A year on, the rules aren’t quite ready for implementation, but we have a much clearer idea as to how the regulators are thinking about stablecoins and where they’re likely to land on those rules.

In an emailed statement, Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim called the passage of the bill “a landmark moment.”

“A year in, agencies, institutions, and innovators are building on a clearer foundation, and stablecoins are moving rapidly toward mainstream adoption,” he said.

The various regulators have proposed rules out for comment on the different aspects of stablecoin governance and regulation, including a proposal that would require stablecoin issuers to conduct similar know-your-customer checks to more traditional financial firms. The FDIC published 144 questions a few months ago about how it would oversee stablecoin issuers, looking at concerns like custody, capital and liquidity standards. The OCC, for its part, put out its own proposal in February laying out how it was interpreting the law.

There’s still a few months left before these rules start being finalized. And in the meantime, the industry is still working on getting the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act passed.

The text of the combined Clarity Act drafts is not yet public, at least as of Friday night. While industry sources expected the bill to be released last week, the timeline has constantly evolved. On Thursday, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno were supposed to brief Trump on the bill. There was no public readout of that meeting available after, but both lawmakers tweeted about Trump’s remarks on the election later Thursday.

Bitcoin’s internal debate over network “spam” and the place of Ordinals has flared again, with MicroStrategy executive chairman Michael Saylor publicly arguing against a proposed protocol change known as BIP-110. In a long post on X published Sunday, Saylor laid out a broad case against activating the temporary fork, warning that the remedy could undermine the principles he associates with Bitcoin’s neutrality and permissionless innovation.

The proposal, first introduced in December 2025, aims to reduce non-monetary transaction behavior—particularly data associated with Ordinals inscriptions—by changing how certain data is handled by validating nodes. While proponents frame it as protection for Bitcoin’s function as peer-to-peer cash, Saylor said he shares those objectives but disagrees with the approach.

Key takeaways

• Michael Saylor opposes BIP-110 despite acknowledging concerns about Ordinals-style network bloat.
• BIP-110 would require broad node support to activate, with the last measured cycle showing only around 1% of blocks signaling approval.
• Ordinals activity has fallen sharply from its 2023 peak, with recent daily inscriptions reported as under 10,000.
• The dispute echoes earlier Bitcoin governance clashes, including the Blocksize Wars era.
• Major figures remain split: supporters argue it avoids long-term disruption, while critics call it social enforcement rather than neutral protocol design.

Saylor’s critique of BIP-110’s “temporary fork”

Saylor described BIP-110 as a bad idea in an extended post on X, presenting a framework centered on “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.” He also emphasized that his critique is directed at the proposal itself, not the people who support it.

According to Saylor, some Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 to keep validation affordable for node operators, maintain access to the validation process, preserve low-cost payments, and prevent Bitcoin from drifting into a general-purpose data storage system. He said those are serious concerns—but that the planned remedy is not the right one.

“This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”

As of 12 p.m. ET Sunday, the post had reportedly generated 879,000 views on X, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets.

Why activation is uncertain: node signaling remains low

Even if BIP-110 has passionate supporters, activation would not be automatic. The proposal is designed to proceed only if 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support across a Bitcoin “period.”

In the most recently referenced period, period number 475 (covering blocks 955,584 through 957,599), only about 1% of blocks were reportedly in support. That suggests the proposal currently lacks the consensus threshold needed to move forward.

For investors and traders following protocol governance, the key question is not whether arguments for and against BIP-110 are strong, but whether enough of the ecosystem will converge on a shared view quickly enough to clear the activation hurdle. Low signaling so far implies BIP-110 remains in a “discussion” phase rather than a near-term change likely to land.

Ordinals activity has cooled—so what’s the urgency now?

The conflict over Ordinals and other inscription-style behavior is unfolding at a time when on-chain activity appears to have materially cooled. The reporting cited that in the last month there have been fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscribed per day, according to Dune Analytics.

That figure stands in stark contrast to the period of peak activity in August 2023, when the same metric reportedly exceeded 400,000 daily inscriptions. The current backdrop complicates the “immediate fix” argument advanced by BIP-110 supporters, because network pressure may not be at the same level as during the earlier surge.

Still, supporters contend that the trend could return—or that even without today’s worst-case bloat, maintaining Bitcoin’s long-term usability requires setting clearer boundaries now. Critics, meanwhile, argue that protocol-level “policing” risks turning Bitcoin’s decentralized norms into a contest of preferences.

The personalities and the governance parallels

BIP-110 is notable not only for its technical objectives, but also for the lineup behind it. The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” and reportedly has support from Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.

Earlier coverage cited that Dashjr and other supporters view Ordinals-driven bloat as a serious threat and argue BIP-110 would not trigger the chain split many fear. They also point to the fork’s design as temporary—described as a one-year limit—claiming it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.

Critics reject those characterizations. Back has previously described BIP-110 as a “quest to police other people,” arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent one group from imposing its preferences on others. In his framing, the proposal conflicts with what he portrays as Bitcoin’s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.

Observers have also drawn historical parallels to the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when Bitcoin’s community debated whether raising the block size limit would be worth the risk of a chain split. Like that earlier period, the BIP-110 conflict is fundamentally about governance: who gets to decide what the network should optimize for, and through what mechanism.

What to watch next

The next decisive signal will be whether BIP-110’s support rises meaningfully toward the 55% threshold across future block periods. With Ordinals activity currently reported as far below earlier peaks, the debate may shift from “stop a present-day emergency” to “define Bitcoin’s long-term scope”—and readers should watch for how node signaling changes alongside that evolving narrative.

Bitcoin’s internal debate over how to curb network spam and non-monetary data has intensified after Michael Saylor published a detailed critique of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110). In a long post on X.com dated Sunday, Saylor argued that a proposed temporary fork to restrict certain types of data on the Bitcoin network is the wrong solution—despite acknowledging that the underlying concerns raised by supporters are legitimate.

Introduced in December 2025, BIP-110 has become one of the more prominent protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars of 2015–2017, when scalability questions sparked intense disagreement over whether changes should risk a chain split. Saylor’s intervention comes as Ordinals activity has cooled from its 2023 peak, raising questions about how urgent such a protocol change really is.

Key takeaways

• Saylor supports the goals behind BIP-110—such as protecting validation and affordable payments—but rejects the proposal’s mechanism as a remedy.
• BIP-110 would only move forward if 55% of validating nodes signal support during a Bitcoin “block period,” and recent support levels have been low.
• Ordinals inscriptions have fallen sharply from their August 2023 highs, potentially reducing the immediate pressure driving urgency for protocol-level fixes.
• The debate mirrors past governance tensions, including the Blocksize Wars, where disagreements over enforcement and network rules frequently threatened to split the ecosystem.

Saylor’s critique: shared goals, different fix

According to Saylor’s post on X.com, his argument is aimed at the proposal itself rather than people who support it. He said many Bitcoiners he respects back BIP-110 for reasons including keeping validation accessible, shielding node operators from unwanted costs, preserving low-cost payments, and preventing Bitcoin from drifting into general-purpose data storage.

Saylor emphasized that he agrees with those objectives but disagrees with the proposed remedy. In the same post, he framed his stance as a call to preserve “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation,” while stressing that vigorous disagreement should not turn into personal factionalism.

As of Sunday at 12 p.m. ET, Saylor’s post had accumulated 879,000 views, along with 692 replies and 852 retweets, highlighting how quickly the discussion has spread beyond core developer circles.

What BIP-110 would change—and why approval is difficult

Protocol changes like BIP-110 are not automatically activated; they depend on broad agreement among validators. BIP-110 cannot be enacted unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks signal support for the proposal during a Bitcoin block “period.”

Based on the latest period referenced in reporting, period number 475—covering blocks 955,584 to 957,599—showed only about 1% of blocks in support. That figure suggests that, even if the proposal is technically live for discussion, it currently lacks the signaling momentum required for activation.

This approval threshold matters for investors and operators because it determines whether the change is likely to take effect in practice versus remaining a contested idea within the dev community. A proposal that fails to reach the required support level may still influence future policy debates, but it is less likely to produce immediate network-level consequences.

The spam-bloat dispute meets a cooling Ordinals market

The BIP-110 controversy is tied to concerns about “non-monetary transactions” and data patterns that proponents describe as spamming. BIP-110 was introduced to limit Ordinals-style inscriptions and other arbitrary data that supporters argue can overload the network and distract from Bitcoin’s primary function as peer-to-peer cash.

However, the political and technical urgency of such proposals is harder to gauge when on-chain activity is shifting. The dispute comes while Ordinals activity is reported to be near all-time lows. According to Dune Analytics data cited in the source material, fewer than 10,000 Ordinals are inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain daily over the last month—down from more than 400,000 per day during its peak in August 2023.

Lower inscription volumes can change the risk calculus for both sides of the debate. Supporters of protocol limits may argue that even reduced activity can still set harmful precedents for how data is used on-chain. Opponents may counter that if demand and congestion pressure have already eased, a fork—especially one that introduces restrictions—becomes harder to justify without more consensus.

Backers, critics, and echoes of earlier Bitcoin governance fights

BIP-110 was introduced by pseudonymous developer “Dathon Ohm,” with backing that includes Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr, according to the source. On the opposition side, Blockstream CEO Adam Back is cited as a vocal critic of BIP-110.

Back has previously described the proposal as an attempt to police other people, arguing that Bitcoin’s decentralization should prevent any faction from imposing its preferred rules on the broader community. The objection is framed not only as technical but ideological—rooted in the cypherpunk principle of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.

Meanwhile, supporters of BIP-110 argue that Ordinals-driven bloat represents a serious threat that demands action. They also maintain that BIP-110 would not cause a chain split, a concern raised by those wary of temporary restrictions. Supporters further argue the fork is intended to be limited—described as a one-year constraint—so that it would not invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long run.

These arguments have led to parallels with the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when disagreements over how to scale Bitcoin and whether to risk contentious changes sharpened into a broader debate about enforcement and legitimacy. In both cases, the underlying question is the same: how should the network evolve under pressure while preserving decentralized governance?

In this current cycle, the data points being used by each side are not symmetrical. Saylor is not denying that bloat concerns exist; he is questioning whether the governance approach—introducing temporary restrictions through a fork-like mechanism—is compatible with Bitcoin’s broader commitment to neutrality and hard consensus. At the same time, low recent Ordinals activity weakens one common justification for immediate intervention: that the network is actively under severe strain from inscriptions.

As the debate continues, readers should watch two things closely: whether BIP-110’s support signals rise toward the 55% activation threshold in subsequent block periods, and whether Ordinals activity meaningfully returns or stays subdued. Those developments will likely determine whether the proposal remains a theoretical flashpoint—or becomes a real test of how Bitcoin manages conflict over data usage and network rules.

Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor took to social media on Sunday to detail his “110 reasons” why a proposed temporary fork to limit non-monetary transactions on the Bitcoin network, or BIP-110, is a bad idea.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-110 was introduced in December 2025 to stop nonfungible token-like Ordinals inscriptions and other arbitrary data from spamming the network and to preserve BTC’s main use as a peer-to-peer cash system.

In a roughly 3,700 word post on X.com, the man in control of the largest Bitcoin (BTC) corporate treasury made a case for what he said are “neutral rules, hard consensus, open markets, and permissionless innovation.”

Source: Michael Saylor on X.com

“Many Bitcoiners I respect support BIP 110. They want to keep validation accessible, protect node operators from unwanted costs and content, preserve affordable payments, and keep Bitcoin focused on sound money rather than general-purpose data storage. Those are serious concerns. I share the objectives. I disagree about the remedy,” Saylor said. He added:

“This article critiques the proposal, not the people behind it. I assume good faith. Bitcoin is strongest when we can disagree vigorously without mistaking allies for enemies.”

As of 12 p.m. ET, on Sunday, the post had been viewed 879,000 times, with 692 replies and 852 retweets.

BIP-110 is one of the more notable protocol-level disputes in the Bitcoin development community since the Blocksize Wars between 2015 and 2017, when ecosystem participants debated whether it was worth risking a chain split to raise the block size limit for scalability. 

The proposal was introduced by pseudonymous Bitcoin developer “Dathon Ohm” with the support of Ocean protocol founder Luke Dashjr. Opponents include Blockstream CEO Adam Back.

Related: Bitcoin nodes running BIP-110 crosses 2% as spam wars heat up

Little certainty on BHP-110 approval

To be sure, BIP-110 won’t be activated unless 55% of Bitcoin nodes validating blocks are in support of the proposal across a Bitcoin block “period.”

In the last period, period number 475 between block 955,584 and 957,599, only 1% of blocks were in support.

The dispute comes at a time when Ordinals activity is at near all-time lows, with fewer than 10,000 Ordinals inscribed into the Bitcoin blockchain on a daily basis over the last month, down from the more than 400,000 seen during its peak in August 2023.

Change in daily Ordinals inscriptions since December 2022.
Source: Dune Analytics

Bock has previously criticized BIP-110, describing it as a “quest to police other people.” 

He said Bitcoin’s decentralization should mean “you can’t impose your views on others,” calling it incompatible with BTC’s cypherpunk ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant money.

Dashjr and other BIP-110 supporters have called Ordinals-driven bloat a “serious threat” to the network, prompting the need for an imminent fix.

They have also argued BIP-110 wouldn’t cause a chain split, as many fear, while adding that the BIP-110 fork imposes a temporary one-year limit and thus wouldn’t invalidate fee-paying transactions over the long term.

Features: From Bitcoin critics to blockchain believers: The 5 biggest crypto backflips

Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, has come out swinging against a new proposal to clean up Bitcoin’s ‘spam,’ arguing that it could fundamentally alter how the world’s largest blockchain operates.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, aimed at temporarily restricting arbitrary data to focus on the core monetary functions, is a threat to the main principles of the network, Saylor explained in a comprehensive critique published on X, titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”

“The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” Saylor said in the recent detailed analysis. “BIP 110 would use consensus to narrow valid activity, constrain future options, complicate deployment, and establish a precedent it cannot later erase.”

Saylor’s primary objection is based on the “no-questions-asked” nature of money. “Bitcoin cannot read intent,” Saylor writes. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application,” argued.

By banning “spam,” the protocol would effectively elevate human judgment into protocol law, effectively turning Bitcoin’s conservatism upside down.

‘Too aggressive’

Saylor is the latest bitcoin executive to weigh in on this highly debated topic among the Bitcoin community.