Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong posted a three-word response on X on May 1 after Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks released the final stablecoin yield compromise text for the CLARITY Act: “Mark it up,” urging the Senate Banking Committee to advance the bill that Armstrong himself put on ice in January.

Brian Armstrong’s endorsement carries unusual weight on this specific bill. As crypto.news reported, it was Armstrong who pulled Coinbase’s support hours before a scheduled January 14 committee markup, causing Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott to postpone the vote indefinitely. The bill has not reached markup since. Armstrong’s January withdrawal also followed a contentious moment in March when Coinbase and Stripe rejected a separate draft — one so unacceptable that Circle’s stock fell 20% in a single session. The May 1 deal, authored by Tillis and Alsobrooks after months of negotiations with the White House, banking groups, and crypto firms, draws a firm line at passive yield while leaving open a regulatory runway for rewards tied to actual platform participation.

Benzinga reported that the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury are directed to jointly issue rules within one year defining a non-exhaustive list of permitted reward activities. Armstrong’s company reported $1.35 billion in stablecoin revenue in 2025, making the yield provisions a direct financial variable rather than a policy preference.

As crypto.news documented, JPMorgan analysts described CLARITY Act passage by midyear as a “key positive catalyst” for digital asset markets, and the stablecoin yield question was the single largest obstacle remaining before the deal landed. Shirzad acknowledged the trade-off: “In the end, the banks were able to get more restrictions on rewards, but we protected what matters.” Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Kim expressed residual concern about the text’s breadth, urging the committee to proceed to markup regardless.

As crypto.news tracked, Galaxy Digital had put overall 2026 passage odds at roughly 50-50 before the deal, with Thorn warning that if the markup slips past mid-May, the probability of enactment drops sharply. The bill still needs to pass the Banking Committee, clear the Senate floor at 60 votes, reconcile with the Agriculture Committee version, and reconcile with the July 2025 House text before reaching Trump’s desk.

Bitcoin and XRP regain focus as rising volatility drives trading activity and renewed market participation.

With the recent resurgence of volatility in the crypto market, Bitcoin and XRP have once again become the focus of market attention. Trading volume has rebounded, and discussion has increased, attracting not only new users but also bringing back some previously absent participants.

However, as the market heats up again, a less obvious but noteworthy change is occurring — more and more users are beginning to rethink “how to participate,” rather than just “when to buy and sell.”

The limitations of traditional trading are becoming more apparent

For a long time, buying and selling has been the primary way most people participate in the crypto market. However, in practice, many users find it difficult to grasp market rhythms, and emotional fluctuations can also affect decision-making.

In rapidly changing market conditions, some users often face the following situations:

• Difficulty in judging entry timing
• Instable holding periods
• Overreaction to short-term fluctuations

With accumulated experience, some participants are beginning to look for more stable and predictable participation methods.

From “predicting the market” to “structured participation”

In recent years, a different approach to participation has gradually gained attention. Compared to frequent trading, this approach emphasizes structured participation — that is, clearly defining rules, cycles, and processes before participation, thereby reducing reliance on short-term market fluctuations.

This shift doesn’t mean users are abandoning trading altogether, but rather that they are seeking a balance among various methods. Some users are choosing to shift their focus from continuous market monitoring to a more rhythmic participation mode.

The emergence and changing trends of the XRP Power platform

Against this backdrop, some platforms have begun offering more structured participation solutions. For example, the XRP Power platform.

Such platforms are gradually being mentioned by some users.

This platform allows users to understand the overall structure before entering by setting clear participation logic and processes. For users who do not wish to trade frequently, this approach lowers the barrier to entry to some extent.

It is important to note that different platforms have different designs, and users typically understand and assess their operation through publicly available information before participating.

User behavior is changing

Market activity does not mean everyone is chasing short-term fluctuations.

Conversely, some users are beginning to focus more on:

• The stability of participation methods
• Time cost control
• The sustainability of the participation experience

This shift reflects the evolution of the crypto market from a “single transaction-driven” model to a “multi-faceted participation model.”

For readers who wish to learn more about structured participation methods, please refer to the publicly available information of relevant platforms, including their operational logic and participation processes, visit the official website.

Conclusion

With the resurgence of BTC and XRP, the market’s focus is gradually changing.

For a growing number of participants, the question is no longer simply “whether there are opportunities in the market,” but rather “how to participate in them in a more appropriate way.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has paused the anticipated rollout of the first exchange-traded funds linked to prediction-market event contracts, delaying more than two dozen proposed ETFs from Roundhill Investments, GraniteShares, and Bitwise. The agency requested additional information about product structure and disclosures, according to Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter. The funds, filed in February, would provide exposure to binary outcomes tied to events such as elections, economic data releases, and market prices, without requiring investors to trade on explicit prediction-market platforms like Kalshi. The postponement underscores ongoing regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets in the United States, a space that has raised concerns about insider trading, ethics, and potential market manipulation.

The review pause arrives in a regulatory environment where authorities continue to drill into how prediction-market exposure should be structured, disclosed, and safeguarded for mainstream investment vehicles. The delay comes after a 75-day review period and ahead of what had been expected to be the launch window for the spectrum of funds.

Key takeaways

• The SEC has issued a temporary delay to the rollout of the first ETFs tied to prediction-market event contracts, seeking further information on product structure and disclosures from the issuers.
• The proposed funds aim to track binary event outcomes by using derivatives that mirror odds on underlying contracts traded on CFTC-regulated platforms, with settlements typically at $1 if the event occurs and $0 if it does not.
• Issuers emphasize that these investments carry risks that differ from traditional futures, options, or securities and may involve significant losses, valuation uncertainty, and deviations from stated investment objectives.
• Analysts had anticipated an imminent launch, with Bloomberg ETF strategist commentary suggesting an effective filing date of early May and talks of event-contract outcomes such as party control in the U.S. Congress.
• The delay highlights ongoing regulatory considerations for how such funds should be governed, disclosed, and monitored for market integrity, including potential settlement ambiguities and data-definition disputes.

Regulatory review and launch timeline

According to Reuters, the SEC’s request for more information appears to be a procedural step rather than a fundamental policy shift. The agencies’ actions indicate a careful, information-gathering approach to determine whether the funds’ structure, disclosures, and risk management align with investor protections and securities laws. The timing of the delay, which affects more than two dozen ETFs from the three sponsors, suggests that authorities are weighing the appropriateness of offering publicly traded access to prediction-market exposure at a broader scale.

Market observers had expected a rollout to proceed in the near term, with linkage to event-contract outcomes such as whether one political party controls the House or Senate, or other binary results. Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas noted that the ETFs were anticipated to launch on the originally scheduled date, while James Seyffart indicated that Roundhill’s filing had an effective date around May 5. The reports underscore a convergence of regulatory review with market timing expectations, even as the SEC seeks clarifications that could shape the ultimate design of these vehicles.

Structure, mechanics, and risk disclosures

Prediction-market ETFs are designed to provide investors with exposure to binary event contracts without requiring direct participation in specialized prediction-market venues. While the exact features vary across the more than 20 proposed funds, the general design centers on derivatives intended to track the odds of a “yes” or “no” outcome on underlying contracts traded on platforms regulated by the CFTC. In practice, settlement would occur at $1 if the referenced event takes place and $0 if it does not.

In February filings, Roundhill highlighted significant risk factors associated with the proposed ETFs, noting that investments in event contracts carry “unique risks that differ from those associated with traditional futures, options or securities.” The disclosures point to substantial volatility and the possibility of material losses, valuation uncertainty, and deviations from the fund’s stated investment objective. Related considerations include potential settlement issues tied to interpretations of event outcomes, data sources, and timing—areas that could lead to disputes or mispricing if not well defined.

Implications for institutions, compliance, and market integrity

The SEC’s delay has practical implications for institutional access to predictive-market exposure. For banks, asset managers, and other regulated entities, the move reinforces the importance of rigorous governance, robust risk controls, and transparent data sourcing when dealing with unconventional assets. The disclosures emphasize that investors may face valuation challenges and uncertainties around how underlying event outcomes are determined, a factor that could influence internal risk ratings, capital treatment, and compliance reviews.

From a regulatory perspective, the development sits at the intersection of securities law, market integrity, and consumer protection. Prediction markets have historically attracted scrutiny regarding insider information, manipulation, and ethical concerns around market design. The current pause suggests that the SEC remains vigilant about ensuring that any tradable exposure to binary outcomes is accompanied by clear definitions, objective data sources, and robust dispute-resolution mechanisms.

For firms seeking to offer or participate in such products, the episode highlights the continuing relevance of AML/KYC considerations, licensing, and regulatory oversight across multiple agencies. As the landscape evolves, issuers and counterparties will likely need to align product disclosures with evolving standards for disclosure quality, risk articulation, and operational resilience in the event of ambiguous or contested outcomes.

Policy and market-structure context

The unfolding review mirrors broader regulatory dynamics surrounding forecast-based and outcome-contingent instruments in the United States. As authorities assess how to balance innovation in financial products with safeguards against systemic risk and market abuse, expect continued attention to how prediction-market ETFs are structured, how data feeds are validated, and how settlements are determined in edge cases. The review also intersects with cross-cutting regulatory themes, including the delineation of custody responsibilities, valuation methodologies, and the integrity of price discovery in derivative-linked products.

Looking ahead, observers should monitor whether the SEC’s information requests yield a clarified, harmonized framework for predictive-market ETFs or whether additional delays and refinements will extend the timeline. The outcome could influence product design choices, the pace of market access for institutional investors, and the regulatory posture toward prediction markets as a class of financial instruments.

The current pause does not indicate a permanent withdrawal of these investment vehicles but rather a measured, regulatory-driven pause to ensure that disclosures, risk management, and operational structures meet institutional standards. As reviews progress, issuers will need to address any ambiguities in event definitions, data sources, or timing determinations to maintain alignment with securities-law requirements and compliance expectations.

For market participants, the episode signals the importance of ongoing risk governance and transparent communication with investors about the unique characteristics and potential downsides of prediction-market exposure. As regulatory dialogue continues, institutions should prepare for evolving standards around disclosure quality, settlement mechanics, and oversight of event-based derivative instruments.

In sum, the SEC’s delay of the first prediction-market ETFs—while likely temporary—highlights the policy and risk-management complexities at the frontier of innovative financial products. The coming weeks will reveal how issuers adapt disclosures and how regulators calibrate the balance between investor access and safeguards against abuse in event-driven markets.

Bitcoin reclaims $80,000 as ETF inflows and spot demand signal potential start of a new capital cycle.

Bitcoin has reclaimed the $80,000 level, and this time, the logic behind the rally is changing.

After several weeks of consolidation, Bitcoin has broken above this key level for the first time since January, reaching an intraday high of $80,450 and marking its highest level in nearly three months.

More importantly, this rally is not simply driven by market sentiment, but is supported by a clear increase in spot buying activity. At the same time, continued inflows into spot ETFs are providing a steady source of demand.

This move not only signals a return in price but may also indicate the early stages of a new capital cycle.

Real buying returns: The dynamics behind the rally are shifting

On-chain data provides a clear answer. During the breakout above key levels, spot CVD (Cumulative Volume Delta) surged significantly, rising by nearly 200%. This typically indicates that the rally is being driven by active spot buying, rather than leveraged positions or short covering.

In other words, the underlying driver of the current market is shifting from trading-driven momentum to capital-driven demand.

Such a structural shift often suggests stronger sustainability for the trend.

Fox DeFi observation: Capital structure is being reshaped

From a deeper perspective, the core of this round of price increases is not just price, but a change in capital structure.

Fox DeFi points out in its market observations that an important trend is emerging: Market funds are shifting from short-term speculation to more stable medium- to long-term allocations.

In the past, price fluctuations were largely driven by high-leverage trading; currently, more and more funds are entering the Bitcoin ecosystem through more stable methods. This change is not only affecting price movements but also reshaping investor participation logic.

Fox DeFi believes that as the market enters a phase dominated by real funds, strategies relying solely on short-term trading will gradually lose their advantage.

Institutional movements: Long-term funds continue to deploy

Signals from institutional investors are also worth noting. Large holders are gradually resuming their buying pace and continuously allocating across different price ranges. This behavior is essentially a long-term strategy — reducing the risk of market volatility through phased deployment.

Historical experience shows that when such funds begin to systematically enter the market, it often signifies that the market is in the early stages of trend establishment.

Macroeconomic resonance: Market sentiment is improving

From a broader market perspective, Bitcoin’s rise is not accidental.

Recently, global stock markets have generally performed well, risk assets have begun to recover, and investors’ risk appetite has significantly increased. At the same time, the regulatory environment has improved, making it safer for more funds to enter the crypto market.

Against this backdrop, Bitcoin is no longer just an independently fluctuating asset but is increasingly influenced by overall market sentiment.

When market sentiment improves, assets like Bitcoin typically experience price increases sooner.

Participation methods are changing: More than just trading

As market structures evolve, so too are investor participation methods.

Fox DeFi points out that more and more users are shifting from short-term trading to longer-term, more stable participation paths, paying closer attention to trends and capital cycles.

At a practical level, this shift is becoming increasingly clear. Taking Fox DeFi as an example, users only need to complete basic account registration and setup to get started. They can then choose participation plans with different time horizons based on their strategies and allocate capital using major digital assets. The system operates under predefined rules, with returns calculated and settled on a periodic basis, making the process more transparent and allowing for more predictable outcomes. 

In this model, assets are no longer passively held but are incorporated into cloud computing power contracts, enabling funds to operate continuously and generate returns.

As more and more funds adopt this approach, market competition is also changing: it’s no longer about who can capitalize on short-term fluctuations, but about who can establish a stable participation structure earlier.

Outlook: The market is entering a capital-driven phase

Bitcoin’s return to the $80,000 level signals a shift from sentiment-driven momentum to capital-driven dynamics.

Going forward, the real differentiation will not lie in who predicts price movements correctly, but in who can better align with the direction of capital flows and establish more stable, sustainable ways of participating in the market.

Conclusion

This breakout, while superficially a price correction, is essentially a restructuring of the funding logic.

As the market shifts from being emotion-driven to being fund-driven, opportunities will no longer be concentrated on short-term fluctuations, but rather on how to participate in the trend itself.

In this context, Fox DeFi believes that as the market gradually enters a phase dominated by real capital, diversified participation methods around the Bitcoin network are increasingly becoming a focus for investors, including long-term participation models based on computing power and strategies.

For users seeking more stable participation methods within trends, the paths offered by Fox DeFi are gradually gaining wider acceptance.

Latest Coinglass data show Hyperliquid whale accounts holding a combined $4.016 billion in notional positions, with longs only marginally ahead of shorts on size but comfortably in the lead on PnL as one heavily leveraged ETH long dominates the winner’s circle.

Latest Coinglass whale-tracking data indicate that large traders on Hyperliquid currently hold a combined $4.016 billion in notional positions, almost perfectly balanced between the two sides of the book.

Whales are near flat but shorts are underwater

Long exposure stands at $2.024 billion, representing 50.39% of whale holdings, while short exposure totals $1.992 billion, or 49.61%, putting the long‑short ratio at 1.02 and signaling only a marginal bullish skew in positioning.

A recent crypto.news guide to the Hyperliquid whale tracker stressed that such concentrated, high‑leverage whale positions can act as “hidden liquidation magnets,” influencing order‑book dynamics as funding, price, and margin levels converge.

Another crypto.news explanation noted that a long‑short ratio clustered near 1.0 with large absolute notional can signal a market poised for sharp moves once one side is forced to de‑risk, especially when short PnL is already deeply negative as current data suggest.

A separate crypto.news update tracked earlier Hyperliquid snapshots where total whale exposure was nearer $3.7 billion, with the same 0xa5b0..41 address running the ETH 15x long from $2,265.48 at a smaller unrealized gain — underscoring how the trade has swelled in value alongside the broader build‑up in whale notional.

Crypto payments gain mainstream traction as trust and infrastructure become central to industry growth.

Crypto payments are joining credit cards and bank payments as mainstream payment methods. In 2025, the total crypto market cap crossed $4 trillion for the first time, mobile wallet use hit a new high, and active crypto users reached hundreds of millions. Scale also changes the conversation for businesses. Speed and global reach still matter; however, trust now comes first.

Trust in crypto payments starts with the blockchain infrastructure. It protects funds, handles data with care, follows compliance rules, and keeps services stable under pressure. Security standards make or break the credibility of the entire industry at this point.

What crypto payment security means in practice