Three major U.S. crypto advocacy groups have urged Senate leaders to move the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act forward on the chamber floor, arguing that the legislation remains a rare chance to establish a clearer federal framework for digital assets. In a joint letter sent Friday to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the Digital Chamber, and the Blockchain Association asked lawmakers to prioritize “floor consideration” before the Senate pauses for state work periods in August.

The push comes as the bill has already advanced through the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but uncertainty remains over whether it can secure the 60 votes needed for passage. Republicans hold a 52–47 edge over Democrats, yet several Democrats have signaled they may withhold support until the bill’s ethics-related provisions are adjusted—particularly rules intended to address conflicts of interest involving public officials and cryptocurrencies.

Key takeaways

• Crypto industry groups are pressing Senate leadership to schedule a floor vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess.
• The bill cleared the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but lawmakers have indicated votes could be delayed pending unresolved ethics concerns.
• Democrats argue the ethics provisions in the GOP’s market structure text are insufficient to prevent corruption, according to reporting from Politico.
• Industry leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and 1inch’s legal chief Orest Gavryliak have argued the bill is necessary to provide a workable framework—especially for non-custodial systems.
• Market-based polling via Kalshi as of Friday implied a roughly 40.3% chance of passage before the Senate’s August break.

Advocacy groups push for early floor action

In the Friday letter, the three organizations framed floor consideration as an immediate next step following committee progress. They acknowledged bipartisan discussions are ongoing and encouraged negotiations to continue, indicating they are not asking for a “take it or leave it” decision—just that the bill be brought to the Senate floor without further delay.

The groups’ request aligns with a broader push from Republicans who have been working to secure a vote before the Senate breaks for state work periods in August. However, even with committee advancement, floor timelines in the Senate often depend on whether parties can close gaps on contentious provisions—especially those involving ethics and enforcement boundaries.

Ethics provisions remain the sticking point

CLARITY is widely described as one of the most consequential U.S. bills for crypto regulation, and its path in the Senate reflects the difficulty of reaching consensus across the aisle. The bill requires 60 votes to pass, and while Republicans currently hold a 52–47 majority over Democrats, Democratic support is not guaranteed.

Earlier this week, Republicans released the text of the market structure bill, including ethics provisions that would bar public officials from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies. Democrats who oppose or question these measures have argued they do not go far enough to address corruption risks, according to reporting from Cointelegraph and Politico.

Senator Ruben Gallego, who criticized the ethics counterproposal, said in comments reported by Politico that the latest GOP response did not reflect a serious effort. He argued that after months of work with Republican colleagues, the bill’s updated approach did not match what Democrats believe is needed to meaningfully tighten safeguards.

“[…] After all the work that we’ve done with our Republican colleagues, that they would take the months and months of work and somehow interpret that and turn around and think what they offered was even remotely close.”

For investors and crypto companies, this disagreement matters because ethics provisions and conflict-of-interest rules can influence how politicians, regulators, and politically connected actors engage with crypto-related activity. If those provisions remain contested, the practical outcome could be delayed scheduling—or amended text that changes how compliance obligations are framed.

Industry leaders argue CLARITY is a needed framework

Beyond the Senate arithmetic and ethics provisions, industry participants have focused on what the bill could mean for how crypto products are treated in the U.S. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a Wednesday post on X that the U.S. lacks a federal framework and that the absence of clarity allows harmful behavior to reach customers while much of the industry operates offshore.

Armstrong’s argument, as presented in his post, is that CLARITY would create consumer protections, provide law enforcement with tools, and establish a path for U.S. leadership in the sector. That perspective echoes what many businesses have sought in recent regulatory cycles: rules that are designed for digital assets rather than forced into legacy financial categories.

DeFi-focused legal leadership also weighed in. Orest Gavryliak, chief legal officer of 1inch, discussed the bill on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast on Friday. He said CLARITY could help create a structure that recognizes non-custodial protocols rather than “regulating with enforcement,” and he criticized approaches that might try to fit non-custodial systems into custodial frameworks.

In his remarks, Gavryliak suggested that if regulators insist on treating non-custodial projects as if they must adopt custodial models, the resulting obligations could misalign with how decentralized protocols actually operate. For protocol developers, trading venues, and tooling providers, that distinction can affect everything from risk disclosures to compliance strategies.

Timing risks: August recess and the midterm calendar

Legislative timing may be as important as legislative content. The source notes that if lawmakers fail to hold a vote before the Senate breaks in August, consideration could shift into the weeks leading up to the 2026 U.S. midterms. That prospect could complicate negotiations, since election-year incentives often reshape how quickly contentious measures move.

As of Friday, Kalshi listed event contracts related to whether the Senate would vote on CLARITY before the August recess. The market-implied probability stood at 40.3%, suggesting that traders viewed a pre-recess floor vote as uncertain.

While event markets are not official forecasts, they can still reflect how participants interpret political momentum—especially when the bill’s core milestones (committee approval) have occurred but the votes to reach the 60 threshold appear harder to secure.

For readers tracking CLARITY, the next question is straightforward: whether Senate leadership can translate committee progress into floor scheduling while resolving the ethics provisions Democrats say are inadequate. If those disputes intensify or timelines slip past August, the bill’s eventual shape—and the compliance burden for non-custodial and consumer-facing parts of the ecosystem—may become clearer only later than many industry participants were hoping for.

DEXE has lost 96.8% in 11 days after falling from a record high near $49.43 to $1.56, while large Ceffu transfers to Binance have prompted questions about a possible DWF Labs connection.

On-chain analyst Ai Yi reported that DEXE (DEXE) reached an all-time high of $49.432 on July 12 before its decline began the following day. The steepest move came on July 21, when the token dropped as much as 88% from $46.93 to $5.648 within one trading day, according to the analyst’s timeline.

During an examination of large on-chain flows, Ai Yi found that most transfers came from centralized exchange hot wallets. Ceffu was the only entity outside exchanges that moved more than $1 million worth of DEXE, making its activity stand out from the other transactions reviewed by the analyst.

Since July 13, the crypto custody platform has transferred 797,917.24 DEXE to Binance across six transactions, Ai Yi reported. Those tokens were worth a combined $6.15 million when the on-chain transfers took place, although their value would have been much higher before the collapse.

Ceffu’s mirrored positions may explain the delayed transfers

Ai Yi’s analysis focused on Ceffu’s MirrorX service, which allows institutional clients to trade on exchanges while keeping their assets in custody. Under the system described by the analyst, DEXE deposited with Ceffu can create a matching position on an exchange, while the corresponding on-chain transfer is settled later.

Because trading can occur before the tokens visibly move on-chain, Ai Yi argued that the six transfers may not show when the associated positions were first used. If the 797,917 DEXE had been positioned for trading before the price started falling on July 13, the analyst estimated that they would have carried an effective value of about $39.44 million.

Ai Yi presented this sequence as a possible explanation rather than proof that the tokens were sold before their on-chain settlement. The analyst’s post did not identify the owner of the assets, establish that all 797,917 DEXE had been sold, or provide direct evidence connecting the transfers to the initial price decline.

Questions over the source of the custodial balance also remain unresolved. After reviewing public project information, Ai Yi found no evidence that the DEXE team had placed tokens with Ceffu. According to the analyst, much of the project-linked supply appeared to remain in the decentralized autonomous organization’s treasury and contracts covering team-related lockups.

Falcon connections put DWF Labs under scrutiny

Searching DEXE’s official partner list for another possible route to Ceffu, Ai Yi pointed to Falcon Finance. The analyst noted that Falcon had supported DEXE as collateral on its platform and that Ceffu was among the institutions used for Falcon’s asset custody.

Ai Yi also identified links between Falcon Finance and DWF Labs, while DWF Labs appeared separately on DEXE’s partner list. Based on those public connections, the analyst suggested that the Ceffu-held tokens could have involved DWF Labs, Falcon, the project team, or another market maker.

No evidence provided in Ai Yi’s post proves that DWF Labs, Falcon Finance, Ceffu, or the DEXE team caused the crash. The analyst described the conclusion as an early assessment based on on-chain movements and a process of tracing public links, leaving open other explanations for the transfers.

Neither the transfer data nor the cited partnerships establish who controlled the DEXE positions represented through MirrorX. Ai Yi also did not rule out possible involvement by the project or other market makers, but the post offered no conclusive finding about the party responsible for selling.

DEXE’s collapse follows two other steep token sell-offs reported by crypto.news in recent weeks. On July 3, LAB fell more than 60% from a June 27 high near $20 to an intraday low of $7.50 as concerns about insider holdings, token transparency and derivatives liquidations drove panic selling.

Crypto.news reported that the LAB decline followed community scrutiny of allegations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT, who had claimed insiders controlled more than 95% of its supply. ZachXBT also raised concerns about private over-the-counter agreements, changing vesting schedules and insider-wallet movements, although those public allegations have not been established in court and the LAB team has disputed or not accepted many of them publicly.

Humanity Protocol’s H token suffered another sharp collapse on June 9, losing more than 80% after attackers drained wallets linked to the project. Unlike the unanswered questions surrounding DEXE’s transfers, the Humanity Protocol team confirmed that attackers had compromised a private key belonging to a Humanity Foundation member.

Humanity Protocol operates an identity network built on a zero-knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine and uses palm biometrics with zero-knowledge proofs to verify unique users. The project says its design allows identity checks without placing users’ complete personal information inside large centralized databases.

The European Central Bank’s proposed digital euro is drawing intense debate across Europe, with supporters framing it as a tool to preserve the euro’s monetary sovereignty in an increasingly online payments economy, while critics warn it could expand surveillance and give authorities new powers over consumer spending.

In remarks reported by the ECB, executive board member Piero Cipollone said the project aims to reduce dependence on non-European payment providers and ensure Europeans can transact with sovereign central bank money in digital form. The controversy, however, persists as privacy advocates, consumer groups, and even parts of the traditional banking sector weigh the implications for personal autonomy and financial stability.

Key takeaways

• The ECB positions the digital euro as a sovereign, central-bank-issued payment option intended to complement cash, not replace it.
• Privacy and civil-liberties concerns remain central, with regulators and watchdogs emphasizing the need for strong safeguards before public trust can be secured.
• Policymakers are motivated partly by concerns that Europe lacks control over parts of its critical retail payments infrastructure.
• Banking-industry critics worry that limited digital-euro wallet holdings could still shift deposit flows and affect how banks fund lending.
• Legislation negotiations are underway in the EU, with officials aiming to finalize the text by the end of the year and decisions on issuance potentially following later.

What the digital euro would be

The digital euro is a proposed European Central Bank project for a digital form of euro issued by the ECB—meaning it would function as central bank money in an online-ready format. The ECB describes it as a way for people in the euro area to use sovereign money for everyday payments as commerce and payments continue to move toward digital channels.

Supporters argue that the digital euro would preserve core advantages people associate with cash while enabling “cash-like” payments over electronic networks. Critics, by contrast, see the same architecture as a potential pathway to “programmable” money—an arrangement they fear could enable authorities to control or restrict how individuals spend.

The dispute is not abstract: the digital euro debate mirrors broader questions raised by central bank digital currencies globally, particularly around privacy, data handling, and the degree of oversight that could accompany a state-issued payment rail.

Why Europe wants central bank money online

Beyond sovereignty, the ECB’s argument centers on reducing Europe’s reliance on non-European payment infrastructure. The ECB has warned that declining cash use could leave the euro area increasingly dependent on private or overseas-operated systems such as card networks, creating a strategic vulnerability.

In 2025, ECB President Christine Lagarde said the payment-credit-debit infrastructure is “not a European solution,” and argued that Europe needs a European alternative “just in case.” The underlying concern is that without a native digital euro option, European consumers and merchants could face higher systemic risk if foreign-controlled payment services become unavailable or less favorable.

Consumer advocates have also entered the discussion. According to comments shared with Cointelegraph by Andrew Canning, deputy head of communications at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), the digital euro could provide a “secure and inclusive” option that complements existing payment solutions—particularly for users who encounter barriers to accessing digital payments.

Safeguards, privacy, and what the ECB says it will do

Regulatory oversight is a key point in the digital euro debate. The EU’s privacy watchdogs have stressed that the project must include robust protections to earn public confidence. In a joint stance, the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor said privacy and data protection at a high level are essential for the digital euro’s legitimacy, citing a need to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.

The ECB’s own materials argue that privacy protections are built into the design, including the existence of offline payments to enable “cash-like” privacy. The ECB also states it will not see personal transaction data—an assurance that the ECB uses to address concerns that a digital central-bank payment system could become a surveillance channel.

Still, critics contend that even a system designed to protect privacy could make payments more trackable in practice, depending on implementation choices and operational controls. The core issue for skeptics is whether “privacy” statements can meaningfully constrain the downstream ability to monitor activity once money is transferred through programmable rails.

How it would work—and why banks are worried

Unlike dollar-denominated stablecoins such as Tether or USDC, the digital euro would be denominated in euros and issued by the central bank. Users would not hold it directly in the same way they hold physical banknotes; instead, they would access it through electronic wallets and use it for payments in stores, online, or via wallet-to-wallet transfers.

Supporters say the underlying money would remain an ECB liability rather than a claim on a commercial bank’s deposits, which they argue would align digital euro holdings more closely with the public backing associated with cash.

Banking industry concerns focus on funding and financial stability. Several critics argue that a shift toward central bank digital euros could reduce bank deposits, potentially forcing banks to adjust how they finance lending. Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an Italian economist and banker who served on the ECB executive board from 2005 to 2011, warned of “a high risk of financial instability” and “strong repercussions for the real economy,” according to the report’s inclusion of his remarks.

The ECB counters that its design choices aim to minimize risks to the banking sector. The ECB has said users would be limited to holding only a small amount of digital euros in their wallets at any time to prevent “excessive outflows of bank deposits.” It also indicates that, similarly to cash in a wallet, digital euro holdings would not earn interest—another measure intended to reduce incentives for users to move large sums into central bank money.

Costs, timelines, and lessons from other CBDC efforts

Cost and implementation burden have become an additional flashpoint. The ECB estimates that developing and implementing the digital euro would require approximately €1.3 billion in investment, alongside ongoing operating expenses of around €320 million annually. Reuters reported that the ECB expects banking sector implementation costs between $4.6 billion and $6.9 billion over four years, underscoring how integration work may fall partly on commercial institutions and payment providers.

On timing, negotiations across EU institutions have progressed to the stage where policymakers are working on final legislation. According to the article’s referenced reporting, lawmakers are aiming to reach agreement within the next six months. Cipollone also said, in an ECB interview on July 13, that officials hope the text will be finalized by the end of the year, after which the ECB would be positioned to decide whether to move forward with issuing the digital euro.

If legislation is approved, the decision would then be taken by the ECB’s Governing Council, with issuance considered sometime in 2027. The cited reporting also suggests everyday use would likely not arrive until 2029 at the earliest, assuming the project proceeds.

Europe is not operating in a vacuum. The broader international experience with retail CBDCs has been mixed, with many countries shifting away from direct retail models or abandoning proposals. According to Reuters, China began piloting its digital yuan in 2019 and expanded rollout nationally, yet most consumers still rely heavily on familiar apps such as Alipay and WeChat Pay. The Bahamas launched the Sand Dollar in 2020 as one of the first nationwide retail CBDCs, but adoption was slower than hoped, leading authorities to push for broader distribution through commercial banks.

Elsewhere, Nigeria’s eNaira reportedly struggled to gain traction after its 2021 launch despite government support, while Brazil’s central bank shut down its Drex CBDC platform in 2025, citing cost and privacy concerns. The Bank for International Settlements concluded in 2023 that a retail CBDC is a complex undertaking, not only for central banks but also for the broader ecosystem involved in implementation and governance.

As EU legislators negotiate the final framework, the decisive questions for investors, builders, and users will likely center on the practical strength of privacy safeguards, the wallet-holding and deposit-stability design choices, and the real timeline risk between legislation approval and any eventual issuance—areas where past CBDC efforts suggest implementation details can matter as much as the concept.

India’s Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has publicly challenged a government order requiring GitHub to remove access to multiple repositories connected to Jack Dorsey’s decentralized messaging app, BitChat—arguing the action bypasses safeguards built into India’s more formal website-blocking process.

The dispute escalated shortly after India’s cybercrime agency instructed GitHub to disable access to three BitChat repositories within a matter of hours, warning that the decentralized messaging system could be used to circumvent internet shutdowns, evade lawful surveillance, and support unlawful activity. IFF says the order is unconstitutional and should be withdrawn.

Key takeaways

• IFF condemns a GitHub takedown order over BitChat, saying it exceeds government authority under India’s Information Technology Act.
• The foundation argues the notice should have followed India’s formal website-blocking procedure, which includes procedural protections.
• IFF disputes the rationale for removal, noting the repositories were not accused of containing specific unlawful content.
• The underlying controversy centers on BitChat’s decentralized architecture, designed to function without internet connectivity by routing messages over Bluetooth between nearby devices.

IFF challenges the legal route used for the GitHub takedown

In a statement posted on X, IFF said the government’s order was issued under Section 79(3)(b) of India’s Information Technology Act, rather than through the established process for website blocking. According to IFF, that distinction matters because the standard approach is tied to formal procedures and safeguards.

The foundation’s core claim is that the government used an enforcement mechanism that allows rapid platform action without the protections that accompany the country’s website-blocking framework. IFF urged authorities to withdraw the notice and to publish all takedown orders made under the same provision, suggesting a broader transparency and accountability issue beyond the BitChat case.

What the cybercrime order alleged—and what IFF contests

IFF’s criticism comes a day after India’s cybercrime agency directed GitHub to disable access to three BitChat repositories within three hours. The agency’s stated concern was that BitChat—by virtue of being decentralized—could help users communicate even during internet disruptions, potentially undermining shutdowns and lawful monitoring.

IFF pushed back on that justification on two fronts. First, it argued that the order did not identify any specific unlawful material inside the repositories. Second, IFF said the reasoning effectively treated BitChat’s design choices—especially its ability to relay messages without internet access—as sufficient grounds for removal on their own.

In IFF’s view, that approach risks expanding enforcement beyond content-based restrictions and into architecture-based suppression—an issue that tends to carry significant implications for developers and open-source ecosystems.

How BitChat is designed to work without the internet

BitChat is described as a decentralized messaging app that routes encrypted messages between nearby devices using Bluetooth rather than relying on internet connectivity or centralized servers. This design is intended to keep communication possible when conventional networking is unavailable.

IFF pointed to that same feature as the subject of the government’s concern, arguing that the decentralized model—particularly its offline and proximity-based capability—was cited as justification rather than any identifiable illegal content.

This is not a purely theoretical distinction. If a messaging platform is removed primarily because it can operate during outages, the line between lawful restrictions on content and broader restrictions on tools that enable communication during shutdowns becomes a central policy question.

BitChat’s adoption surge during outages and unrest

BitChat’s visibility has grown alongside periods of unrest and connectivity failures. Cointelegraph previously reported on the app’s July 2025 launch, describing a decentralized approach that can support local messaging when normal internet routes are disrupted. Since then, BitChat has reportedly gained traction in multiple countries during moments of high disruption.

According to earlier reporting cited by the article, adoption increased during events including protests, natural disasters, and internet shutdowns across places such as Madagascar, Nepal, Uganda, Jamaica, and Iran. The pattern—more installs when connectivity is disrupted—helps explain why a case involving GitHub repositories can quickly become a flashpoint for broader debates over censorship, shutdown circumvention, and the role of open-source development during emergencies.

For investors and builders in the crypto-adjacent decentralization ecosystem, the case also underscores a recurring theme: software that is designed for resilience and offline functionality can attract regulatory attention even when it is not directly tied to specific illegal content.

Authorities have yet to clarify how they will apply Section 79(3)(b) in cases involving open-source code with offline or decentralized capabilities, and IFF’s demand to publish all takedown orders under that provision suggests further legal and procedural scrutiny ahead. Readers should watch whether GitHub complies permanently, whether the repositories are restored, and whether any court or regulatory process follows to test IFF’s constitutional arguments.

Among others abandoning the treasury approach include Sequans Communications (SQNS), which sold 1,025 BTC before disposing of nearly 80% of its remaining holdings to repay convertible debt. It has ruled out further purchases and plans to monetize its remaining 658 BTC.

Nakamoto (NAKA), whose shares have fallen 99% since its May 2025 SPAC deal, sold around 284 BTC to raise $20 million for working capital following its acquisitions of BTC Inc. and UTXO Management. It sold roughly 40 BTC received through its derivatives program, according to VanEck’s Sigel. Almost 70% of its remaining 5,342 BTC were pledged against a Kraken loan maturing in December, creating what Sigel described as a potential binary event.

It’s not only specialist treasury companies that are reducing their holdings of the largest cryptocurrency. Crypto miners including Bitdeer and MARA Holdings are selling bitcoin to repurchase or repay debt and repurpose their energy-supply deals and computing resources to power AI data centers.

Other sellers include Empery Digital, which has reportedly sold almost half its bitcoin to finance buybacks and debt repayment, and Strategy, which has sold about 3,620 BTC in recent weeks and authorized additional sales to support its U.S. dollar reserves.

Strategy, which started the investment trend, remains the largest publicly listed holder of bitcoin, with more than 840,000 BTC. CEO Michael Sayler remains bullish.

The Council of the European Union has sanctioned Justin Sun-owned HTX and Huobi Global S.A in a move that it hopes will “further cripple Russia’s economy and war machine.”

HTX and Huobi are now officially on the EU’s “list of credit and financial institutions and entities providing crypto-assets services or payment services established outside of the Union that are significantly frustrating the purpose of the prohibitions in this Decision, Decision 2014/145/CFSP, Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.”

One of the payment networks being targeted is the A7 Network, which is behind the A7A5 stablecoin.