The US House and Senate have reached an agreement on a housing package that includes a ban on the Federal Reserve creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) until the end of 2030, according to an updated bill text released by bipartisan lawmakers on Tuesday. The deal also addresses housing affordability and would block institutional investors from buying existing single-family homes to rent them out.

The updated version of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will now move back to the House for consideration after the Senate added additional amendments. House Republican leaders are expected to put the measure to a vote after members return from recess on June 23, two people familiar with the plan told Politico.

Key takeaways

• The housing bill would restrict the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a CBDC (or a substantially similar digital asset) until Dec. 31, 2030.
• The restriction includes a stated carveout for certain dollar-denominated stablecoins that are described as open, permissionless, and private.
• The Senate and House versions previously differed; the Senate’s added amendments must be approved by the House before final passage.
• Backers expect the agreement to advance quickly, potentially freeing Congress to focus on other crypto-related legislation, including the proposed CLARITY Act.
• The CBDC language revives concepts similar to an earlier House-passed “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.”

How the CBDC ban ends up inside a housing bill

A bipartisan group of House and Senate leaders released updated bill text on Tuesday, launching the next stage of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act’s path to a final vote. As in earlier versions, the measure includes a CBDC prohibition aimed at limiting federal experiments with central-bank-issued digital money.

The CBDC ban was first added after the Senate passed the amendment in March, and the House supported its own version in May. But the two chambers could not immediately reconcile differences, leaving the bill in limbo. The new agreement reflects the latest round of negotiations, with Senate amendments now requiring House approval.

Crypto advocates have criticized CBDCs for what they view as the potential for government-controlled financial infrastructure and surveillance concerns—criticisms that have helped shape years of congressional pushback against standalone CBDC proposals.

What the law would actually restrict

The housing package’s CBDC language states that the Federal Reserve may not, directly or indirectly, “issue or create a central bank digital currency or any digital asset that is substantially similar to a central bank digital currency.” The provision is time-limited and would expire on Dec. 31, 2030.

Importantly for market participants, the clause includes a carveout for specific stablecoins—described as “dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private.” That wording matters because it suggests the bill’s authors are drawing a boundary between central-bank-issued digital currency and privately issued stablecoins that meet the bill’s stated attributes.

In practical terms, the decision to embed this restriction in a housing bill may influence the bill’s momentum: housing legislation typically attracts broader coalitions than narrow crypto bills, potentially giving CBDC opponents a more workable legislative vehicle.

Connections to earlier CBDC proposals

The clause in the updated bill “revives much of the language” from Republican Rep. Tom Emmer’s Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which was introduced in June 2025 and passed by the House the following month—but did not advance in the Senate.

That history highlights a key tension in Washington’s approach: even when House support for CBDC limits is strong, Senate action has been less predictable. By folding CBDC language into a broader measure, the current bill may sidestep some of that earlier gridlock.

The broader policy pressure also follows executive action. US President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 directing federal agencies to avoid work related to CBDCs, arguing the technology would threaten “the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States,” as described in the order published by the White House.

What happens next for Congress and the crypto policy agenda

Lawmakers expect the housing bill to pass quickly once the House considers the Senate’s updated amendments. If House leadership proceeds on the June 23 timeline mentioned by Politico, the legislation could clear the final procedural hurdle before the August recess and the November midterm elections.

That timing may also shape what comes next on crypto regulation. The agreement is expected to allow Congress to devote attention to other proposals, including the CLARITY Act, which many lawmakers have pushed to advance. While the housing bill focuses on CBDCs and housing affordability, a separate regulatory framework would determine how the industry is supervised in the absence of a CBDC.

For investors and builders, the immediate watch-items are procedural: whether the House adopts the Senate’s amendments without further changes, and how the carveout for “open, permissionless, and private” dollar-denominated stablecoins is interpreted once lawmakers move from text to implementation.

Until the final vote and any subsequent clarification, market participants should also monitor whether the time-limited nature of the ban—ending at Dec. 31, 2030—affects planning for any future central-bank digital currency efforts, including how regulators and policymakers might revisit the question after the expiration date.

If you’re only looking at the dollar price of your portfolio, you may be missing part of the picture, which is significantly shaped by money supply growth.

To the casual observer, the markets look like business as usual. While bitcoin has nearly halved to $66,000 since its $126,000 peak in October of last year, the decline could be dismissed as just another brutal, quadrennial crypto bear market. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 continues to hover near record highs.

But beneath the surface, a more interesting signal emerges when both prices are adjusted for the U.S. M2 money supply. M2 is the Federal Reserve’s estimate of liquid assets, including cash on hand, money deposited in checking and savings accounts, and other short-term saving vehicles such as money market funds and certificates of deposit.

Monetary exhaustion?

Some observers see bitcoin as a high-beta barometer for dollar liquidity, and the BTC/M2 ratio, bitcoin’s price adjusted for money supply growth, is now flashing a warning. The ratio, after a sharp climb from 2023 through 2025, appears to have formed what technical analysts call a head-and-shoulders pattern, typically read as a bearish signal.

If the pattern holds, it would suggest bitcoin’s exponential edge over money supply growth — the dynamic that let it outrun debasement so convincingly in prior cycles — is fading. Bitcoin’s ability to outpace the flood of new dollars may be approaching diminishing returns, at least for now.

Eligible businesses may also continue to evaluate or pursue their own MiCA-focused crypto asset service provider (CASP) licenses in parallel while integrating BitGo Europe’s infrastructure, BitGo said.

The final deadline for crypto firms to have transitioned to the MiCA regime is the end of this month, a regulatory reckoning that will force some firms to close down their businesses.

Industry estimates suggest that Europe had more than 3,000 registered crypto firms as of 2024, with Poland alone accounting for over 1,400 registrations. As of May 2026, there are 194 authorised CASPs (including credit institutions) and it is expected that around 75% of the pre-MiCA population will lose registration status as transitional periods expire, according to law firm Hogan Lovells.

Belshe said firms don’t need to go bust because of MiCA’s regulatory requirements, adding that regulators are aware of BitGo’s compliance-enhancing infrastructure offering. In terms of fees for the crypto compliance service, Belshe said it’s relatively cheap and varies product by product.

“There’s some amount of monthly minimum that you pay similar to what’s always been there. That’s a couple of $1,000 a month type of thing that can scale with volume,” he said. “Then clients can either go to variable-based plans, where they’re paying per transaction more, or they can use static-based plans, where they have kind of a fixed fee, and they pay less.”

Key Takeaways

• SOL has rallied more than 20% from its June bottom around $60, currently hovering near $75
• The token faces a pivotal test at the $75.7 zone, previously a critical support level that could unlock moves to $83.5, $90, and $98
• Technical analyst Satoshi Flipper identified a falling wedge pattern break suggesting potential upside toward $250
• Daan Crypto Trades noted SOL’s breakout from a consolidating wedge against Bitcoin, monitoring for confirmation
• Contrarian view from Crypto Coral highlights bearish flag pattern risks and potential for renewed downside pressure

Solana has mounted an impressive comeback from its June bottom, posting gains exceeding 20% in recent days. This rally has positioned SOL at a technical crossroads that may determine its trajectory in the weeks ahead.

As of June 16, SOL was changing hands around $75, marking a substantial recovery from the $60 region tested earlier this month.

The upward momentum received support from broader market catalysts. News emerged that the United States and Iran had negotiated a preliminary deal to maintain open access to the Strait of Hormuz, alleviating inflationary pressures. Crude oil prices declined following the announcement, while Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets caught a bid.

Derivatives metrics confirmed the bullish shift. Data from CoinGlass indicated rising open interest alongside the price advance. Short squeeze activity also contributed momentum, as leveraged bearish positions were liquidated during the climb from the low $60s.

On the business front, Solana Company turned down an unsolicited takeover bid from Forward Industries on June 15. The proposal offered a premium valuation and emerged amid growing competition among companies developing SOL-focused treasury operations.

Technical Picture Takes Shape

The daily timeframe reveals that Solana consolidated within a defined range for approximately four months, bounded by support at $75.7 and resistance at $98.3. This structure collapsed in early June when price breached the lower boundary and descended toward $60.

SOL has now circled back to challenge that previous support zone. A decisive reclaim of this area would negate the earlier breakdown and bring $83.5, $90, and ultimately $98.3 back into play as upside objectives.

Zooming into the four-hour perspective, SOL has pierced through a downward-sloping trendline that contained rallies since late May. The Relative Strength Index has climbed back above the neutral 50 mark after dipping into oversold territory, while the MACD indicator shows early signs of bullish crossover.

Trader Daan Crypto Trades shared on X that Solana appears to be escaping from a consolidation wedge pattern relative to BTC. He suggested that a confirmed breakout could trigger follow-through buying and lift related ecosystem tokens, though he emphasized the current zone represents meaningful resistance.

Analyst Satoshi Flipper spotted a falling wedge breakout pattern on the daily timeframe, with price successfully reclaiming the upper boundary near $70. His analysis projects a longer-term objective at $250, a level that would match peaks achieved during Solana’s previous bull market phase.

Critical Zones Above and Below Current Price

Technical analyst More Crypto Online identified a concentrated Fibonacci resistance cluster spanning $69.44 to $72.58 on the four-hour chart. This zone represents the convergence of the 38.2% retracement level, 100% Elliott Wave extension, and 50% retracement—creating a formidable obstacle.

Not every market observer shares the optimistic view. Crypto Coral cautioned on June 16 that Solana had violated a bearish flag formation and is now retesting significant EMA resistance. According to this analysis, failure to recapture that level could trigger another downward move.

Should the $75 zone fail to provide support, traders are eyeing $71.8, $69.1, and the June low near $60 as successive downside targets.

The Supertrend indicator on the four-hour chart currently places support in the vicinity of $70.9.

U.S. congressional leaders have reached an agreement on a housing bill that includes a prohibition on the Federal Reserve issuing or creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) until the end of 2030, setting up a potential rapid path toward passage before the August recess. The package is also designed to address housing affordability and restrict certain institutional purchases of existing single-family homes.

The updated bill text—released by a bipartisan group of House and Senate leaders—represents a renewed effort to curb federal CBDC development after earlier standalone proposals failed to advance. For regulated crypto firms and financial institutions, the provision signals that lawmakers may continue to pursue legislative clarity on CBDCs and, potentially, differentiate certain crypto assets, including stablecoins, from a broader CBDC concept.

Key takeaways

• The forthcoming housing legislation would bar the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a CBDC or a “substantially similar” digital asset until Dec. 31, 2030.
• The bill includes an explicit carveout for certain crypto stablecoins described as “dollar-denominated” and characterized as “open, permissionless, and private.”
• Congress is expected to use the legislative window to address additional priorities, including advancing broader crypto regulatory proposals such as the CLARITY Act.
• Republican lawmakers have pushed CBDC bans for years, arguing earlier measures stalled without being embedded in a must-pass vehicle.
• Institutional compliance and legal risk will likely remain shaped by how regulators interpret “substantially similar” and whether stablecoin carveouts align with existing banking and AML/KYC frameworks.

What the housing bill changes on CBDCs

According to an updated draft released by bipartisan House and Senate leaders, the housing package would restrict the Federal Reserve’s ability to directly or indirectly “issue or create a central bank digital currency or any digital asset that is substantially similar to a central bank digital currency.” The prohibition is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2030.

At the same time, the bill introduces a stablecoin carveout for what it describes as “dollar-denominated currency that is open, permissionless, and private.” The insertion of that language matters in practice because it narrows the reach of the ban by separating at least some privately issued dollar-linked tokens from the bill’s definition of a CBDC-like instrument.

The CBDC language revives core elements of an earlier proposal by Republican Representative Tom Emmer. His “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act,” introduced in June 2025 and passed by the House the following month, was not taken up in the Senate. Embedding similar concepts into a housing bill suggests congressional negotiators view CBDC restrictions as more achievable when paired with a widely supported legislative objective.

Legislative path and timeline for a potential vote

The agreement comes after lawmakers narrowed differences between House and Senate versions of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. The Senate included CBDC-related language in its version when it passed the bill in March, and the House also approved its version in May with strong support, though the chambers diverged on certain provisions.

Following the latest round of negotiations, the Senate added further amendments that will now be presented to the House for a final vote. House Republican leaders plan to bring the bill forward after the chamber returns from recess on June 23, according to reporting by Politico.

Several drivers could affect how quickly Congress completes action. A housing-focused vehicle may face less resistance than standalone digital asset bills, and the political calendar—August recess and the November midterm elections—can concentrate incentives to resolve disputes before deadlines. For compliance teams, timing is relevant not only for implementation planning, but also for how quickly legal interpretations may harden around statutory language rather than regulatory proposals.

Stablecoin carveouts, regulatory interpretation, and compliance implications

While the bill’s stablecoin language creates a carveout, the precise meaning of terms such as “substantially similar,” “open, permissionless, and private” may still require administrative and judicial interpretation. That uncertainty is material for regulated intermediaries—especially banks, money services businesses, and broker-dealers—because their obligations under AML/KYC rules depend on product classification and the legal characterization of the underlying asset.

In institutional compliance contexts, the key challenge is the interaction between a statutory CBDC restriction and existing regulatory frameworks applied to stablecoins and digital asset services. Even if some dollar-denominated tokens are excluded from the ban’s scope, firms may still face licensing requirements, consumer protection scrutiny, and transaction monitoring expectations under federal and state regimes, depending on how products are structured and offered.

Regulatory history also matters. Prior congressional attention to CBDCs has often intersected with privacy, sovereignty, and financial stability arguments. For example, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 directing federal agencies to refrain from CBDC-related work, citing concerns about “the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States.” Such executive action can influence agency posture, while Congress can shift the baseline by codifying restrictions in statute.

Analytically, the most immediate compliance question is how the legislative carveout will be read in relation to stablecoins that differ in governance, custody model, issuance mechanics, or accessibility. Firms may also need to map whether their token arrangements could be viewed as resembling a CBDC despite the carveout—particularly if they incorporate features resembling central-bank issuance or centralized controls.

For additional context on the legislative environment around crypto oversight, Cointelegraph has previously reported on the Senate’s CBDC ban amendment and related proposals that sought to limit Federal Reserve involvement until later dates.

How the deal could shape broader crypto legislation

The agreement may also provide political space for other crypto-related measures ahead of the August recess. The same coalition push that secured the CBDC restriction in a housing bill could be leveraged to advance the CLARITY Act—an effort many lawmakers have promoted to establish a more comprehensive regulatory approach for digital assets.

From a policy perspective, embedding a CBDC prohibition and stablecoin language in a housing package may be seen as a strategic move: it lowers the chances of delay compared with standalone CBDC bills that stalled earlier in Congress. It also frames the CBDC debate within a wider legislative negotiation, potentially influencing how lawmakers prioritize definitions and boundaries between public monetary infrastructure and private crypto rails.

Nevertheless, open questions remain. The final legal impact will depend on the bill’s final text after House consideration, and on how regulators translate statutory language into enforceable guidance or supervisory expectations. Even with a formal CBDC restriction, the classification of stablecoin products—and the compliance requirements associated with them—may continue to evolve based on supervisory interpretations, market structure, and enforcement trends.

Closing perspective

If the housing bill passes as expected, it would mark a significant legislative constraint on any near-term Federal Reserve CBDC effort while reserving space for at least some dollar-denominated stablecoins under defined characteristics. The next phase to watch is the House’s final vote and the subsequent regulatory interpretation of the terms “substantially similar,” “open,” “permissionless,” and “private,” which will likely drive how compliance programs assess legal risk for stablecoin-linked products.

TLDR:

• Ki Young Ju says narrative-only altcoins lost relevance as investors focus on revenue and utility.
• The CryptoQuant founder grouped viable altcoins into three business-focused categories today.
• DeFi protocols with real revenue remain among the strongest altcoin sectors, according to Ki.
• Stablecoins, RWAs, and tokenized stocks now drive discussion around blockchain utility growth.

Bitcoin’s dominance over crypto markets has fueled fresh debate about the future of altcoins. Yet CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju argues that the sector is not dead, despite years of weak performance across much of the market. 

His latest comments draw a clear distinction between narrative-driven tokens and projects backed by real businesses and revenue. The remarks arrive as institutional capital continues entering crypto through regulated investment products and tokenized financial assets.

Altcoins With Real Revenue Still Have a Place in Crypto

Ki Young Ju said narrative-driven altcoins no longer offer the same opportunity they once did. In a post on X, he argued that simply issuing a token no longer guarantees market attention or capital inflows.

Instead, he pointed to projects that operate functioning businesses and generate measurable revenue. According to his view, these assets stand a better chance of maintaining long-term relevance.

The CryptoQuant founder grouped viable altcoins into three categories. The first includes global internet companies that use tokens as part of their broader ecosystem strategy.

He cited Binance’s BNB and Telegram-linked TON, renamed to GRAM, as examples. According to the post, both ecosystems benefit from established products, active user bases, and long-term operational commitment.

Ki also noted that tokens can sometimes offer a practical alternative to traditional equity structures. As crypto exchange-traded funds expand, he suggested some investors may seek ecosystem exposure through digital assets rather than company shares.

The argument centers on business growth rather than token narratives. In that framework, ecosystem expansion becomes the primary driver of long-term value.

DeFi Revenue and Financial Trends Shape Altcoin Outlook

The second category focuses on decentralized finance platforms with sustainable revenue models. Ki highlighted decentralized exchanges and other established DeFi protocols that continue generating income from user activity.

He specifically referenced Hyperliquid among the projects operating within this group. According to the post, founder credibility, real revenue, and governance structures remain important factors for token holders.

The third category involves projects tied to broader financial developments. These include stablecoins, tokenized real-world assets, tokenized stocks, and related blockchain infrastructure.

Ki noted that altcoin market capitalization has struggled to move meaningfully beyond its 2021 peak. During previous cycles, capital largely rotated between crypto-native themes such as DeFi and memecoins.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin attracted significant inflows from traditional finance. That trend accelerated following the introduction of spot Bitcoin investment products.

According to Ki’s comments, the market now places greater focus on practical blockchain applications. Stablecoins, tokenized assets, and financial infrastructure increasingly dominate industry discussions.

He also identified blockchain infrastructure supporting AI agents as a developing area. The comments reflect a broader shift toward utility-focused projects as crypto markets mature under growing regulatory oversight.

Ki acknowledged that many investors suffered losses in altcoins during previous market cycles. However, he maintained that rejecting weak projects does not require dismissing every altcoin in the market.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Republican Cynthia Lummis, has urged the Department of the Treasury to design implementation of the GENIUS Act in a way that allows states to regulate eligible stablecoin issuers. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the lawmakers argue that the statutory framework depends on state participation and that the Treasury’s current approach may not adequately address the procedural path for state certifications.

The GENIUS Act, signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, creates a mechanism for certain stablecoin issuers to be supervised by state authorities, provided the stablecoin’s market value meets a specified threshold and the state has laws that align closely with the federal bill. The senators’ intervention underscores a key compliance and regulatory question: whether the state certification process will be workable over time, rather than limited to an initial window.

Key takeaways

• The senators are asking Treasury to ensure states can regulate qualifying stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act, preserving ongoing state supervisory involvement.
• The letter focuses on whether Treasury’s implementation plan clearly sets out the timeline and procedures for state “certification,” which affects when states can participate.
• Under the GENIUS Act’s market-value criterion, stablecoin issuers that exceed the threshold would not fall under the state-regulation pathway, as described in the senators’ discussion.
• Treasury previously sought public input on state-level implementation, and it is now preparing a final rule for publication in the Federal Register.
• The initiative highlights cross-level governance in crypto regulation—federal rulemaking may determine how effectively state agencies can operationalize licensing and oversight.

Senators press Treasury on state certification mechanics

In their Tuesday letter, the senators emphasized that Congress intended to “preserve the dual banking system and the crucial role of State banking agencies in supervising this market.” Their argument is grounded in practical regulatory administration: if state participation is meant to be meaningful, the certification process cannot be so restrictive or ambiguous that it deters future state action.

The lawmakers said Treasury’s proposal did not address, with sufficient clarity, the “timeline and procedural requirements related to State certification.” According to the letter, the uncertainty could be read as implying a one-time opportunity that would prevent states from obtaining future certification even as they adopt implementing laws.

They also pointed out that states do not move on identical legislative calendars. As a result, a rigid certification schedule could produce uneven supervisory coverage and delay compliance regime adoption. The senators argued for a flexible framework that would allow states to develop stablecoin regulatory rules and pursue certification as demand for the relevant charters materializes and legislative schedules permit.

How the GENIUS Act’s state pathway is supposed to work

The GENIUS Act includes a state-regulation route for “certain issuers,” conditioned on the market value of a stablecoin being at or below $10 billion. The senators’ letter frames the state mechanism as a way to ensure supervision remains distributed between federal and state banking oversight, rather than concentrated solely at the federal level.

In the context described in the article, the practical effect is that the state pathway would apply to most stablecoins under the threshold, with limited exceptions for issuers whose tokens exceed it. The discussion cites market-value information “according to CoinGecko,” indicating that—based on current categorizations—only a small number of major issuers would fall outside the $10 billion criterion. While market-value thresholds can shift over time, the compliance implication is immediate: whether an issuer is eligible for state supervision depends on quantitative conditions that can change as liquidity and issuance evolve.

For institutional stakeholders—including exchanges, custodians, market makers, payment providers, and banks integrating stablecoin services—this structure matters because it may determine which regulator supervises issuer conduct, redemption standards, reserve management expectations, and compliance controls. Where supervision is split across state and federal frameworks, harmonization becomes a key operational and legal issue.

Treasury’s implementation timeline and the rulemaking process

The lawmakers’ letter arrives after Treasury sought public input in April on how it plans to implement the GENIUS Act’s state-level provisions. Public comments on the proposal closed on June 2, and Treasury is now expected to draft a final rule for publication in the Federal Register.

This is a consequential phase for regulated entities. Final rule language will likely specify how states apply for certification, what documentation and procedural steps are required, and how—if at all—certifications may be updated. The senators’ central concern is that inadequate specification could lead to litigation risk, delayed licensing, or compliance uncertainty for issuers attempting to align with the most appropriate supervisory pathway.

For compliance programs, the difference between an open-ended certification approach and a single-cycle mechanism is substantial. An open framework can support a rolling adoption model as states refine legislation and seek approval. A one-time window, by contrast, could strand future issuers or force them into less desirable supervisory structures, complicating planning for compliance officers and governance teams.

Why the state-versus-federal split has compliance implications

The senators’ emphasis on “dual banking” supervision reflects a broader policy tension that has long characterized U.S. financial regulation: the balance between national rulemaking and state-level authority. In crypto, that balance is particularly sensitive because stablecoins connect to banking-like activities, including custody, payments, settlement, and reserve-related controls.

The letter’s focus on procedural requirements also intersects with common compliance expectations—AML/KYC coordination, supervisory reporting, governance standards, and licensing requirements. Even when a statute is clear, implementation details determine how regulated firms prepare documentation, manage regulator communications, and ensure ongoing compliance across multiple jurisdictions.

Additionally, market participants must monitor how eligibility thresholds operate in practice. When eligibility depends on market value, firms need a documented method for assessing whether their counterpart stablecoins fall inside or outside the $10 billion threshold at relevant times. The compliance burden is not only legal, but operational, since it can affect which entities can transact with or onboard which stablecoin issuers.

What to watch next

Treasury’s final rule will be the next critical checkpoint. Analysts and compliance teams should monitor how the rule defines state certification timelines, whether certifications can occur beyond an initial period, and how eligibility under the $10 billion criterion will be operationalized. The outcome will shape which stablecoin regulatory regimes firms can rely on across jurisdictions and may influence how quickly state supervisors can exercise the role Congress envisioned.