain consumer protections, and defined supervisory authority without crippling innovation, it could unlock a period of greater market engagement. If not, the sector may endure a continuation of policy ambiguity that encourages careful risk management but slows capital formation. The coming weeks will reveal whether the administration and Congress manage to align incentives, or whether the debate simply continues to propagate into future sessions and administration cycles.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Sui vs Near: How Two Blockchain Networks Are Taking Different Roads to Scalable Infrastructure

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR:

  • Sui finalizes independent transactions in 0.4–0.5 seconds using an object-centric parallel execution model.
  • Near’s dynamic sharding allows the network itself to expand capacity as on-chain demand increases over time.
  • Stablecoins make up 40–50% of Sui’s DeFi activity, with total DeFi value surpassing $2 billion in 2025.
  • Near’s Confidential Intents launched in early 2026, enabling private cross-chain execution and AI-agent automation.

Sui and Near are two blockchain networks that both promise high throughput, low fees, and horizontal scalability. They are often grouped as competitors in the same category.

However, their underlying architectures reflect very different assumptions about how blockchain demand will grow.

Those architectural differences determine what type of activity each network can sustainably support. Understanding these differences helps investors and developers make more informed decisions about where to build or allocate capital.

Architecture and Throughput: Where the Two Networks Diverge

Sui is built around an object-centric model that treats assets as independent objects. When two transactions do not touch the same object, they skip full consensus and execute in parallel.

Only transactions involving shared objects enter the full consensus path. This design allows simple transfers to finalize in the 0.4 to 0.5 second range. As hardware improves, execution capacity on Sui scales accordingly.

Advertisement

Near takes a different structural approach by partitioning the network itself through sharding. State is split across shards, and validators are assigned to specific shard segments.

The protocol can dynamically reshard as demand increases, and finality typically lands between 0.6 and 1.3 seconds.

Developers on Near interact with a protocol that manages scaling internally, reducing the need to handle partition logic manually.

In real-time conditions, neither network is currently constrained by throughput. Observed TPS on Sui ranges around the mid-20s, while Near operates between 30 and 40.

Advertisement

Both chains advertise theoretical ceilings far beyond current usage. The bottleneck today is demand, not execution capacity.

Crypto analyst eye zen hour, who requested a deep dive into both networks, noted that the competitive lens has shifted toward cost efficiency, liquidity depth, and ecosystem traction rather than raw TPS claims. That shift reflects where actual network value accumulates in the current market environment.

Validator design also differs between the two. Sui requires higher hardware specifications and greater stake exposure, creating a performance-oriented validator set.

Near lowers entry barriers through dynamic seat pricing and lighter hardware requirements, distributing workload across shards and broadening validator participation.

Advertisement

Stablecoins and Privacy: Competing Strategies for Institutional Growth

Stablecoins represent a practical stress test for any blockchain network. They simultaneously test settlement speed, liquidity routing, composability, and compliance readiness.

On Sui, stablecoins now account for roughly 40 to 50 percent of DeFi activity, with total DeFi value surpassing $2 billion in 2025.

Assets such as USDsui, suiUSDe, BlackRock-backed USDi, and over-collateralized BUCK reflect a strategy built around high-velocity settlement within a single execution environment. Zero-fee stablecoin transfers are planned for 2026.

Near’s stablecoin strategy focuses on liquidity mobility across multiple environments. USDC and USDT operate under the NEP-141 standard, and the Stablecoin Transport Protocol enables efficient cross-chain routing.

Advertisement

Cross-chain volume through Near Intents surpassed $13 billion in 2025, positioning stablecoins as cross-chain coordination tools rather than purely local settlement assets.

On privacy, Sui currently offers pseudonymity and object-level isolation. Its 2026 roadmap includes protocol-level default privacy through zero-knowledge proofs, homomorphic encryption, and selective disclosure.

Near, on the other hand, already launched Confidential Accounts and Confidential Intents in early 2026, enabling private cross-chain execution and AI-agent automation today.

Near’s active deployment of privacy features contrasts with Sui’s roadmap-based approach. Both paths are coherent, but Near’s execution-layer confidentiality is currently live, while Sui’s embedded privacy remains in development.

Advertisement

Market positioning further separates the two. Sui has established traction in gaming, consumer payments, storage, and institutional products.

Near centers its narrative on AI-native infrastructure, cross-chain coordination, and developer accessibility through JavaScript tooling and intent-based architecture. Both are viable, and adoption distribution over the next cycle will ultimately determine which scaling assumption proves more durable.

 

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Market Divergence: Bitcoin Climbs 12.5% While Stocks and Precious Metals Lose Trillions

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR:

  • Bitcoin market divergence appears as crypto rises while stocks and metals fall simultaneously.
  • U.S. equities lose around $2.4 trillion while Bitcoin climbs nearly 12.5% in the same period.
  • Gold and silver briefly spike on conflict headlines before reversing sharply downward.
  • Market behavior suggests liquidity pressures and capital rotation may drive crypto gains.

Bitcoin market divergence is drawing attention after an unusual market reaction during recent geopolitical tensions.

Equities and precious metals declined sharply, yet the cryptocurrency market advanced, creating a rare pattern that differs from the typical risk-off behavior seen during global conflicts.

Traditional Safe Havens Fail to Follow the Usual Pattern

Financial markets usually follow a predictable script during geopolitical crises. Investors tend to move capital into assets considered stable when global uncertainty rises.

Precious metals such as Gold and Silver often attract inflows during these periods. Government bonds and the U.S. dollar also benefit from defensive positioning.

Risk assets typically move in the opposite direction. Major equity indices like the S&P 500 and digital assets, including Bitcoin, usually decline when investors shift toward safety.

Advertisement

Comparable reactions appeared during the COVID-19 Market Crash and the Russia–Ukraine War. In both events, precious metals strengthened while equities and crypto weakened.

Recent price behavior differs from that historical template. Stocks declined sharply while gold and silver also moved lower after an initial spike.

Advertisement

Such a move is unusual because precious metals typically retain value during periods of geopolitical stress. Their decline alongside equities indicates an atypical market response.

At the same time, the cryptocurrency market moved higher. This created a divergence in the Bitcoin market that analysts are now discussing across financial platforms.

Liquidity Pressure and Capital Rotation in Markets

One possible explanation centers on liquidity conditions rather than fear. Institutional investors sometimes sell liquid holdings when they need to raise cash quickly.

Precious metals markets provide deep liquidity. Large funds can exit positions rapidly, which sometimes leads to declines even during geopolitical uncertainty.

Advertisement

Another factor involves positioning before the conflict headlines appeared. If hedge funds already held large long positions in gold, the initial price spike may have triggered profit-taking.

This behavior often follows a “buy the rumor, sell the news” pattern. Prices rise before the event and decline after traders close positions.

During the same period, the cryptocurrency market moved in the opposite direction. Bitcoin advanced nearly 12.5 percent while the broader crypto market gained roughly ten percent.

Observers on social media documented the unusual divergence. Several posts noted that equities, gold, and silver fell simultaneously while crypto markets rallied.

Advertisement

Some investors also continue exploring the narrative of Bitcoin as digital gold. The fixed supply model of Bitcoin contributes to that perception among certain market participants.

The recent market configuration, therefore, appears rare. Stocks declined, metals weakened, yet crypto prices advanced during geopolitical tension.

For now, the Bitcoin market divergence remains an uncommon pattern that market participants continue monitoring closely.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Crypto Market Cap Retests Historic Support as Cycle Pattern Reappears

Published

on

Brian Armstrong's Bold Prediction: AI Agents Will Soon Dominate Global Financial

TLDR:

  • Crypto market cap is trading near a historic demand zone that supported the 2022 bear market bottom.
  • Market structure shows similarities between the current cycle and the 2021–2023 crypto market pattern.
  • The latest correction of about 65% closely mirrors the magnitude of the previous bear market drawdown.
  • If the support zone holds again, total crypto valuation could enter another large expansion phase.

Crypto Market Cap is approaching a historically important support zone as traders examine whether the market structure mirrors the previous cycle bottom.

The total digital asset valuation remains near $2.48 trillion while analysts track demand levels and broader market momentum.

Market Structure Shows Similarities to Previous Cycle

The crypto market cap is again testing a structural demand zone that previously stabilized the market. Historical chart patterns show that the same region supported the market during the 2022 bear cycle recovery.

Data from CoinGecko shows the total cryptocurrency valuation hovering around $2.48 trillion. At the same time, Bitcoin trades near $70,600 while controlling roughly 56% to 57% market dominance.

Technical charts show similarities between the 2021–2023 cycle and the current market structure. Both cycles formed a rising channel before breaking down toward a strong historical demand area.

Advertisement

During the previous cycle decline, the crypto market cap dropped sharply from almost $3 trillion to near $700 billion. The correction represented a market decline of more than seventy percent across the digital asset sector.

Despite the sharp downturn, the market eventually stabilized within a strong support region. That stabilization created a multi-month accumulation phase where capital slowly returned.

Market observers frequently discussed the pattern on social platforms. The total crypto market cap is revisiting the same demand zone that held the 2022 market bottom.

Traders are closely watching whether the level attracts buyers again. This structural resemblance has prompted renewed attention toward the current phase of the market cycle.

Advertisement

Demand Zone Could Determine the Next Expansion Phase

The current crypto market cap correction also resembles the magnitude of the previous downturn. Charts indicate the latest drawdown has reached roughly sixty-five percent from recent highs.

Analysts identify a key support region between $1.5 trillion and $1.7 trillion. This zone previously acted as the foundation of the 2022 bear market bottom.

The area also represents a long-term liquidity cluster where institutional demand historically appeared. Because of this structure, many traders consider the level a decisive support zone.

When the market stabilized in this area during the previous cycle, accumulation continued for several months. Leading assets such as Ethereum later joined the recovery that began with Bitcoin.

Advertisement

That accumulation phase eventually triggered a strong expansion in market value. The crypto market cap later surged by nearly 488% from the cycle bottom.

Analysts frequently reference that rally while evaluating the current setup. Previous accumulation at this level eventually triggered a large expansion in total crypto valuation.

The market is now approaching that same demand region again. If buyers defend the support region again, the market could enter another expansion stage. 

A recovery similar to the previous cycle would place the crypto market cap between roughly $7 trillion and $9 trillion.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitcoin Whales Are Starting To Accumulate Again at $71K: Santiment

Published

on

Cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin Price, Adoption

Large Bitcoin wallets are increasing their holdings again as the asset’s price holds around $71,000, according to crypto sentiment platform Santiment.

“Their recent shift to accumulation is a bullish signal,” Santiment said in a report on Saturday, referring to wallets holding between 10 and 10,000 Bitcoin (BTC).

“This is a positive reversal,” Santiment added. Santiment data shows wallets holding 10 to 10,000 Bitcoin (BTC) now control 68.17% of Bitcoin’s total supply, up from 68.07% seven days earlier.

Santiment eyeing retail investor activity

Santiment said that a potential local bottom in Bitcoin could be forming if whales continue accumulating while retail investors’ share of holdings begins to decline.

Advertisement

“Ideally, we want to see small wallets (retail) drop while this group rises, signaling a transfer of coins from weak hands to strong hands,” Santiment said.

An increase in retail buying suggests over-optimism, since Bitcoin’s price has historically bottomed when everyday investors start losing hope and selling.

At the same time, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index stayed in “Extreme Fear” on Sunday at 16, signaling investors are still cautious.

Bitcoin is trading at $71,350 at the time of publication, up 6.30% over the past seven days. 

Advertisement
Cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin Price, Adoption
Bitcoin is up 7.55% over the past 30 days. Source: CoinMarketCap

Just over a week ago, Bitcoin whale activity was vastly different. Santiment reported on Mar. 6 that, in the two days prior, whales had sold 66% of the Bitcoin they bought between Feb. 23 and Mar. 3, just as Bitcoin surged past $70,000 and briefly touched $74,000.

Market bottom still uncertain

However, Santiment said that if retail investors keep buying Bitcoin, it could mean more downside ahead.

“Historically, markets tend to bottom when the ‘crowd’ loses hope. The persistence of retail optimism is currently the biggest argument against a confirmed bottom,” Santiment said. 

Related: Bitcoin beats stocks as Strategy’s STRC hints at $776M BTC buying potential

“Markets rarely reward the majority consensus immediately,” Santiment added.

Advertisement

Bitcoin onchain analyst Willy Woo echoed a similar view, recently saying that Bitcoin is “solidly in the middle of its bear market through a lens of long-range liquidity.” 

It comes as US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) logged their first five-day inflow streak of 2026, bringing in roughly $767.32 million this week.

Magazine: All 21 million Bitcoin is at risk from quantum computers