According to Cointelegraph, a bipartisan initiative in the U.S. Congress is advancing a permanent ban on a central bank digital currency (CBDC) issued by the Federal Reserve, to be codified in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The House is poised to vote on an amended version of the measure this week, following a Senate bill that would delay any CBDC issuance until December 31, 2030. The development underscores enduring regulatory and governance concerns about state-issued digital money and its implications for financial privacy, supervisory oversight, and the role of the Fed.

The amended House legislation aims to eliminate what its sponsors describe as a potential “backdoor green light for a CBDC” and seeks a permanent prohibition. The debate arrives at a moment when lawmakers are weighing how a digital sovereign currency would interact with housing programs, housing affordability policy, and broader financial-system regulation.

Key takeaways

• The House proposes a permanent ban on the Federal Reserve or its banks issuing a CBDC, embedded in the amended ROAD to Housing Act; the Senate’s March document proposed a CBDC prohibition through 2030, alongside housing program revisions.
• Key lawmakers are advancing distinct anti-CBDC positions: Rep. Warren Davidson supports a permanent prohibition, while House Majority Whip Tom Emmer is promoting an alternative “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.”
• The legislation must clear both chambers before it can reach the president’s desk; passage in the House would send the measure back to the Senate for potential further changes.
• Global context remains limited: the Atlantic Council tracker identifies only three countries with official CBDCs (Nigeria, Jamaica, Bahamas) and notes 41 others in pilot or testing phases, highlighting a risk analysis framework for U.S. policy choices.
• Regulatory and compliance implications are central for banks, non-bank financial institutions, and crypto firms, with potential downstream effects on licensing, AML/KYC regimes, and cross-border operations.

Legislative trajectory and policy debate

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee released a bill in March largely focused on housing program revisions but included a section barring the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve bank from issuing a CBDC or similar instrument until the end of 2030. In parallel, the House has crafted its own amended version, which Rep. Mike Flood described as reversing a perceived “backdoor green light for a CBDC” and pushing for a permanent ban. The House bill is expected to reach a floor vote this week, with prospects of returning to the Senate for potential amendments before any final enactment.

Legal and regulatory analysts are watching the interplay between the two chambers closely. If enacted, the measure would establish a statutory framework that could constrain the Fed’s monetary tools and the broader development of a government-backed digital currency in the United States. The path forward remains uncertain, given possible Senate resistance to a permanent ban and the broader policy considerations that have characterized CBDC discussions for years.

Policy positions, privacy, and governance concerns

Policy voices on both sides of the aisle have framed CBDCs as a matter of governance, privacy, and state oversight. Rep. Warren Davidson has argued that a sunset or “2030 pre-launch development period” fails to create a robust, lasting constraint on CBDC development, describing the House effort as a potential bipartisan win on housing policy that should not become a vehicle for a central-bank digital currency. He characterized the current approach as drifting toward a CBDC policy that could be construed as a functional launch date rather than a sincere ban.

On the other side, Rep. Tom Emmer—one of the House Republican leadership figures—has pressed for the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which would block the Fed from creating or issuing a CBDC. He has framed the issue in terms of privacy and governance, arguing that a U.S. CBDC could be used to surveil and control economic behavior, drawing explicit contrasts with models observed in other jurisdictions. A representative statement from Emmer included, “My Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act bans our government from ever creating this Orwellian tool. The House passed it. Now, the Senate must act.”

“My Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act BANS our government from ever creating this Orwellian tool. The House passed it. Now, the Senate must act.”

The policy discourse also takes into account broader privacy and civil-liberties considerations. The Human Rights Foundation has highlighted the dual nature of CBDCs: potential benefits for financial inclusion and the risks related to privacy infringement and the possibility of expanding government control. This framing informs ongoing debates about how any federal digital monetary instrument would interface with existing AML/KYC obligations, banking relationships, and cross-border payments—areas where U.S. regulatory posture increasingly intersects with international standards and comparative regimes.

Global landscape and regulatory context

Beyond the United States, global CBDC activity remains uneven. The Atlantic Council’s CBDC tracker identifies Nigeria, Jamaica, and the Bahamas as the only jurisdictions with officially deployed CBDCs, while 41 additional countries are in various pilot stages. This landscape informs the regulatory and political calculations in Washington, as lawmakers weigh the domestic benefits and risks of a sovereign digital currency against potential international policy alignments and competitive considerations.

The CBDC debate in the United States unfolds alongside ongoing regulatory discussions on related digital-finance issues, including stablecoins, cross-border payments, and the role of licensing regimes for digital-asset firms. While not all details are identical across jurisdictions, the U.S. regulatory model increasingly emphasizes a rigorous framework for oversight, protection of consumer data, and the integrity of the financial system—considerations that will shape how any future CBDC policy is designed, implemented, and if necessary, restrained.

Within the broader policy ecosystem, lawmakers and observers continue to reference regulatory pillars and cross-border dynamics relevant to MiCA-type frameworks, U.S. securities and exchange authorities, and the Department of Justice’s enforcement posture. The evolving balance between monetary sovereignty, financial inclusion, and civil-liberties protections remains central to the debate over whether the United States should, or should not, pursue a CBDC strategy at all.

Closing perspective

As Congress advances or revises these proposals, the central questions revolve around legality, governance, and regulatory alignment. Whether a permanent ban gains approval—and how it would be reconciled with ongoing domestic housing initiatives and international CBDC developments—will shape the trajectory of U.S. digital-money policy for years to come. Monitoring votes in the House, potential Senate amendments, and the administration’s stance will be essential for institutions assessing compliance requirements and strategic considerations related to central-bank digital currencies.

The Ethereum Foundation is facing fresh departures after researchers Carl Beek and Julian Ma said they are leaving the organization.

Carl Beek announced on X that he will leave the Ethereum Foundation, with his final day set for May 29. Beek spent seven years at the organization and worked on core Ethereum research, including the Beacon Chain.

In his post, Beek thanked Ethereum researchers, core developers, EF staff, and community members. He wrote, “To every researcher, core dev, EFer, and community member, whether we worked together closely or not: thank you.” He also said Ethereum’s strength remains with the people building it.

Julian Ma also announced his exit on X after about four years at the Ethereum Foundation. His work covered mechanism design, cryptoeconomics, and protocol scaling.

Ma pointed to FOCIL, also known as EIP-7805, and the Fast Confirmation Rule as work he was proud of. He said the Fast Confirmation Rule reduced bridging time between Ethereum Layer 2s and the mainnet to 13 seconds.

Carl Beek leaves after Beacon Chain work

Beek is closely linked to Ethereum’s proof-of-stake transition. His work on the Beacon Chain formed part of the research base behind Ethereum’s shift away from proof-of-work.

He did not announce a new role in the post. Beek said he and his wife recently welcomed a child, and he plans to take time with his family before deciding his next move.

His exit adds to several public departures from the Ethereum Foundation this year. It also comes during a period when Ethereum developers are working through major protocol updates and internal team changes.

The timing puts more attention on how the foundation keeps research work moving as experienced staff leave. Ethereum still depends on a wide group of independent developers, client teams, and researchers, not only the foundation.

Julian Ma exits after FOCIL and scaling work

Ma said his Ethereum Foundation work included FOCIL, a proposal aimed at improving censorship resistance. The idea centers on inclusion lists, which can help make it harder for block builders or validators to leave out transactions.

He also cited work on faster confirmations between Ethereum Layer 2s and the mainnet. Faster confirmations can improve user experience by cutting delays when users move assets or messages across Ethereum-linked systems.

Ma’s resignation follows other changes tied to the Protocol Cluster. Barnabé Monnot also posted about his transition, while Tim Beiko is moving on from the foundation and Alex Stokes is taking a sabbatical.

The Ethereum Foundation confirmed the broader Protocol Cluster changes in a May 11 update. The foundation said Barnabé Monnot and Tim Beiko are moving on soon, while Alex Stokes will go on sabbatical.

Ethereum roadmap work remains in focus

The Protocol Cluster transition comes as Ethereum continues work on Glamsterdam, Hegotá, FOCIL, and the wider scaling roadmap. The official update named Will Corcoran, Kev Wedderburn, and Fredrik as new Protocol Cluster leads.

Earlier crypto.news coverage reported that Glamsterdam’s devnet is live, while FOCIL, Verkle Trees, and account-abstraction upgrades have moved into the Hegotá roadmap. The same report noted that leadership changes are now part of Ethereum’s 2026 roadmap backdrop.

The departures do not stop Ethereum’s roadmap. They do, however, place the new Protocol Cluster leads under closer watch as the foundation manages staff changes and technical deadlines.

Formula by Cointelegraph PR head Katerina Zemskova says AI-fueled content saturation has pushed Web3 projects to ditch rigid retainers and build founder-led, macro-aware narratives instead of generic press blitzes.

The Web3 public relations industry is facing what Formula by Cointelegraph Head of PR Katerina Zemskova calls a “press-release blindness” crisis, as crypto companies continue spending thousands of dollars on media distribution campaigns that often generate little measurable business impact.

In an interview with Formula, Zemskova said the explosion of AI-generated content has fundamentally changed how crypto audiences consume information, forcing projects to rethink how they build trust with investors, users and regulators.

“The volume of announcements is so high, and they look so similar to one another, that audiences have simply stopped seeing them,” Zemskova said. “A company pays for distribution, gets a clean-looking report, and the actual business impact is low.”

Her comments arrive as crypto markets become increasingly narrative-driven, with Bitcoin and altcoins reacting not only to blockchain developments but also to political messaging, interest-rate expectations and institutional capital flows.

AI content surge collides with political crypto cycle

Zemskova argued that AI has made mass content production nearly worthless as a competitive advantage because “there is now more content than there is attention.”

“Publishing in volume has become easy, which means it no longer sets you apart,” she said. “Part of your content needs to be optimized for machine indexing, so that you show up in ChatGPT, Gemini, news aggregators. Another part needs to be written so that a living human being stops and reads to the end.”

The warning comes as crypto projects aggressively compete for visibility ahead of a politically charged second half of 2026. Markets have increasingly reacted to U.S. election rhetoric, regulatory positioning and geopolitical tensions, with traders rotating between Bitcoin (BTC), large-cap altcoins and tokenized real-world assets based on macro sentiment.

In a previous crypto.news story, altcoins surged after softer inflation data revived expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts. Another crypto.news story showed how geopolitical fears and Treasury yield spikes triggered widespread crypto liquidations.

Zemskova said crypto projects increasingly struggle because audiences no longer trust generic branding language.

“Presence without personality kills conversion,” she said. “Investors do not trust such projects, neither do partners, neither do users.”

Crypto firms pushed toward founder-led narratives

According to Zemskova, Web3 firms should borrow strategies from major consumer brands like Nike, which built public-facing ambassador programs around researchers and engineers rather than relying solely on corporate messaging.

“You remember that behind the product, there are living human beings who actually care,” she said. “In Web3, this technique is almost never used, and it should be.”

Formula has since shifted away from rigid long-term retainers toward what Zemskova described as a modular campaign structure tailored to market conditions and project stage.

“One month it might be AMA sessions and a podcast series,” she said. “Another month, opinion columns and KOL work. A third, press releases and distribution ahead of a TGE.”

The evolving approach reflects how crypto communications are increasingly tied to financial market positioning. As institutional investors enter digital assets, narrative control around regulation, adoption and macroeconomics has become more valuable for both Bitcoin and the broader altcoin sector.

In another crypto.news story, tokenized equities and hybrid financial products gained momentum as traders sought 24-hour exposure to politically sensitive markets.

Zemskova said many PR agencies still fail to adapt to the pace of change shaping the crypto industry.

“If a PR agency offers you the same package locked in for 12 months ahead, that is a bad sign,” she said. “The 2026 market does not look like the 2024 market, and six months from now it will be different again.”

She added that crypto companies should stop viewing PR as a fixed operational expense and instead treat reputation as a strategic asset tied directly to capital formation, hiring and regulatory relationships.

“Reputation in crypto is an asset that determines how much capital you raise, who you hire onto your team, and how regulators speak to you,” Zemskova said.

Minnesota has signed a new crypto custody law that lets banks and credit unions hold digital assets for customers from Aug. 1.

Gov. Tim Walz signed HF 3709 into law, allowing state-chartered banks and credit unions to offer virtual-currency custody services. The law covers the safekeeping, control, or management of virtual currency and private keys on behalf of another person.

The law takes effect on Aug. 1, 2026. It applies to crypto custody services that start on or after that date. Banks may offer the service in a fiduciary or nonfiduciary role, while credit unions may provide custody services to members under the same state and federal limits.

What rules must banks and credit unions follow?

The law requires any bank or credit union offering crypto custody to act in a safe and sound manner. Institutions must keep written policies for risk management, internal controls, cybersecurity, business continuity, and compliance.

Banks and credit unions must also send written notice to the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce at least 60 days before launching the service. That notice must describe the services and the institution’s risk management framework.

The law also requires customer crypto assets and related control systems to stay separate from the institution’s own assets. Banks and credit unions may use qualified third-party service providers or subcustodians, but they must keep oversight responsibility.

Rep. Bernie Perryman, one of the bill’s authors, said HF 3709 would allow Minnesota financial institutions to “evolve alongside their customers and members” rather than push residents toward out-of-state or offshore providers.

Why is Minnesota also banning crypto ATMs?

The custody law comes as Minnesota moves in the opposite direction on crypto ATMs. Walz signed SF 3868 on May 5, banning virtual currency kiosks across the state. The ban takes effect on Aug. 1, 2026, and operators must remove public kiosks by Dec. 31, 2026.

The measure blocks the installation, operation, maintenance, or public use of virtual currency kiosks in Minnesota. Operators must also pay out customer funds before shutting down. Customers may receive U.S. dollars based on market value or crypto sent to a selected wallet.

The Minnesota Credit Union Network said the custody law gives residents “a safer way to manage crypto” through regulated institutions. That framing fits the state’s new approach: allow bank custody under supervision, while removing ATM channels tied to fraud concerns.

How does this fit wider crypto regulation?

Minnesota’s move comes as U.S. banks face clearer rules around digital asset services. Earlier reports noted that the OCC allowed regulated banks to buy, sell, and provide custody for crypto held for customers.

Crypto ATM pressure is also rising outside Minnesota. Canada has moved toward a crypto ATM ban over fraud concerns, while Bitcoin Depot filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after regulatory pressure, revenue decline, and security issues.

DeFi yields on blue-chip stablecoins now trail bank cash and tokenized Treasuries, forcing CoinEx to pitch Flexible Savings as a liquidity tool, not a rate stunt.

CoinEx’s pitch for crypto-denominated savings now lands in a market where, for the first time in a full cycle, many on-chain savings products pay less than mainstream dollar savings accounts while still carrying protocol and platform risk. 

Crypto yields lose their risk premium

Commentators have recently described the shift as a quiet inversion of DeFi’s original bargain. One widely shared summary of April 2026 rate conditions put it bluntly: “DeFi stablecoin yield in April 2026 is a quiet tragedy → Aave / Morpho / Euler: ~1.8%–3.1% → Interactive Brokers cash: ~3.14%,” arguing that the “risk premium that justified DeFi’s existence has inverted.” In other words, the extra return that once compensated for smart contract exploits, oracle failures and governance risk has narrowed or disappeared on undifferentiated stablecoin lending.

Where CoinEx Flexible Savings fits

In this environment, crypto savings products are being judged less by headline APY and more by how they integrate into a user’s overall balance sheet. A 2026 guide to interest-bearing crypto accounts noted that platforms now emphasize terms, liquidity and payout structure — “Flexible Savings” versus “Fixed-term Savings,” daily versus end-of-term payouts — rather than simply marketing “up to” rates divorced from real conditions.

According to CoinEx, its Flexible Savings product is a “principal-protected wealth management” solution where users subscribe with idle balances, interest starts accruing from the next full hour, is calculated hourly, and is credited in a single daily payout at 00:00. Assets can be redeemed at any time, returning instantly to the spot account and stopping interest accrual upon redemption, a structure that some characterize as “focusing on liquidity” for investors “seeking returns without locking up their assets.”

Regulation, meanwhile, is tilting the field toward banks, especially around dollar-pegged assets. Reporting on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act describes how the latest draft “prohibits offering yield directly or indirectly on stablecoin balances,” banning anything “economically or functionally equivalent to bank interest” and explicitly targeting exchange programs that had passed stablecoin rewards through to users. As one FinTech Weekly analysis put it, banks “would get regulatory clarity but lose the competitive tool that made stablecoins threatening to the deposit base,” with the current text landing “closer to the bank position than the White House compromise that preceded it.”

For savers already holding Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) or stablecoins, the result is a more nuanced choice than the old “DeFi beats banks” slogan. Crypto savings through products such as CoinEx Flexible Savings now sit alongside tokenized Treasuries — averaging about 3.38% seven-day APY in recent surveys — and high-yield dollar accounts, functioning less as a replacement for insured cash and more as a portfolio-efficiency tool for keeping dormant crypto balances working within a clear, transparent risk framework.