Ron Hammond, head of policy at crypto market maker Wintermute, has a cautious outlook on the Clarity Act, putting its chances of passage this year at around 30% even as momentum builds in Washington.

“There are a lot of moving parts,” Hammond said, pointing to a legislative process that is advancing, but unevenly. The Clarity Act aims to create rules around crypto market structure regulation in the U.S., including codifying how the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission can oversee digital assets in the U.S.

Hammond’s estimate broadly aligns with other signals in the market. A recent Punchbowl survey of lobbyists and staffers put the odds at 26%, while prediction market Kalshi has hovered just above even odds. The spread underscores how uncertain the bill’s trajectory remains.

Still, Hammond, who will be speaking at CoinDesk’s Consensus Miami conference next month, sees incremental progress. Lawmakers are pushing to move the bill through committee, with some aiming for a vote as early as April 20, though he cautioned that such timelines have been fluid for months.

“These dates are moving,” he said. “There’s light at the end of the tunnel, but there are hurdles along the way.”

Passage of the Clarity Act is widely seen as a key unlock for institutional adoption of crypto because it would establish clear rules around which digital assets are securities versus commodities, and define how they can be traded, custodied and otherwise regulated in the U.S.

Today’s fragmented and uncertain framework has kept many large asset managers, banks and pension funds on the sidelines due to legal and compliance risks. A comprehensive market structure law would reduce that ambiguity, giving institutions the confidence to scale exposure, launch new products, and integrate crypto more fully into traditional financial systems.

Hurdles

At the center of those hurdles: banks.

According to Hammond, traditional financial institutions remain the biggest obstacle, particularly around the issue of whether stablecoins should offer yield. A recent report from the Council of Economic Advisers has pushed back on bank opposition, but negotiations remain stuck.

“There have been attempts from a number of sides: Coinbase (COIN), the White House, the bill’s drafters, to find a solution,” Hammond said. “But at every turn, the banks refuse to give way.”

The dispute has already derailed at least one compromise. Hammond said a proposed “yield deal” floated roughly two weeks ago failed to satisfy either side, sending negotiators back to the drawing board. A new version is now circulating, but expectations are tempered.

“Even with broader macro pressures, it’s hard to see how the banks get happy here,” he said.

Democrats

That resistance is shaping the politics around the bill, particularly for Democrats. Hammond noted that some lawmakers who have accepted crypto industry funding are now navigating a difficult balancing act.

“If you’re a Democrat who took crypto money, where do you stand on this issue?” he said, pointing also to unresolved concerns around decentralized finance (DeFi) and anti-money laundering compliance.

Additional political headwinds could emerge in the coming months. Hammond flagged ongoing scrutiny around former President Donald Trump’s crypto-related dealings as a potential flashpoint that could complicate Democratic support if it intensifies around June.

“All of that becomes another headache,” he said.

Despite the friction, Hammond believes the bill still has a viable, if narrow, path forward. Progress in committee and continued negotiations could keep it alive into midyear, when political incentives may shift.

“There will be some progress soon,” he said.

U.S. expansion

For Wintermute, the stakes are high. The firm, one of the largest crypto market makers globally with roughly $10 million in daily trading volume, is expanding its U.S. footprint, and growing its New York team.

Hammond said that reflects a broader industry commitment to the U.S. market, particularly under what firms see as a more favorable regulatory environment. “Wintermute has expanded operations since the election by establishing a U.S. office in NYC and we have been actively hiring,” he added.

That makes the outcome of the Clarity Act all the more consequential. While Hammond sees “light at the end of the tunnel,” he emphasized that passage in 2026 will require breakthroughs that have so far proved elusive.

For now, 30% remains his number, and a reminder that progress in Washington does not always translate into results.

Read more: Bitcoin is stuck in a rut but JPMorgan says new legislation could be the ultimate spark

The US labor market added 178,000 jobs in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The data showed limited change from the prior month, even as companies kept talking about AI-led growth and better workplace efficiency.

That gap has kept attention on whether AI is lifting hiring and output as promised. Recent labor, workplace, and industry reports show a more mixed picture, especially in tech and entry-level roles.

Most job growth in March came from healthcare, construction, transportation and warehousing, and social assistance. Healthcare added 76,000 jobs, while construction gained 26,000 and transportation and warehousing added 21,000.

The BLS data did not show the same strength in tech-linked areas. Computing infrastructure providers and web search portals showed little movement, while computer systems design and related services lost 13,000 jobs during the month.

That pattern stands in contrast to public claims that tech hiring is recovering. Marc Andreessen said fears about AI-led job losses were overblown and shared data showing more job openings at tech firms.

But openings do not always lead to hiring. The March labor figures showed that the strongest hiring came from sectors outside core tech, while related digital services stayed flat or moved lower.

A recent Goldman Sachs report, cited by Fortune, said AI cut about 16,000 jobs per month over the past year. At the same time, a 2025 SignalFire study said new graduate hiring had dropped 50% from levels seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.

SignalFire said, “The door to tech once swung wide open for new grads. Today, it’s barely cracked.” The report linked that shift to smaller funding rounds, leaner teams, fewer graduate programs, and rising AI use.

Goldman Sachs also warned that workers pushed out by technology often move into more routine jobs. The report said this shift can reduce the value of their existing skills and weaken labor outcomes for years.

That concern has widened the debate around AI and employment. While some leaders still expect long-term gains, recent data has kept attention on current hiring patterns and who bears the cost of the change.

Worker experience does not match executive optimism

Executives continue to report strong support for AI tools. Harvard Business Review said 80% of leaders use AI weekly, while 74% reported positive returns from early deployments.

Workers reported a different experience. Mercer said 43% of workers found their jobs more frustrating, while Workday said nearly four hours are lost fixing AI output for every 10 hours of claimed efficiency gains.

Harvard Business Review also pointed to “workslop,” described as content that looks polished but lacks substance. Researchers said 41% of workers had seen this kind of output, with each case adding almost two hours of rework.

Workday said only 14% of respondents “consistently achieve net-positive outcomes from AI use.” That result suggests many workplaces are still dealing with errors, extra review, and weak trust in outputs.

OpenAI warns policy may lag behind change

The divide between executive use and daily staff experience may come from how teams use the tools. Harvard Business Review said senior leaders often apply AI to strategy, drafting, and synthesis, where the systems tend to perform better.

For routine operations that need steady accuracy, results appear less reliable. Brian Solis of ServiceNow called this burden an “AI tax,” which he described as “More checking. More rework. More anxiety.”

OpenAI has also acknowledged that AI is changing employment. Its policy ideas included broader healthcare coverage, retirement savings support, and a new industrial agenda.

The company said its proposals are early and meant to begin discussion. It also warned, “Unless policy keeps pace with technological change, the institutions and safety nets needed to navigate this transition could fall behind.”

Key Highlights

• IonQ achieved a groundbreaking 99.99% fidelity world record and targets millions of qubits by 2030.
• IBM earned a “Perfect 10” Smart Score rating on TipRanks with Moderate Buy consensus and analysts projecting 40.49% upside.
• Microsoft’s Majorana 1 chip powers chemistry research applications and carries a Strong Buy rating with 56.62% potential upside.
• Alphabet’s Google released research suggesting blockchain encryption could be compromised by quantum algorithms as early as 2029.
• Industry analysts forecast the quantum computing sector will surge from $1.42 billion in 2024 to $4.24 billion by 2030.

Quantum computing has transitioned from theoretical research into tangible commercial applications at an accelerating pace. For investors monitoring this emerging sector, three companies emerge as particularly compelling: IonQ, IBM, and Microsoft.

The quantum computing industry reached a valuation of $1.42 billion in 2024. Market researchers anticipate this figure will climb to $4.24 billion by the decade’s end. Such explosive expansion is attracting enterprise clients, lucrative government partnerships, and substantial capital investments.

IonQ: Prioritizing Precision Over Speed

IonQ has established itself as the premier pure-play quantum computing enterprise. The company’s technology recently achieved an unprecedented 99.99% fidelity rating in industry-standard benchmarking tests—a global achievement.

IonQ, Inc., IONQ

Precision represents the fundamental obstacle preventing quantum computing’s mainstream adoption. Systems plagued by frequent computational errors cannot deliver reliable results for practical applications.

IonQ’s approach centers on trapped ion technology. This methodology prioritizes exceptional accuracy over raw processing velocity, contrasting sharply with the superconducting architectures favored by competitors.

The organization’s 2026 roadmap includes deploying a 256-qubit architecture. Looking further ahead, IonQ aims to construct million-qubit systems by 2030. Successfully achieving these milestones while maintaining current accuracy standards could position the company as dominant in precision-dependent sectors.

IonQ’s quantum systems are accessible through partnerships with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. The company currently commands approximately $11 billion in market capitalization.

IBM: Bridging Quantum and Traditional Computing

IBM has charted a distinctive strategic course. Instead of solely pursuing qubit quantity, the tech giant emphasizes integrating quantum capabilities into established enterprise infrastructure.

International Business Machines Corporation, IBM

IBM’s development strategy centers on hybrid architectures where conventional CPUs, GPUs, and quantum processors operate cohesively. Industry experts consider this integration model the most viable pathway toward immediate commercial viability.

TipRanks analysts awarded IBM the platform’s maximum Smart Score of 10 out of 10. The stock maintains a Moderate Buy consensus rating, with Wall Street projecting 40.49% appreciation potential.

IBM leverages its extensive enterprise computing heritage and established client relationships, providing immediate market access for quantum services. The company’s development pipeline emphasizes enhanced qubit coherence and sophisticated error correction protocols.

Microsoft: Strategic Innovation with Transformative Potential

Microsoft has maintained a relatively understated public profile regarding quantum achievements compared to rivals like Google or IonQ. Nevertheless, its Majorana 1 quantum processor is delivering measurable outcomes.

Microsoft Corporation, MSFT

The processor currently facilitates advanced chemistry research, enabling quantum simulations of intricate molecular behaviors that exceed classical computing capabilities. CEO Satya Nadella has characterized quantum technology as the forthcoming catalyst for cloud computing evolution.

Microsoft’s research concentrates on topological qubit architectures—a forward-looking methodology promising superior stability compared to existing quantum systems. The company’s Azure Quantum platform seamlessly embeds quantum capabilities into corporate computing environments.

Wall Street analysts assign Microsoft a Strong Buy recommendation with 56.62% upside potential. The stock holds a Smart Score of eight out of ten on TipRanks.

Alphabet’s Google division released 2025 research demonstrating an algorithm potentially capable of compromising contemporary blockchain encryption protocols in minutes—possibly operational by 2029. This revelation emphasizes the remarkable velocity of quantum computing advancement.

In March, the US jobs market recorded 178,000 new jobs, marking little change from the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The anemic growth in job listings comes amid volatile policy swings from the White House, increased energy prices due to the US and Israel’s war with Iran and, according to recent research, AI disruptions to the labor market. 

Proponents of AI and large language models have claimed that the tech will bring about an economic boom, thanks to the promise of efficiency breakthroughs. 

But as AI becomes more integrated into daily business operations, there is a widening gulf between that promise of growth and efficiency, and what is actually happening. 

AI dampens employment growth

On March 6, venture capitalist and Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen said on X that fears about AI job displacement were overblown. 

He also posted an article from Business Insider stating that, at least in tech, job openings are on the rise. Citing data from TrueUp, a tech jobs tracker, Business Insider said that job openings at tech companies have doubled to 67,000 since 2023.  

But openings don’t necessarily translate to hiring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most employment growth in March did not happen in the tech industry. Of the 178,000 new jobs added in March, healthcare employed 76,000, construction grew by 26,000, transportation and warehousing added 21,000 and employment in social assistance increased by 14,000.  

While the report doesn’t have a single section tracking the tech industry, related services like computing infrastructure providers and web search portals saw a 1,500 job decrease, or almost no change, respectively. Computer systems design and related services lost 13,000 jobs.

Related: Jack Dorsey’s Block to cut 4,000 jobs in AI-driven restructuring

AI has actually axed 16,000 jobs per month over the past year, according to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, as cited by Fortune. In particular, AI has led to a collapse in hiring for entry-level roles. A 2025 study from SignalFire found that new grad hiring had dropped 50% compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. 

“The door to tech once swung wide open for new grads. Today, it’s barely cracked. The industry’s obsession with hiring bright-eyed grads right out of college is colliding with new realities: smaller funding rounds, shrinking teams, fewer new grad programs, and the rise of AI,” the SignalFire study stated. 

This disruption could create ripples far into the future. According to Goldman Sachs, “AI-driven displacement could impose lasting costs on affected workers, worsening labor market outcomes for several years.”

“A key mechanism behind these worse outcomes is occupational downgrading. Workers displaced by technology are more likely to move into more routine occupations requiring fewer analytical and interpersonal skills, likely because the same technological shifts that eliminated their positions also eroded the value of their existing skills,” they continued. 

These job losses are justified by the theory that AI will, at the very least, make workplaces more productive. But even that isn’t a given.

Reality of AI use clashes with C-suite expectations

Executives are still overwhelmingly supportive of AI. According to Harvard Business Review, 80% of leaders report weekly use of AI, with 74% reporting positive returns on early deployments. 

But workers don’t feel the same. A study from HR consulting firm Mercer found that, for 43% of workers, their job is more frustrating. 

One major issue is the number of mistakes churned out by generative AI. “For every 10 hours of efficiency gained through AI, nearly four hours are lost to fixing its output,” a Workday report stated. 

AI can also be used to offload labor onto coworkers in what researchers at the Harvard Business Review have called “workslop” i.e., “content that appears polished but lacks real substance, offloading cognitive labor onto coworkers.”

They said that “41% of workers have encountered such AI-generated output, costing nearly two hours of rework per instance and creating downstream productivity, trust, and collaboration issues.”

According to Workday, only 14% of respondents to their survey said they “consistently achieve net-positive outcomes from AI use.”

Part of the gulf between executives’ understanding of AI and the reality at the productive level may be explained by the technology itself. 

Per the Harvard Business Review, “Senior leaders tend to use AI for high-level synthesis, strategic drafting, and decision support, tasks where the technology performs well, so the current capabilities tend to benefit their work.”

For messier day-to-day operations like “workflows built over years, teams with uneven technical comfort, output that has to be consistently right, not just fast,” it doesn’t work so well. 

“When the tool works, both groups understand and reap the benefits. When it fails, typically only one of them has to cope with the aftermath.”

Brian Solis, the head of global innovation at enterprise AI firm ServiceNow, said that this divide has created an “AI tax,” i.e., “More checking. More rework. More anxiety. Faster pace. AI slop. Less trust.” 

Andreessen may not believe that the AI job-cut narratives are real, but OpenAI does. The AI company has acknowledged the impact the technology has on employment, and has even released a series of policy proposals to address it.

The list contains ideas that are “intentionally early and exploratory” that serve as a “a starting point for discussion that we invite others to build on.” It includes proposals to expand healthcare coverage, retirement savings and setting a new industrial policy agenda. 

Far from Andreessen’s optimism, OpenAI’s proposal included a warning: “Unless policy keeps pace with technological change, the institutions and safety nets needed to navigate this transition could fall behind.”

Magazine: Asia Express: Phantom Bitcoin checks, China tracks tax on blockchain