Months of negotiations have brought the CLARITY Act to its final review stage, with Senator Cynthia Lummis confirming a July 4 release of the updated text ahead of a Senate push later in July.

According to Lummis, who spoke with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Senate negotiators are preparing to publish the updated legislative text after months of discussions involving lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and banking representatives. She said the bill will be made available for one final round of feedback before lawmakers seek a Senate floor vote later in July.

Speaking during the interview, Lummis said negotiations on the legislation have been ongoing since last Labor Day and have required extensive work to address concerns raised throughout the drafting process. She stated that lawmakers spent thousands of hours examining issues tied to both the CLARITY Act and the recently debated GENIUS Act while also considering objections raised by parts of the banking industry.

Following the publication of the text, Lummis said Senate leadership is working to secure floor time next month. She added that discussions with Senate Majority Leader John Thune are focused on placing the legislation on the chamber’s July agenda.

Senate prepares next step for crypto market structure bill

The expected release comes as lawmakers continue refining a framework intended to establish regulatory boundaries for digital asset markets in the United States.

During the interview, Lummis pushed back against criticism from JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who had argued that the bill could allow crypto companies to offer rewards programs resembling interest-bearing banking products without being subject to the same safeguards as traditional financial institutions.

Responding to those concerns, Lummis said the criticism does not accurately reflect the legislation’s current language. She pointed to Section 301 of the bill, which she said was revised during negotiations to address issues raised by banks and regulators.

According to Lummis, the updated provisions ensure that rewards offered by crypto firms are not linked to account balances in a way that resembles interest payments. She also said the legislation includes additional anti-money laundering measures that were incorporated during the drafting process.

Her remarks come as lawmakers continue balancing demands from the crypto industry with concerns raised by traditional financial institutions over consumer protections and regulatory consistency.

Section 604 continues to attract opposition

While Senate negotiators move toward publication of the final text, several organizations have recently urged lawmakers to reconsider another part of the legislation.

As crypto.news previously reported, four law enforcement organizations sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and White House digital assets adviser Patrick Witt, warning that Section 604 could create regulatory gaps and make investigations involving digital assets more difficult. The groups argued that the provision could weaken Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering requirements compared with standards applied in traditional finance.

Section 604 incorporates the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and would prevent certain non-custodial participants, including open-source developers, self-custody tool providers, software contributors, and some decentralized finance infrastructure operators, from automatically being classified as money transmitters.

Separately, the Alliance to End Human Trafficking urged Senate Republican Leader John Thune and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to revisit the same provision. The organization said the proposed language could create ambiguities that complicate efforts to monitor financial activity linked to human trafficking, organized crime, child exploitation, sanctions evasion, and other illicit conduct.

Those objections add to the list of issues lawmakers are weighing as the CLARITY Act enters what Lummis described as its final public review phase before Senate consideration.

Ripple won a regulatory milestone in Japan this week — but it needed a rival blockchain to do it.

Earlier today, SBI VC Trade, a crypto arm of the $11 billion Japanese financial giant SBI Holdings, listed Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin for trading, heralding it as the country’s first “Type 4 electronic payment instrument” under Japan’s revised Payment Services Act.

However, the only Ripple USD (RLUSD) tokens that SBI traders in Japan can deposit or withdraw are on the Ethereum blockchain.

The irony is rich. Ethereum is the primary competitor of the XRP Ledger (XRPL), the blockchain that Ripple incubated.

The Japanese approval of RLUSD as its first Type 4 instrument is unambiguous. The supported chain is Ethereum, and RLUSD on any other chain will not be accepted for deposit, including XRPL-based RLUSD.

Additional blockchains could earn approval in the future, although regulators have not specified any particular timeline for review. 

Type 4 electronic payment method

Japan’s 2023 amendments to its Payment Services Act created a dedicated regulatory bucket for fiat-pegged stablecoins.

These “electronic payment instruments” separated digital money-type tokens from ordinary crypto assets like ether or XRP, which aren’t pegged in value to any fiat currency.

Pursuant to Article 2 of the act, Type 1 instruments include currency-denominated value usable for payment to and tradable with unspecified persons, Type 2 covers value instantly exchangeable with Type 1, and Type 3 covers instruments with specific trust beneficiary rights. 

Type 4 is a residual, catch-all slot for property value designated, by cabinet office ordinance, as otherwise equivalent in value to the first three categories.

It’s the bucket regulators can reach for when an instrument doesn’t fit cleanly anywhere else.

That residual quality explains the awkward legal footnote in SBI VC Trade’s own announcement. The RLUSD token is not a trust beneficiary right under US law, the company noted, yet SBI workers were able to help it gain Type 4 classification for Japanese purposes anyway after establishing its financial equivalencies to the USD to the satisfaction of regulators.

The Type 4 label is as much a classification as a regulatory admission that Ethereum has some superiority over the XRPL.

RLUSD didn’t slot neatly into the three main categories, but thanks to the help of Ethereum, it was able to gain a catch-all designation.

It’s issued by Standard Custody & Trust Company, a New York-chartered Ripple subsidiary, and is backed by dollar deposits and short-term Treasuries subject to monthly, third-party attestations.

It’s the second dollar stablecoin on the SBI VCTRADE platform, which has handled Circle’s USDC since March 2025. USDC is a Type 3 instrument in Japan.

An XRP milestone using Ethereum

Still, XRP influencers framed the event as a win. RLUSD started trending on X.

The president of SBI VC Trade billed the listing as a milestone and credited Ripple Labs for the momentous occasion. 

Jack McDonald, Ripple’s senior vice president for stablecoins, praised Japan’s regulatory clarity and applauded RLUSD’s ability to link Japanese institutions with global liquidity.

Neither executive dwelt on which blockchain was actually linking up the liquidity.

“They launched this one on ETHEREUM,” one account posted in reply to celebratory coverage. 

A separate post highlighted the fine print on the approval. RLUSD is live “on Ethereum ONLY” as a Japanese Type 4 electronic payment instrument and capped at roughly $6,200 per transaction, a ceiling that matches the 1 million yen per-transaction limit set in SBI VC Trade’s own announcement.

Most of RLUSD already lives on Ethereum

The Japanese listing isn’t an anomaly. Indeed, despite being a Ripple project, the majority of RLUSD tokens have historically existed outside of the XRPL. 

As Protos reported on June 15, around $879 million of the token in circulation was parked on Ethereum, ahead of roughly $760 million on the XRP Ledger.

Congressional scrutiny has intensified around World Liberty Financial (WLFI) after Senate Democrats raised concerns about a major foreign-linked investment. The lawmakers are seeking additional information about a reported transaction involving entities connected to the United Arab Emirates. Meanwhile, the issue has emerged alongside ongoing debates over digital asset legislation in Washington.

Senate Democrats Seek Review of WLFI UAE Investment

Five Democratic senators have urged Republican committee leaders to examine a reported investment involving WLFI. The lawmakers requested a congressional hearing and highlighted potential conflicts linked to foreign interests. As a result, the issue has drawn fresh attention to the company’s ownership structure.

According to the senators, the investment agreement was completed shortly before Donald Trump returned to office. They stated that a UAE-linked partner received a 49% stake in WLFI through the arrangement. Additionally, the lawmakers reported that foreign buyers paid $218 million to entities connected to Trump and envoy Steve Witkoff.

The senators identified Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan as the lead investor in the transaction. They argued that the reported ownership structure raises questions about foreign influence. Consequently, they requested sworn statements from administration officials and others connected to the deal.

The lawmakers also pointed to policy developments that occurred after Trump took office. They noted that the UAE received more than $1.4 billion in arms approvals since January 2025. Furthermore, exports of advanced artificial intelligence chips exceeded $1 billion during the same period.

Democrats want authorities to clarify what officials knew about the reported payments and timing. Therefore, they are seeking records and testimony from relevant parties. The request forms part of a broader effort to examine potential conflicts involving public officials.

The inquiry adds another layer of political pressure on WLFI and its associated projects. At the same time, lawmakers continue to debate how digital asset businesses should operate. As discussions continue, congressional committees may face increased pressure to address the concerns.

Clarity Act Debate Adds New Dimension to Dispute

The controversy has surfaced while Congress continues work on the CLARITY Act. The legislation aims to establish a clearer regulatory framework for digital assets. Therefore, lawmakers remain engaged in negotiations over several key provisions.

Senate Democrats have proposed ethics measures tied to the legislation. The proposal would restrict federal officials from creating, promoting, or sponsoring crypto assets. Consequently, the amendment could affect projects associated with current government officials.

The proposed restrictions could impact crypto ventures linked to Trump. Lawmakers specifically referenced World Liberty Financial and the TRUMP meme coin. As a result, the debate has expanded beyond market regulation and into ethics oversight.

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt has become involved in discussions surrounding the bill. Reports indicate that he is working to address concerns related to the ethics provisions. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue to negotiate the final structure of the legislation.

Supporters of the ethics proposal argue that stronger safeguards would reduce potential conflicts. However, opponents maintain that broad restrictions could affect participation in emerging technologies. Therefore, the issue remains a key point of disagreement in Congress.

The dispute highlights the growing intersection between digital assets and national politics. At the same time, regulators and lawmakers continue shaping future crypto policy. As congressional discussions move forward, both the WLFI inquiry and the CLARITY Act debate are expected to remain prominent topics.

Cboe, one of the largest U.S. derivatives exchanges, said it is entering the prediction-market arena and is reviving binary options on the S&P 500 index after abandoning them more than a decade ago, a move that brings it into competition with platforms such as Kalshi and the crypto-native Polymarket.

A binary option is a yes-or-no bet that pays a fixed amount if an outcome occurs, in this case whether the benchmark U.S. equity index crosses a specific level. That is close to what Polymarket and Kalshi already offer, though their offerings go beyond stock market forecasts to cover political and sporting outcomes as well as other topics.

The introduction follows Cboe’s success with same-day S&P 500 options, contracts that expire within hours and now make up about 30% of U.S. options volume, calling attention to the demand for fast, outcome-based trades.

“Investors increasingly seek products that allow them to express a specific view on future events and market outcomes,” said Milan Galik, CEO of Interactive Brokers, which is carrying the binary contracts, in a statement.

The contracts will also become available on Charles Schwab later this year.

Second time round

Cboe has tried this market before. It first listed binary options on the S&P 500 and the Cboe Volatility Index in 2008, but they failed to draw interest and were pulled, with the last such contract expiring in 2017.

YZi rejected suggestions that the settlement amounts to a takeover, a person close to the settlement told CoinDesk in an interview, describing it instead as a governance reset intended to unlock shareholder value. The firm also stressed that Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao was not involved in the initiative.

The investment firm was rebranded from the venture arm of crypto exchange Binance in 2024. Following Zhao’s release from prison that year, he took a more active role in venture project. YZI Labs is often referred to as Zhao’s family office – the name for an investment vehicle that manages a family’s wealth. YZi, however, says its structure is different, as it does not involve itself in estate planning, tax structuring and other similar functions.

YZi’s goal is to reposition CEA as a leading BNB treasury vehicle, comparable to Strategy’s (MSTR) role in bitcoin markets. The firm argues that CEA’s shares trade at a significant discount to the value of its underlying BNB holdings, a gap it believes can be narrowed through governance reforms and a clearer operating strategy.

The move comes as digital asset treasury companies enter what some investors describe as a second phase of development. While early treasury firms focused primarily on accumulating crypto assets, newer models are increasingly looking to generate revenue from ecosystem participation and infrastructure businesses tied to those holdings.

Arredondo argues that the industry has spent years building separate blockchain networks, stablecoins and digital money projects, but has spent less time ensuring those systems can work together.

“We need to move the market from everyone doing their own very cool things to actually thinking about standard-setting across the piece.”

The issue has become more important as governments, banks and private companies increasingly experiment with tokenized deposits, stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Arredondo pointed to the European Union (EU) as an example of a jurisdiction seeking to accommodate multiple forms of digital money simultaneously.

The EU’s approach allows stablecoins, tokenized bank deposits and central bank money to coexist under the same broad framework, she said.

Wall Street’s crypto role

The growing role of banks, asset managers and large financial institutions in crypto has divided the industry. Some early crypto supporters argue the sector is moving away from its original goals of decentralization and disintermediation.

Arredondo sees it differently. “The early crypto vision raised fundamental economic questions and brought them to the mainstream,” she said.

For Arredondo, the rise of institutional crypto does not mean the industry’s early ideas failed.

Instead, she sees it as evidence that ideas first developed inside the crypto sphere are increasingly being adopted by mainstream finance. “It shouldn’t be disappointing that we are maintaining the pillars that have long anchored trust in money.”

Key Points

• President Trump postpones housing legislation signing, halting CBDC prohibition.

• Legislation includes provision blocking Federal Reserve digital dollar until 2030.

• Signing contingent on Congressional passage of SAVE America Act.

• Stablecoin exemptions preserved within housing legislation framework.

• Senate faces mounting pressure on cryptocurrency regulatory framework discussions.

President Donald Trump has postponed the implementation of a federal prohibition on central bank digital currencies by canceling Wednesday’s scheduled signing ceremony for comprehensive bipartisan housing legislation. The measure includes provisions preventing the Federal Reserve from launching a digital dollar until 2030, though Trump has made his approval conditional on separate voting reform legislation.

President Conditions Housing Bill on Electoral Reforms

Through a Truth Social announcement, Trump canceled the ceremony mere hours before its scheduled start. He indicated that Congressional approval of the SAVE America Act must occur before he proceeds with the housing package. This decision immediately created uncertainty surrounding the housing bill’s CBDC prohibition language.

The SAVE America Act mandates citizenship verification for individuals registering to vote in federal elections. Proponents characterize this requirement as necessary election integrity protection, while critics contend it may disenfranchise legitimate voters. Trump has urged Senate Republicans to expedite the measure despite minimal Democratic backing.

Congressional approval for the housing bill was substantial, with the House voting 358 to 32 following Senate passage at 85 to five. This bipartisan support demonstrated rare legislative consensus across party lines. Nevertheless, Trump chose to delay the signing despite broad congressional backing.

Digital Currency Ban Embedded in Housing Legislation

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act focuses predominantly on housing availability, cost reduction, mortgage regulations, and development obstacles. Yet legislators inserted provisions prohibiting the Federal Reserve from developing or distributing a retail CBDC. This restriction extends through December 31, 2030.

The language encompasses digital instruments that function similarly to central bank digital currencies. Conversely, it carves out private dollar-denominated assets operating on transparent, permissionless, and decentralized networks. This exemption safeguards eligible stablecoins from the federal prohibition.

Trump has previously instructed federal departments to refrain from creating, distributing, or advocating for a United States CBDC absent explicit legislative authority. While the Federal Reserve has conducted digital currency research, no digital dollar has been introduced. The congressional language would codify existing administrative policy into statutory law.

Postponement Creates Uncertainty for Crypto Regulatory Framework

Trump retains the option to sign the housing legislation once Congress addresses his voting reform priorities. Constitutional mechanisms also permit the bill to become law without presidential signature. However, formal transmission procedures and legislative scheduling will dictate available timeframes.

This postponement may generate additional concerns regarding the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. That legislation would establish regulatory jurisdiction for digital assets and allocate supervision among federal agencies. Trump has expressed support for establishing permanent market structure frameworks for the cryptocurrency industry.

The CLARITY Act awaits Senate deliberation, potential modifications, and ultimate floor consideration. Concurrently, legislators are negotiating ethics requirements concerning political figures’ involvement in digital asset enterprises. The housing bill dispute now introduces another political prerequisite to an already congested Senate agenda.

Trump has not explicitly threatened vetoes against market structure legislation or other cryptocurrency bills. However, his linkage of unrelated measures may decelerate congressional progress across multiple policy domains. The CBDC prohibition consequently remains entangled with broader controversies involving housing policy, electoral procedures, and digital asset oversight.