Fact two: the XRP token has gone nowhere. It trades around $1.30, pinned below its moving averages, locked in a range that has held since early in the year. The adoption keeps growing and the price keeps not responding. After reaching above $3.50 in the prior summer, XRP entered a long decline of lower highs and lower lows that the adoption news has not reversed.

The gap between these two facts is the most important thing to understand about XRP right now, and it has a name worth using: value capture. A blockchain can be wildly successful as infrastructure while its native token captures almost none of that success in price. That is not a contradiction or a market error. It is a question of plumbing, specifically whether the token is mechanically required, in meaningful quantities, by the activity flowing across the network. For XRP, the honest answer in 2026 is: not as much as you would think.

How XRP is supposed to capture value

XRP has three plausible channels through which network usage could translate into token demand. Walking through each one shows why the disconnect exists, because each channel turns out to be weaker than the bull case assumes.

The first channel is fee burn. Every transaction on the XRP Ledger destroys a tiny amount of XRP as a fee, which is mildly deflationary and, in theory, links usage to scarcity. The problem is scale. The amount of XRP burned daily has collapsed 95 percent since December 2024, from around 15,000 XRP per day to a current range of roughly 163 to 750 XRP per day. Over the entire history of the ledger, only about 14 million XRP have ever been burned, equal to 0.014 percent of the total supply. To put that in perspective, even if tokenized-asset activity drove a burn rate one hundred times higher than today, it would still take decades to create meaningful scarcity. And there is a catch that makes fee burn self-defeating as a value driver: fees only climb materially when the network is congested, and congestion is the opposite of what a payment network wants. So XRP is consumed every time the ledger is used, but fee burn alone cannot move the valuation in any macro-relevant way.

The second channel is the reserve mechanism, and it is the most direct and measurable of the three. The XRP Ledger requires users to lock up small amounts of XRP to open an account and to own certain ledger objects. Current mainnet requirements are 1 XRP per account plus 0.2 XRP per owned item, and the items that consume reserves include trust lines, which are needed to hold most issued assets such as stablecoins and tokenized instruments. This means that as more accounts and more tokenized assets live on the ledger, more XRP gets locked into reserves, creating genuine structural demand. This is the strongest part of the bull case. But notice its limit: the demand is tied to the number of accounts and objects, not to the dollar value being settled. A bank moving a billion dollars across the ledger locks up the same trivial reserve as a bank moving a thousand. The reserve mechanism scales with the count of things, not the value of flows, which caps how much demand it can generate even under heavy institutional use.

The third channel is the bridge-currency function, the original thesis, and the one in the most trouble. In Ripple’s On-Demand Liquidity model, a payment firm converts local currency into XRP, sends it across the ledger in seconds, and converts it to the destination currency on arrival, eliminating the need to park cash in foreign accounts. Every such transaction does generate real buy demand for XRP, because the token is actually purchased as the bridge. This is the mechanism that directly ties usage to token demand. The problem is twofold: ODL volume, while real, is not large enough to move the price on its own, and Ripple has introduced something that may cannibalize it.

The RLUSD problem the bulls underplay

The thing most likely to weaken XRP’s strongest value-capture channel is a Ripple product: its own stablecoin, RLUSD.

RLUSD launched as a dollar-backed stablecoin and crossed a $1.26 billion market cap in under a year. Ripple now runs a hybrid model where RLUSD operates alongside XRP in Ripple Payments. The official framing is elegant: RLUSD provides price stability for banks that do not want crypto volatility, while XRP acts as the bridge that swaps between different currencies. In this telling, the two are complementary, with XRP as the settlement layer moving value between stablecoin systems.

But look at it from a bank’s perspective and the tension becomes obvious. Many financial institutions prefer stablecoin settlement precisely because it avoids holding a volatile asset like XRP, even for the few seconds of a bridge transaction. If a bank can settle a corridor using RLUSD end to end, it has no need to touch XRP at all. By offering RLUSD, Ripple meets banks where they are, which is good for Ripple the company, but it also hands those banks a way to use Ripple’s infrastructure without generating XRP demand. The hybrid model that bulls cite as proof of XRP’s central role may, in practice, route around the token in exactly the corridors where stablecoins work well.

This connects to a broader competitive reality. In dollar-denominated corridors, stablecoins like USDC and USDT are genuine competitors to XRP, settling cross-border payments almost as fast while holding their value in transit. XRP’s structural advantage is real but specific: it shines in fiat-to-fiat corridors where neither party wants dollar exposure, particularly emerging-market routes where a direct local-currency-to-local-currency bridge beats routing through a dollar stablecoin. That is a meaningful niche, but it is a niche, and the rise of regulated stablecoins under frameworks like the GENIUS Act puts a ceiling on XRP’s addressable market even where it does not eliminate the use case.

The starkest illustration came when Société Générale tokenized its euro stablecoin on a ledger: the operation could be carried out without any party needing to hold XRP beyond the fraction of a cent required to pay the transaction fee. That is the disconnect in a single example. The ledger gets the business. The token gets a fraction of a cent.

Why this isn’t necessarily fatal

Having made the bear case honestly, it is worth giving the bull case its strongest form, because the disconnect is not proof that XRP is doomed. It is proof that XRP’s value capture depends on specific things happening that have not happened yet.

The reserve mechanism genuinely does scale with adoption, and if the XRP Ledger becomes the settlement layer for a large fraction of tokenized real-world assets, the cumulative reserve demand from millions of accounts and tens of millions of ledger objects could become substantial. The bull case is not that any single mechanism is huge, but that account growth, trust-line proliferation, and tokenized-asset issuance compound over time into structural demand that the current depressed price does not reflect.

There is also genuine optionality in the roadmap. The XRP Ledger is adding lending protocols and a native decentralized exchange, and if those achieve real adoption, they create new contexts in which XRP could be required as a base trading pair or collateral. Garlinghouse has made aggressive predictions, including that the XRP Ledger could eventually capture 14 percent of the volume currently running through SWIFT, which if even partially realized would represent a transformation in ODL scale that does move the token. The regulatory unlock matters too: the CLARITY Act writing XRP’s commodity status into law would green-light US banks for ODL adoption and open the door to spot ETFs, both of which create demand channels that regulatory uncertainty has kept closed.

The honest framing is that the bull case is conditional, not broken. XRP captures value if specific conditions are met: if the new protocols achieve real adoption, if tokenized-asset issuers choose to use XRP as a medium of exchange rather than operating purely in stablecoins, and if ODL volume scales into truly transformative territory rather than growing incrementally. Those are real possibilities. They are just not guarantees, and the current price reflects a market that has stopped paying for the promise and started waiting for the proof.

How to tell a lag from a flaw

The most useful thing an XRP holder or analyst can do is define, in advance, what evidence would distinguish a temporary disconnect from a permanent structural feature. Vague faith that “adoption will eventually flow to the token” is not analysis. Specific, falsifiable thresholds are.

One sharp framework, laid out by analysts watching the value-capture question, proposes three concrete tests over a six-month horizon. First, lending volumes denominated in XRP exceeding $500 million, which would show the new DeFi protocols creating real token demand. Second, at least three major real-world-asset issuers incorporating XRP as a trading pair in their products, which would show tokenized-asset activity actually requiring the token rather than routing around it in stablecoins. Third, ODL volume consistently exceeding $500 million per day, which would show the bridge-currency function scaling to a level that generates sustained buy pressure. If those three things happen, the current disconnect is a transitory phase and the bull case is vindicated. If they do not, the disconnect is structural, and XRP is an infrastructure token whose infrastructure simply does not need much of it.

The remittance math gives a sense of the distance involved. The global remittance market is roughly $685 billion annually. XRP processed around $15 billion through ODL in 2024, about 2.2 percent penetration. That is meaningful progress, but it is also a reminder of how far the network is from the dominance its more ambitious price targets imply. For XRP to reach the $5-plus targets that bulls cite, ODL adoption would need to scale into transformative territory, doubling and redoubling rather than growing 30 to 50 percent a year.

So the practical guidance is to ignore the adoption headlines that do not specify token demand and watch the three thresholds instead. “Bank X is using the XRP Ledger” tells you nothing about whether bank X is buying XRP. “ODL volume hit $500 million a day” tells you everything. The disconnect closes when the metrics that actually require the token start moving, and not before.

The bottom line on the disconnect

XRP in 2026 is the cleanest example in crypto of a successful network whose token has not yet been invited to the party. The XRP Ledger has achieved something rare: it has become financial infrastructure that institutions adopt because it is efficient, compliant, and cheap. That is a genuine accomplishment, and the adoption is not fake. But the three mechanisms that are supposed to turn that adoption into XRP demand, fee burn, reserves, and the bridge-currency function, are each weaker than the bull narrative assumes. Fee burn is negligible and self-defeating. Reserves scale with object count, not settled value. And the bridge function, the strongest channel, is being partially routed around by Ripple’s own RLUSD stablecoin and squeezed by the broader rise of regulated dollar stablecoins.

None of this means XRP cannot appreciate. It means XRP’s appreciation depends on conditions that are identifiable and not yet met: real adoption of the ledger’s new lending and DEX protocols, tokenized-asset issuers actively choosing XRP as a medium of exchange, and ODL volume scaling past the levels where it generates real buy pressure. The CLARITY Act and a wave of post-legislation bank partnerships could accelerate all of this, which is why the regulatory calendar matters so much to XRP specifically.

For holders, the discipline is to stop treating ledger adoption and token demand as the same thing, because they are not. The ledger is thriving and the token is waiting, and the gap between them will close only when the specific value-capture mechanisms start firing at scale. Watch the lending volumes, the RWA trading pairs, and the daily ODL figures. Those numbers, not the partnership press releases, will tell you whether the banks using the XRP Ledger ever actually start buying XRP. Until they do, the most accurate description of XRP is the one the bulls least like to hear: great infrastructure, waiting for its token to matter.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile. The figures and analysis described reflect data available as of June 5, 2026. Always do your own research and consult with qualified financial professionals before making investment decisions.

CoinGlass’ three-day liquidation heatmap shows heavy liquidation clusters above spot price, especially between $1,900 and $2,060. Below current levels, liquidity appears thinner until the $1,600 area, meaning a failure to hold the current rebound zone could leave ETH exposed to another sharp move lower.

Commenting on the latest price action, crypto trader Ted Pillows noted that Ethereum had dropped to a new yearly low and argued that the $1,500 level could become an accumulation zone for larger buyers.

Michael van de Poppe offered a more contrarian view, noting that Ethereum had reached its lowest daily RSI ever recorded. He described the extreme RSI reading as “close to the end of the bear market,” though price has not yet confirmed a reversal.

Downside risk would deepen if ETH loses $1,600 on strong volume. Such a move would place $1,500 and the measured target near $1,412 into focus, especially if liquidation pressure returns and ETF inflows fail to continue.

The bearish setup would begin to weaken only if Ethereum reclaims $1,825 and then closes above $1,975. Until then, $1,500 remains the key level traders are watching as the next major test of buyer demand.

Maximalists and capitalists see different routes

Saylor said Bitcoin Maximalists view Bitcoin as the dominant digital monetary network. They see it as sound money, a store of value, and a tool for people facing inflation, debasement, or weak financial systems.

He said Maximalists give Bitcoin moral clarity, but they must still answer how the network fits into banks, companies, capital markets, and governments. In his view, Maximalism defines the destination, while other groups debate the route.

Bitcoin Capitalists take a broader market view. Saylor said they want Bitcoin inside portfolios, balance sheets, credit products, securities, custody systems, and global financial infrastructure.

This group sees Bitcoin as digital capital. It supports corporate treasuries, Bitcoin-backed credit, institutional custody, and higher-layer tools that help Bitcoin reach more users.

Technologists and fundamentalists pull in opposite directions

Saylor said Bitcoin Technologists believe the protocol must keep improving. Their focus includes scalability, privacy, security, usability, wallet design, custody models, and future threats such as quantum computing.

He also warned that protocol changes carry risk. Bitcoin’s base layer has value because users trust its stability, so any change must meet a high standard before the network accepts it.

Bitcoin Fundamentalists take the opposite caution further. Saylor said they focus on self-custody, personal nodes, decentralization, immutability, and censorship resistance.

They worry that banks, governments, custodians, leverage, and financial engineering could weaken Bitcoin’s original purpose. Saylor said their role is to protect Bitcoin’s core principles while avoiding a closed view of adoption.

Strategy backdrop adds market context

The paper comes during a tense week for Saylor and Strategy. As previously reported by crypto.news, Strategy sold 32 BTC for about $2.5 million, its first Bitcoin sale since 2022.

The sale was small compared with Strategy’s holdings, but it drew attention because Saylor has long argued for holding Bitcoin. Related reports also said Bitcoin traded near $60,000 as ETF outflows and weak sentiment added pressure.

That backdrop gives Saylor’s paper a timely market angle. Bitcoin is no longer only a technical network or a personal savings tool. It now sits inside public companies, credit structures, ETFs, and policy debates.

Saylor’s final message favored a mixed path. He argued that Bitcoin should protect its base layer while allowing markets, applications, custody tools, and financial products to develop around it. He called that path disciplined expansion.

The one bright spot

It would be incomplete to describe Pi purely as a supply-driven collapse, because there is genuine development activity worth noting, even if it has not yet moved the price.

The most concrete recent positive is on the ecosystem side. CiDi Games launched a Developer Center alongside four new games, explicitly designed to attract builders and users into the Pi ecosystem. The pitch to developers is straightforward: plug into Pi’s large community, access built-in revenue streams, and integrate through a ready software development kit. The ambition, in CiDi’s framing, is to become the infrastructure for games inside Pi. The network also completed a mandatory protocol upgrade, with node operators required to move to the latest version to stay connected, a sign of ongoing technical maintenance.

Why does this matter? Because the only durable fix for Pi’s supply problem is real demand, and real demand comes from actual usage. If the ecosystem develops applications that people use, and those applications create genuine reasons to hold and spend PI, then the network starts generating the organic demand needed to absorb the unlocks. Gaming is a plausible vector for that, since games can drive frequent, real transactions rather than pure speculation. A developer center and new games are exactly the kind of foundational ecosystem-building that, if it succeeds, could eventually change the demand side of the equation.

The honest caveat is the size of the gap between this and what the price needs. Four new games and a developer center are early-stage ecosystem development. They are not, today, generating anywhere near the transaction volume or token demand required to offset 163 million in monthly unlocks. The bright spot is real, but it operates on a timeline of months and years, while the supply pressure is hitting right now. For the ecosystem activity to matter to the price, it has to scale dramatically, and that has not happened yet.

Stellar competes in payments too, with a long history in remittances and a partnership with MoneyGram that put it on the map for cash-to-crypto access. But it has not matched XRP’s commercial depth in bank-facing cross-border settlement, and its token does not capture payment flows the way XRP’s ODL does, because Stellar’s model leans more on stablecoins moving across the network than on the native token serving as the universal bridge.

So in payments, the scoreboard favors XRP: more volume, more corridors, deeper bank relationships, and a token-demand mechanism wired directly into the payment flow. If the tokenization race never materialized and the contest were purely about moving money across borders, XRP would be the clear leader. But the tokenization race is materializing, and that is where Stellar landed the bigger blow.

The tokenization race: Stellar’s DTCC bombshell

In tokenized securities, the infrastructure for putting stocks, bonds, and funds on-chain, Stellar secured the endorsement that reframes the entire competition.

The DTCC, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, is the unglamorous but enormously powerful backbone of US securities settlement, the entity through which a vast share of American stock and bond trades clear. Its plan to bring tokenized stocks, ETFs, and Treasuries directly onto Stellar is, by a wide margin, the most significant institutional validation any payment-focused token has received. This is not a fintech startup or a single bank running a pilot. It is the central plumbing of US capital markets choosing Stellar as a venue for tokenized assets. For a network competing to become RWA settlement infrastructure, there is no bigger reference customer.

Stellar’s broader RWA credentials reinforce it. Franklin Templeton’s tokenized money-market fund has operated on Stellar, giving it a track record with a major traditional asset manager, and over a billion dollars in real-world assets had been tokenized on the network heading into 2026. The DTCC deal sits on top of that foundation as the marquee endorsement.

The critical caveat is timing. DTCC’s production testing does not begin until July 2026, and broader availability is not targeted until 2027. So the token-demand implications are still months, possibly more than a year, away. A landmark announcement is not the same as live volume, and Stellar’s win is currently a promise of future activity rather than present flow. That timing gap is the single most important qualifier on the Stellar bull case, and it is why the race is not over despite the size of the endorsement.

The regulatory and ETF race: XRP’s structural edge

Beyond payments and tokenization, two more factors tilt the near-term contest, and both favor XRP.

The first is regulation. The CLARITY Act passed the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 and, if it becomes law, would permanently write XRP’s commodity classification into federal statute. This matters more than it might sound. The March 17 SEC-CFTC interpretive ruling already gave XRP commodity status, but an agency ruling can be reversed by the next administration, whereas a law cannot. Codified commodity status would remove the last major regulatory blocker for US banks adopting XRP-based ODL and for the broadest range of XRP ETF products. XRP has spent years and a landmark lawsuit earning regulatory clarity, and it is closer to locking it in permanently than any comparable token.

The second is ETF access. Spot XRP ETFs have already drawn $1.41 billion in cumulative inflows, giving institutions a regulated, familiar channel to gain XRP exposure. That infrastructure exists today and is accumulating capital, even if the flows have not moved the price dramatically. Stellar does not have a comparable ETF presence, so XRP holds a structural advantage in institutional accessibility through regulated wrappers.

Put the near-term factors together and XRP leads on three of four fronts: payments volume, regulatory clarity, and ETF access, with Stellar leading decisively on the tokenization endorsement. That scoreboard explains why XRP is the larger, more liquid, more institutionally embedded asset today. But it also sets up the deeper question that determines the long-run winner, and on that question both tokens share the same vulnerability.

The problem both share: value capture

Here is the twist that complicates any simple “who wins” verdict. Both XRP and Stellar face the same fundamental challenge, and it is the one that has kept both tokens’ prices subdued despite their adoption wins.

For XRP, the problem is that banks can use the XRP Ledger without necessarily buying the token. Tokenized assets and stablecoins can sit on and move across the ledger while the activity requires only a fraction of a cent of XRP for transaction fees, not meaningful token purchases. The ledger thrives while the token waits.

For Stellar, the problem is structurally identical and arguably worse in the tokenization context. When the DTCC or Franklin Templeton issues tokenized securities on Stellar, the operation does not require holding XLM beyond trivial transaction costs. The network gets the prestigious business and the settlement volume; the token captures very little of it directly. A tokenized Treasury settling on Stellar generates network activity, but it does not create the kind of XLM buy pressure that would move the price the way the endorsement’s size suggests it should.

This is the shared trap of payment-and-settlement tokens: the more successful they are as neutral infrastructure that institutions adopt without friction, the less those institutions need to touch the native token. XRP’s ODL bridge mechanism is actually the stronger of the two value-capture stories, because it does require buying XRP for each bridged payment, which is why XRP’s payments lead matters for the token specifically and not just for the ledger. Stellar’s tokenization win is larger in prestige but weaker in direct token demand, because tokenized-asset issuance on Stellar does not inherently require XLM. So the race has a paradox at its core: the win that is bigger for the network (Stellar’s DTCC deal) may be smaller for the token, while the win that is more modest in headline terms (XRP’s growing ODL volume) is more directly tied to token demand.

So who actually wins?

The cleanest way to answer is to separate the question into the parts that have different answers, because “who wins” depends entirely on what you are measuring and over what horizon.

On commercial cross-border payments right now, XRP wins. It has the volume, the corridors, the bank relationships, and a token-demand mechanism built into the payment flow. This is a present-tense lead backed by real numbers.

On tokenized securities infrastructure over the long run, Stellar has the stronger position after the DTCC endorsement, the single biggest institutional validation in the space. But this is a future-tense lead, with production testing starting in July 2026 and broad availability not until 2027, so it is a bet on a payoff that has not arrived.

On near-term catalysts and token accessibility, XRP wins, with the CLARITY Act advancing, codified commodity status within reach, and $1.41 billion already in ETFs. The factors most likely to move a token price in the next year favor XRP.

On the deepest question, which token actually captures the value its network creates, neither has solved it, and XRP’s ODL bridge gives it a modest structural edge because that specific mechanism requires buying the token.

The practical synthesis for an investor is that the more important question is not “which is better” but “which catalyst arrives first.” XRP’s catalysts, CLARITY passage, continued ETF accumulation, and ODL growth, are nearer-term and more directly tied to token demand. Stellar’s catalyst, the DTCC tokenization rollout, is larger in scale but further out and less directly tied to XLM demand. An investor who wants exposure to the tokenization thesis with a payoff that could land sooner and flow to the token leans XRP. An investor willing to wait years for what could be the bigger institutional prize, and who believes Stellar will eventually solve the value-capture gap, leans XLM. Both are betting on the same enormous market. They are just betting on different paths into it, on different timelines, with different odds that the token rather than just the network gets paid. That, not a single winner, is the real shape of the $114 trillion race.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile. The figures and analysis described reflect data available as of June 5, 2026. Always do your own research and consult with qualified financial professionals before making investment decisions.

The selloff came only months after Hayes publicly projected a $150 price target for HYPE and placed a $100,000 charity wager on the token outperforming other large-cap cryptocurrencies.

Following the exit, Hayes pointed to a combination of macroeconomic headwinds, including rising oil prices driven by Middle East tensions, liquidity demand from several major AI-related IPOs, and the risk of a broader downturn in financial markets later this year.

Despite closing his position, Hayes maintained a bullish long-term outlook for HYPE. In a June X post, he wrote:

“Btw just because I dumped my entire $HYPE bag, doesn’t mean I still don’t have faith $HYPE will best $SOL by year end. Sometimes you gotta go down to go up.”

Additional pressure emerged from derivatives markets. Lookonchain reported that loracle.hl, a whale trader who previously lost $46.46 million shorting HYPE, had flipped long and was facing another unrealized loss of more than $840,000 during the latest selloff. The trade underscored how quickly leverage has been punished on both sides of the market as volatility intensified.

Technical structure places $55 and $50 in focus

The daily chart shows that HYPE has retreated into a key Fibonacci support region after failing to hold above the recent breakout zone. The token is currently trading between the 0.786 retracement level near $63.9 and the 0.618 level near $54.6, measured from the January low around $20.4 to the June peak near $75.7.

A breakdown below the 0.618 retracement could expose the midpoint support near $48.1, bringing the psychologically important $50 level into view. The area between $54 and $55 now represents the first major support cluster bulls need to defend.

Momentum indicators have also deteriorated. The daily MACD has produced its first bearish crossover since the rally accelerated in May, while the histogram has turned negative.

At the same time, the Relative Strength Index has dropped from overbought territory above 70 to roughly 54, showing that buyers have lost control of short-term momentum.

CoinGlass liquidation heatmaps identify another critical zone. Dense concentrations of leveraged positions remain stacked between $60 and $64, while larger liquidity pools sit around $58 and below. A decisive move through those levels could trigger another round of forced selling and increase downside volatility.

Institutional accumulation continues beneath the selloff

Not all capital has been leaving the ecosystem. As reported by crypto.news earlier, wallets linked to venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz accumulated an additional 224,100 HYPE tokens worth more than $15 million during the selloff.

The latest purchase increased a16z-linked holdings to roughly 6.90 million HYPE acquired in 2026, representing an estimated position worth more than $322 million. The buying activity contrasts sharply with the profit-taking seen from traders and whales near the highs.

Fundamentals also remain supportive for the token. Hyperliquid continues generating some of the highest revenues in crypto, while approximately 99% of protocol fees are directed toward programmatic HYPE buybacks.

The decentralized exchange has steadily increased its share of perpetual futures trading volume, giving the token a revenue stream that few competitors can match.

However, several risks could still challenge the bullish case. Further weakness in Bitcoin (BTC), escalating geopolitical tensions, additional whale distributions, or a sustained break below the $55 support area could accelerate losses toward $50.

For now, traders appear focused on whether HYPE can reclaim the $64 region and invalidate the bearish MACD crossover before sellers target the next major support zone.

The two men and what they represent

To understand the fight, you have to understand that Garlinghouse and Dimon are not just two executives with different opinions. Each represents an entire industry’s interests, and their clash is a proxy for the larger war between crypto and traditional banking.

Brad Garlinghouse has been the public face of crypto’s fight for US regulatory legitimacy. As CEO of Ripple, he led the company through a multi-year SEC lawsuit over whether XRP was an unregistered security, a case that became a rallying point for the entire industry. Ripple’s partial victory established important precedent, and Garlinghouse emerged as one of the most prominent advocates for clear federal crypto rules. He has been openly bullish on the CLARITY Act, at one point putting the odds of passage by a spring deadline at 80 percent, and Ripple has built an end-to-end institutional infrastructure betting that regulatory clarity will bring banks on-chain. Garlinghouse represents the crypto industry’s core argument: give us clear rules, and we will build the future of finance inside the US rather than offshore.

Jamie Dimon represents the incumbent. As CEO of JPMorgan Chase for nearly two decades, he runs the largest bank in the United States and is arguably the most influential voice in traditional finance. Dimon has a long and complicated history with crypto, having once called Bitcoin a fraud before his bank built blockchain infrastructure and began offering crypto services. But on the CLARITY Act, his position is sharp and clear: he is not satisfied with the current text, he has criticized specific provisions, and he has warned that the banking industry will not accept the bill as written. When Dimon speaks on financial regulation, senators listen, because the banking lobby is one of the most powerful forces in Washington and JPMorgan sits at its center.

So this is not a personality spat. It is the crypto industry’s chief evangelist versus the banking industry’s most powerful figure, fighting over a bill that would redraw the boundary between their two worlds. The specifics of what they are fighting over reveal exactly what is at stake.

What they’re actually fighting over

The core of the dispute is not the whole bill. It is one provision: whether stablecoins can pay yield. That single question is where the crypto and banking interests collide most directly, and it is the issue Dimon keeps returning to.

A stablecoin that pays yield, effectively interest on the balance you hold, is a powerful product. For crypto firms, it would be a way to attract enormous deposits by offering returns that compete with or beat traditional savings accounts. For banks, that is precisely the nightmare. Banks fund their entire business on deposits, the cheap money customers park with them, which they lend out at higher rates. If yield-bearing stablecoins can pull those deposits out of the banking system and into crypto-issued dollar tokens, banks lose their cheapest funding source. Dimon’s objection is, at its heart, a defense of the bank deposit base against a new competitor.

The CLARITY Act’s drafters tried to thread this needle with a compromise. The text that emerged would prohibit stablecoin yield that is the “functional or economic equivalent” of what banks offer on deposits, while allowing “bona fide” transactions and certain activity-based rewards. In other words, crypto firms could keep some reward programs but could not simply pay interest on balances the way a bank does. This compromise, negotiated with White House involvement and shepherded by Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks, was meant to give each side something.

It satisfied no one fully, which is why the fight continues. Dimon criticized the framework anyway, taking aim at Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong in the process, and argued the draft could fail because it lets crypto firms offer interest-like products without being regulated like banks, while doing too little on anti-money-laundering rules and consumer protections. From the banking side, members of the American Bankers Association reportedly flooded Senate offices with more than 8,000 letters arguing the compromise was too friendly to crypto. From the crypto side, the worry is the opposite: that the restrictions go too far and neuter one of the most promising stablecoin products. Garlinghouse, by contrast, has taken a pragmatic line, suggesting Ripple is positioned to thrive regardless of exactly how the yield question resolves because the company is so far ahead on infrastructure. That posture, confident and adaptable, contrasts sharply with Dimon’s defensive opposition, and it captures the difference between a challenger who wants the game to start and an incumbent who fears the new rules.

Why this fight matters beyond the two companies

It would be easy to dismiss this as a clash between one crypto company and one bank. That would badly understate what is riding on it, because the outcome shapes the regulatory environment for the entire digital-asset industry and, by extension, the price trajectory of major tokens.

The CLARITY Act is widely viewed as crypto’s single most important legislative priority. It would establish the first comprehensive federal framework for digital assets, finally resolving whether tokens fall under the SEC or the CFTC and replacing years of regulation-by-enforcement with clear rules for issuers, exchanges, and investors. For XRP specifically, passage would write its commodity classification permanently into law, green-lighting US banks to adopt XRP-based settlement and opening the door to a fuller range of ETF products. For the broader industry, regulatory certainty is the thing that institutional capital has been waiting for, the unlock that could bring sidelined money into the market and keep crypto businesses operating in the US rather than fleeing to friendlier jurisdictions.

That is why the Garlinghouse-Dimon fight is so consequential. The stablecoin-yield provision is not a side issue that can be quietly resolved; it is the sticking point that could sink the entire bill or delay it past the point of passage. If Dimon and the banking lobby succeed in either blocking the bill or forcing yield restrictions so tight that the compromise collapses, crypto loses its most important legislative win in a year when the market is already weak. If Garlinghouse and the crypto industry prevail and the bill passes in a form they can live with, it could be the catalyst that reframes the second half of 2026. The fight between two CEOs is, in effect, a fight over whether the entire industry gets its regulatory foundation this cycle.

There is also a deeper irony worth naming. JPMorgan’s own analysts have warned that the CLARITY Act is running out of time before the midterm elections, even as JPMorgan’s own CEO is part of why it is stalling. The bank is simultaneously diagnosing the bill’s poor odds and contributing to them. That tension captures how traditional finance approaches crypto in 2026: building crypto infrastructure and offering crypto services with one hand while lobbying to constrain the rules with the other. Dimon is not anti-crypto in the way he once was. He is pro-bank, and where crypto threatens banks, he fights it.

The twist: the banks might win even if the bill passes

Here is the part that makes the fight more subtle than a simple win-or-lose contest, and it is the detail most coverage misses. Even if the CLARITY Act passes and crypto claims victory, the banking industry may get the substantive outcome it actually wants.

The reason lies in what happens to capital if passive stablecoin yield is restricted, as the current draft intends. JPMorgan’s own analysts have pointed out that effective restrictions on passive stablecoin yield would push idle crypto cash toward alternatives: tokenized Treasuries, digital money-market funds, and tokenized deposits. Those are products that flow back toward regulated, bank-friendly, Treasury-backed instruments rather than into yield-bearing stablecoins issued by crypto-native firms. In other words, the yield restriction that Dimon is fighting for does not just protect bank deposits; it channels crypto capital into the kinds of products banks and traditional asset managers control.

So the real outcome of the fight may not be a clean crypto win or a clean banking win. It may be a bill that passes with the crypto industry celebrating the regulatory clarity it has wanted for years, while the banking industry quietly secures the provision that matters most to it, the one that keeps yield-bearing stablecoins from becoming a deposit-draining competitor. Garlinghouse gets his framework. Dimon gets his protection. The headline reads as a crypto victory, and the fine print reads as a banking victory, and both can plausibly claim they won.

This is why the fight is worth watching even though almost no one is watching it. The price charts that dominate attention are downstream of exactly this kind of regulatory detail. Whether stablecoins can pay yield determines where billions of dollars of crypto capital flows, which products win, and which industry captures the next phase of on-chain finance. Two CEOs are fighting over a single provision, and the resolution of that fight will shape the structure of the digital-asset economy for years, regardless of what Bitcoin does next week.

How it likely resolves

Pulling the threads together, the most probable path is messier than either side would prefer, and it runs through the same calendar pressure squeezing everything else in crypto policy.

The bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee but still needs 60 votes in the full Senate, reconciliation with the House version, and a presidential signature, all before a midterm-election calendar that effectively empties Washington in August and turns attention to campaigns thereafter. That leaves a narrow window, and the stablecoin-yield fight between the Garlinghouse and Dimon camps is the most likely thing to consume the time the bill does not have. The crypto investment firm Galaxy has put the odds of passage this year at roughly 50-50 or lower, with the uncertainty coming not from any single issue but from the number of unresolved questions that must be settled in sequence under severe time pressure.

The publication reported that Modabber transferred more than $2.5 million to over 800 people during that period, while records reviewed by reporters identified at least 20 influencers who later posted about Polymarket hundreds of times on social media.

Among those who reportedly received payments were conservative influencer Alex LoRusso, political commentator Brian Krassenstein, former collegiate swimmer and Fox News contributor Riley Gaines, and several other online personalities with large followings across the political spectrum.

A Polymarket spokesperson told POLITICO that working with content creators forms part of the company’s normal business practices and said the platform regularly collaborates with independent organizations, partners, and creators to support its mission of providing market-based insights. 

The spokesperson declined to discuss the company’s disclosure policies, the use of Modabber’s personal PayPal account, or whether the payments were reported as business expenses.

Influencer campaign grows alongside Polymarket’s expansion

Records reviewed by POLITICO showed that at least 20 creators who received money from Modabber posted about Polymarket on X after the payments began. The publication counted more than 490 posts mentioning the platform during the review period and reported that none included disclosures identifying them as paid promotions.

Federal Trade Commission guidance requires influencers to disclose material connections when endorsing products or services. Speaking to POLITICO, former FTC deputy general counsel Robin Moore said the activity described in the report appeared to be the type of arrangement that generally should be disclosed.

Several creators promoted major Polymarket developments after receiving payments, according to the report. Following the launch of a Department of Government Efficiency dashboard in February 2025, influencer Eric Daugherty described the release as a breaking development to his audience. Riley Gaines and media personality Elijah Schaffer also shared posts praising the feature, POLITICO reported.

Later in June, after Polymarket announced a partnership with Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, multiple paid influencers published supportive posts within hours of each other, according to POLITICO’s review of social media activity.

One influencer who spoke anonymously to the publication said Polymarket occasionally supplied suggested posts and directed creators toward specific markets or announcements that it wanted promoted.

Meanwhile, Shane Ginsberg, founder of the social media marketing company Street Poller, reportedly received at least $77,000 from Modabber. POLITICO reported that Ginsberg’s network of creators produced man-on-the-street videos promoting Polymarket during the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with some creators displaying Polymarket branding even when the platform itself was not directly mentioned.

Regulatory scrutiny continues to build

The marketing campaign has emerged as Polymarket faces increasing legal and regulatory attention in several jurisdictions.

Separately, South Korean authorities have recently opened what Chosun Biz described as the country’s first known investigation into domestic Polymarket users. The Gangwon Provincial Police Agency is examining whether participation on the platform violated South Korea’s gambling laws, with investigators reportedly considering whether user activity falls under provisions of the Criminal Act governing gambling offenses.

Regulators and prosecutors in South Korea have recently shown a willingness to apply existing laws to blockchain-based activities. As previously reported, prosecutors charged several individuals linked to the CATFI meme coin rug pull in a case described by Digital Asset as the country’s first prosecution involving a decentralized exchange under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act.

Pressure has also increased in the United States. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Google software engineer Michele Spagnuolo with commodities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering after alleging he used confidential company information to profit from prediction market contracts on Polymarket tied to Google’s annual search rankings. Prosecutors said the activity generated roughly $1.2 million in profit.

At the same time, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a parallel civil complaint and reiterated that insider trading laws apply to prediction markets. Enforcement Director David Miller said the agency remains focused on preventing the misuse of nonpublic information in markets under its jurisdiction.

Questions around Polymarket’s market operations have also drawn criticism from traders. Last week, a disputed market asking whether Strategy would sell Bitcoin before May 31 concluded with a “No” outcome after a final UMA review, despite a regulatory filing showing that Strategy had sold 32 Bitcoin during the final week of May. 

The resolution sparked complaints from several traders and prompted renewed debate over how prediction markets should handle disputed outcomes and post-trade rule clarifications.