TLDR

• The Senate Banking Committee scheduled May 14 for the markup of the CLARITY Act.
• Lawmakers will debate amendments before voting on whether to advance the bill to the Senate floor.
• The House previously passed the CLARITY Act with a 294–134 bipartisan vote.
• The bill would define regulatory boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC.
• The Senate version expands the legislation to nine titles, including stablecoin oversight and bankruptcy protections.

The Senate Banking Committee will meet May 14 to mark up the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Lawmakers will debate amendments and decide whether to send the measure to the Senate floor. However, bank lobbyists and some Democrats now threaten to block the bill before it advances.

CLARITY Act Faces Senate Test After House Approval

The committee will hold the executive session at 10:30 a.m. in Room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Chairman Tim Scott confirmed the schedule last week and opened the meeting to public livestream. Lawmakers will consider amendments before voting on whether to advance the bill.

The House passed H.R. 3633 on July 17, 2025, with a 294–134 bipartisan vote. All 216 Republicans supported the measure, while 78 Democrats joined them. Since then, the Senate delayed two markup sessions and extended talks over stablecoin oversight.

The CLARITY Act would define regulatory boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC. The bill grants the CFTC authority over spot markets for digital commodities. Meanwhile, the SEC would retain control over investment contract assets and primary offerings.

Senators expanded the Senate draft to nine titles covering decentralized finance safeguards and illicit finance rules. The text also includes bankruptcy protections for crypto customers and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. That provision would provide safe harbors for blockchain software developers.

Banking Lobby and Democratic Ethics Dispute Intensify

Major banks have increased lobbying efforts in recent weeks as the vote approaches. At the same time, Democrats demand ethics rules covering crypto holdings by public officials. Republicans argue that such provisions could derail the measure entirely.

Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno warned about tight legislative deadlines. They said failure to clear committee before the May 21 Memorial Day recess could delay action until 2030. The White House has set July 4 as its target for presidential approval.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins urged Congress on April 9 to advance the bill. He said both agencies stand ready to implement the framework once enacted. Atkins referenced “Project Crypto” as an internal readiness initiative.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed the legislation as a national security issue in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He warned that regulatory gaps push blockchain firms toward Singapore and Abu Dhabi. White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said negotiations over stablecoin yield have concluded.

Senator Lummis reiterated support after the Easter recess and wrote “Clarity” on X.

Speaking at the Bitcoin Conference, she stated, “We are gonna markup the CLARITY Act in May.” She added, “We are gonna get it to the finish line.”

Chairman Scott previously targeted September 2025 for a floor vote. He later moved the timeline to late 2025 and then to June or July 2026. The May 14 markup now represents the Senate’s first formal committee vote on the bill.

The collision of AI innovation and crypto lobbying is shaping how voters view both industries as the United States edges toward potential policy changes. A Politico/Public First survey signals growing public skepticism about crypto and cautious scrutiny of AI, even as lawmakers and advocacy groups accelerate efforts to influence Washington before the next election cycle.

Poll findings suggest policymakers face a tough audience: while the crypto sector has amassed substantial funding in political action committees, a broad swath of voters remain unconvinced about the sector’s benefits or risks associated with artificial intelligence. The dialogue around a formal regulatory framework, including considerations around the CLARITY Act, has become a focal point in how industry interests intersect with voter sentiment.

Key takeaways

• Public trust gaps persist: 47% of Americans prefer traditional banks to crypto platforms, while only 17% express a level of trust comparable to banks in crypto services.
• AI skepticism runs deep: 43% believe AI risks outweigh its benefits, with just 33% seeing the opposite.
• Low awareness of lobbies: awareness of major crypto and AI lobbying groups remains limited, with only 9% having heard of the AI Super PAC Leading the Future and 3% aware of the pro-crypto Fairshake PAC.
• Grassroots resistance to tech infrastructure: across seven states, local movements have delayed or blocked substantial data-center investments, with Maine considering a statewide ban.
• Partisan dynamics complicate advocacy: while crypto voices frame their cause as bipartisan, the policy reality shows deep ties to executive and regulatory arms of government, complicating the political calculus for both parties.

Voter sentiment: crypto trust and AI doubts shape the narrative

The Politico/Public First poll paints a nuanced picture of public opinion on crypto and AI. A plurality still regards traditional financial institutions as more trustworthy than crypto platforms, and only a minority views crypto as having comparable reliability to banks. The same survey indicates that opinion on AI is uneven, with a sizable portion of the electorate wary of potential risks even as others point to benefits.

Michael Beckel, director of money-in-politics reform at Issue One, summarized the mood to Cointelegraph: voters across ideological lines are expressing concerns about corporate influence and how campaign money shapes policy outcomes. He noted that some candidates are attempting to capitalize on this frustration, a signal that the political calculus around tech lobbying is shifting.

For crypto, the numbers look especially wary. Republicans show slightly higher affinity toward crypto than Democrats, but the gap remains broad. The survey highlights a key tension: voters’ skepticism toward lucrative lobbying efforts may override partisan lines when it comes to accepting industry-friendly messaging.

Lobbying, awareness, and the politics of influence

The broader political discourse around AI and crypto is being shaped not just by policy proposals but by who finances the campaigns and how that money is framed to voters. Rick Claypool, research director at Public Citizen, emphasized a long-standing norm: voters generally oppose heavy corporate money shaping politics. He noted that post-Citizens United, the expectation has been that big brands do not straightforwardly fund campaigns, or they do so through opaque channels that obscure the funding origins.

In the 2024 cycle, industry actors—ranging from major exchanges to prominent venture firms—were active in campaign finance. Yet, the messaging directed at voters did not center on crypto per se. Advertisements and mailers often aligned with candidates’ broader positions, sometimes framing the contest as a defense against regulation or a push for deregulatory priorities rather than a crypto-first debate. The takeaway is clear: even when an industry pushes for policy, it must translate complex technical issues into relatable political narratives that the electorate can parse.

Ohio Rep. Jim Renacci summed up a practical concern for lawmakers: if a candidate is heavily backed by crypto money, the local electorate may react negatively due to limited understanding of the technology. The sentiment underscores a risk for representatives who rely on industry fundraising in a climate where voters are increasingly wary of corporate influence in politics.

Grassroots pushback and the regulatory map

The political environment around AI and crypto is further complicated by a growing grassroots movement that targets the physical footprint of technological infrastructure. Data Center Watch has documented a wave of local actions—across California, Oregon, Arizona, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, and Virginia—where new data-center projects were delayed or blocked. A recent report notes that these efforts have stalled more than $64 billion in planned data-center investment and that Maine is weighing a statewide ban as a potential policy precedent.

Claypool framed this as a potentially fertile ground for campaign messaging, particularly for Democrats seeking to capitalize on grassroots energy against what many see as energy-hungry, resource-intensive tech infrastructure. He argues that opposition to data centers can be a mobilizing issue, one that may help candidates align with voters who perceive tech expansion as a local environmental or community concern rather than a purely national policy matter.

Meanwhile, the crypto industry has tried to position itself as a bipartisan issue, arguing that policy clarity and reasonable regulation would benefit consumers and investors alike. Coinbase’s leadership and other notable venture backers have publicly framed crypto as a cross-partisan concern in Washington. Yet, on the ground, enforcement priorities and regulatory posture often track more with party leadership and executive agencies than with partisan labels. The intertwining of crypto advocacy with the Trump political orbit adds another layer of complexity. As Trump’s relevance in the broader political landscape fluctuates, ties to the industry carry new political risk for candidates who rely on that support.

A recent Illinois Democratic primary illustrated the potential political consequences of money in crypto circles. Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton cited opponent Raja Krishnamoorthi as being backed by “MAGA-backed crypto bros,” highlighting how the perception of money in politics can become a campaign issue. Stratton’s victory underscored that the electorate can scrutinize the sources of campaign contributions as much as the policy positions themselves.

Looking ahead: what matters for voters, investors, and builders

As midterm dynamics and regulatory debates unfold, observers should watch how legislative momentum around the CLARITY Act evolves and whether it gains broader bipartisan support. The public’s growing skepticism about crypto and AI could influence lawmakers to pursue tighter disclosures, clearer enforcement guidelines, and more transparent lobbying practices, even as proponents argue for a clear framework that benefits investors and users.

For market participants, the key takeaway is not a sudden shift in policy, but a gradual recalibration of risk around policy risk. Investors and builders should monitor two threads: first, the trajectory of regulatory clarity and how it aligns with consumer protections and innovation; second, the ability of the crypto and AI industries to articulate tangible benefits to the public in a way that resonates beyond the fundraising apparatus.

In the coming months, the interplay between voter sentiment, grassroots activism, and political endorsements will shape how Washington treats crypto and AI. If voters increasingly view industry money as a potential conflict of interest, candidates may distance themselves from big-ticket funding, potentially narrowing the policy window for industry-backed initiatives. Conversely, if policymakers offer credible, accessible frameworks that address consumer protection and innovation, the sector may find a more stable path forward.

Readers should keep an eye on regulators’ statements, legislative committee hearings, and any new public-facing campaigns from major lobbies and consumer groups. The political weather surrounding crypto and AI is shifting, and the path to policy clarity may hinge on how convincingly proponents connect technical progress with everyday benefits for the American public.

Consensus, the annual cryptocurrency conference hosted by CoinDesk, threw its post-conference closing party at E11even, the same club where several years ago World Liberty Financial founder Zach Witkoff was arrested with cocaine.

This Miami club, described as a “strip club” by Jess Zhang, the founder and chief executive of Blockus, was criticized as a poor choice for an industry that was supposed “to be moving towards institutional maturity.”

Zhang further noted that this type of event “diminishes women to sexual objects and enforces a stale, exclusionary culture.”

Additionally, Amanda Wick, formerly a federal prosecutor, told Bloomberg that “as a gender equality advocate, the event was horrifying.”

E11even has a long history with cryptocurrency; E11even Partners decided to partner with FTX US before its collapse.

This partnership would have made FTX US “the sole converter of cryptocurrency transactions for acquiring residences” in this development by the same group as the aforementioned nightclub.

Read more: Crypto Miami apparently has a deodorant problem

At least one cryptocurrency executive rushed to defend the event: Michael Khekoian, the senior business development manager at Consensys who also does product safety at Metamask, posted, “I never knew the women working there are forced sex slaves.”

He continued, “its as if there was no actual conference or networking outside of a closing party.”

Eventually, this escalated to Khekoian threatening to sue Zhang.

Osmosis is debating a merger with Cosmos Hub via a 1.998 OSMO‑for‑0.0355 ATOM swap funded by DEX revenue, raising existential questions for OSMO, ATOM and the broader IBC DeFi stack.

Osmosis (OSMO) jumped 185% in 24 hours on May 11, reigniting debate across X about the failed COSMOSIS merger proposal that would have integrated the decentralized exchange directly into the Cosmos Hub. The sharp price movement comes less than a month after Cosmos Hub governance narrowly rejected the acquisition plan in April 2026, with speculation now centering on whether a revised proposal could succeed.

The original proposal, posted March 11, would have allowed holders to convert all circulating OSMO tokens into ATOM at a fixed rate of 1.998 OSMO for 0.0355 ATOM over a six-month window. Under that structure, approximately 665.1 million OSMO would have been eligible for conversion, with any unclaimed ATOM returning to the Cosmos Hub community pool after the deadline. The plan aimed to consolidate Osmosis liquidity, governance, and security onto a single chain, effectively making the DEX a native component of the Hub rather than an independent app-chain.

Failed Vote Sparks Renewed Speculation

After the governance vote failed by a narrow margin in mid-April, Osmosis stated it would continue operating as “an independent, profitable blockchain” and develop its next-phase roadmap. Yet recent posts from the official Osmosis account and Cosmos-focused community members suggest discussions around a revised integration path have resumed, driving heavy trading activity across OSMO markets.

The OSMO-to-ATOM conversion narrative has been trending heavily among Cosmos ecosystem participants, with some forum posts exploring whether a modified proposal could address concerns that led to the original vote’s failure. An updated version referenced in early April removed new ATOM minting from the plan, instead proposing to fund the conversion over time using Osmosis’s own DEX revenue. That revision aimed to mitigate dilution risk for ATOM holders, a key point of contention during the initial governance debate.

Consolidation Versus Sovereignty

The COSMOSIS proposal represents one of the most aggressive consolidation moves in Cosmos history, testing whether ecosystem-wide mergers can boost liquidity and valuations or undermine the sovereignty that defines the network’s app-chain model. If a revised proposal passes both Osmosis and Cosmos Hub governance, it would set a precedent that could pressure other independent chains to consider similar integrations.

Market observers note the debate mirrors broader tensions across multi-chain architectures, where projects must balance the benefits of shared security and liquidity against the risks of governance centralization. Concentrating the ecosystem’s primary DEX and hub chain under a single governance framework creates potential single-point-of-failure risks, as contentious votes could simultaneously affect trading infrastructure and network security.

Following the April rejection, some Cosmos community members floated the idea of a hostile takeover offer, arguing that nothing prevents Hub governance from drafting a proposal and presenting it directly to OSMO holders for their own vote. Whether renewed speculation translates into formal governance action remains unclear, but the 185% price surge signals that markets are pricing in a meaningful probability of eventual integration.

Key takeaways

• SEI is up 10%, outperforming the broader cryptocurrency market.
• The coin could extend its rally towards the $0.092 daily swing high in the near term.

The cryptocurrency market opened the new weekly candle mixed as some coins rallied while others underperformed.

SEI, the native coin of the Sei blockchain, is one of the best performers among the top 100 cryptocurrencies by market cap.

The coin is up by 10% in the last 24 hours and could extend its rally in the near term. Technical indicators suggest that SEI could surge past a key resistance level as the broader market remains strong. 

SEI rallies as Sei Labs completes EVM Transition

The primary catalyst behind SEI’s latest rally is the completion of its unified EVM architecture. 

The team announced over the weekend that it has completed its transition to a unified, EVM-only architecture. 

This means that exchanges and custodians supporting the SEI token need to migrate customer holdings before support for Cosmos and IBC-related functionality is deprecated.

The team’s core message: Sei EVM is not a separate chain. “It’s the same chain with a second way to interact with it,” Sei Labs said in the announcement. Any venue that treats “Sei” and “Sei EVM” as two distinct integrations needs to consolidate them into one.

The push closes out SIP-3, the May 2025 governance vote that approved Sei’s pivot to a fully EVM-only architecture. 

The transition has rolled out in stages through 2026, with EVM staking added in January, inbound IBC transfers disabled in February, and the native oracle replaced by Chainlink, Pyth, and API3 in March.

SEI bulls target the $0.080 resistance level

The SEI/USD 4H chart is bearish and inefficient thanks to Sei’s latest rally. The momentum indicators suggest that the bulls remain in control of the market.

The RSI of 70 means that SEI is approaching the overbought region, which could signal incoming selling pressure. The MACD lines are also within the positive territory, adding further confluence to the bullish narrative.

If the bullish trend persists, SEI could rally past the $0.0800 level in the near term. The swing high on the daily chart at $0.09248 could be SEI’s target in the coming days and weeks.

However, if the sellers regain control, SEI could drop to the support level at $0.07021. Losing this level could see the bears push the price lower towards the $0.06490 pyschological level. 

MARA Holdings (MARA) is scheduled to report first quarter earnings after the market close on May 11, with Wall Street analysts expecting the company to post losses on revenue and earnings (EPS) of $184.21 million and $2.34 respectively.

Results are expected to reflect the sharp decline in bitcoin prices during the first quarter, with BTC falling roughly 25% over the period, from roughly $87,000 to $67,000, creating significant mark-to-market losses on MARA’s digital asset holdings.

However, investor focus is likely to center less on short term bitcoin price volatility and more on the company’s strategic transition into artificial intelligence and high performance computing infrastructure. MARA has increasingly positioned itself as part of a broader industry shift in which bitcoin miners are leveraging their existing energy assets and data center expertise to secure more stable, long term AI-related revenue streams.

The AI transition includes FTAI Infrastructure agreeing to sell Long Ridge Energy to MARA in a $1.5 billion transaction. The deal is expected to provide MARA with long-term power-generation capacity and exposure to steadier cash flow opportunities tied to AI and data center contracts, reducing reliance on the highly cyclical bitcoin mining business, where revenues fluctuate with bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and transaction fees.

In the fourth quarter, MARA reported declining revenue of 6% year-over-year from $214 million to $206 million, though it also announced a partnership with Starwood to develop AI data centers delivering approximately one gigawatt of computing capacity in the near term.

During Q1, MARA sold 15,133 BTC, valued at approximately $1.1 billion, using proceeds to repurchase $1.0 billion of convertible notes, strengthen liquidity, and continue funding its AI expansion strategy.

The broader bitcoin mining sector is increasingly following a similar path. IREN (IREN) recently expanded its AI transition through a $3.4 billion AI cloud agreement with NVIDIA (NVDA), while also recording a $140.4 million non-cash impairment charge tied to the sale of ASIC mining hardware as it reallocates infrastructure toward AI cloud services.

In addition, HIVE Digital Technologies (HIVE) announced additional investments into AI and digital infrastructure, including $3.1 million to install high speed fiber infrastructure supporting a planned 50MW AI factory.

MARA shares rose 1% to $13 in pre-market trading.