Update (Aug. 19, 8:27 pm UTC): This article has been updated to clarify that Lois Frankel won the Democratic primary in Florida’s 23rd congressional district and not re-election.

Four of the five candidates supported by ads funded by the cryptocurrency-aligned political action committee (PAC) Fairshake won their primaries or otherwise advanced on Tuesday, potentially a bellwether for the industry’s influence in the 2026 midterm elections.

On Tuesday, Democratic and Republican candidates supported by media funded by the Fairshake-affiliated PACs Protect Progress and Defend American Jobs, respectively, notched wins across three US states. Altogether, the PACs spent about $3.6 million on House and Senate races in Alaska, Florida and Wyoming.

Democrat Lois Frankel won her primary in Florida’s 23rd congressional district after Protect Progress spent more than $150,000 on supportive media. Defend American Jobs also spent a combined $1.5 million on ads to support Republican Nick Begich in Alaska’s at-large congressional district, Republican candidate Sydney Gruters in Florida’s 16th congressional district and Representative Harriet Hageman for the US Senate in Wyoming. Gruters and Hageman won their primaries, while Begich is expected to advance in Alaska.

All four candidates will likely go on to face challengers in the 2026 midterms in November, but a Democrat in Florida’s 24th district also won despite being the target of more than $2 million worth of negative ads funded by Protect Progress. Oliver Gilbert defeated challengers Shevrin Jones and Kendrick Meek with 34.4% of the vote, in a race that addressed the potential influence of the crypto industry.

Florida’s 24th congressional district results for Democratic primary. Source: The New York Times

According to an Aug. 12 Miami Herald report, Gilbert said “[Donald] Trump’s tech billionaire buddies” were behind the “crypto con artists trying to buy a Democratic primary” through the Protect Progress ads. The news outlet said the ads included fake Miami Herald headlines misrepresenting Gilbert’s policy positions, though a spokesperson for the PAC claimed that “the underlying facts in our ad are true.”

The Fairshake PAC, which reported holding a $193 million war chest as of January, was responsible for funding more than $130 million worth of ads supporting candidates it considered pro-crypto in the 2024 election cycle and opposing many who spoke negatively about the industry or voted against its interests. As of June, the committee had spent more than $82 million on races ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Related: UK authorities continue probe into Nigel Farage’s crypto ‘gifts’ after by-election win

Gilbert did not mention the crypto industry or the ads in his Tuesday night acceptance speech. Fairshake spokesperson Geoff Vetter said that the PAC was “just getting started building the largest pro-crypto Congress in history” following the three state primaries and other candidates winning in 2026. 

Makeup of next Congress to impact crypto market structure law?

Both the US Senate and House of Representatives are on recess until September, when the former is scheduled to address a cloture motion on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bill expected to establish comprehensive regulations for digital assets. Although the legislation passed the House with bipartisan support in July 2025 on a 294-134 vote, many Senate Democrats have been pushing for stronger ethics provisions related to the Trump family’s crypto investments.

Following the 2026 elections, the US Congress could shift from a Republican to Democratic majority depending on the outcome of key races potentially influenced by PACs like Fairshake. Lawmakers elected in November could advance or stymie legislation affecting the crypto industry, including CLARITY, if the current session does not address the bill before 2027.

Magazine: 200,000 fake AI ‘victims’ deployed to scam bait online fraudsters

Kennedy has praised her

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has proposed new guidance that would help clarify when certain stablecoins can be classified as “cash equivalents” under US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The move targets long-running inconsistencies in how companies account for digital assets, especially those used in treasury management or day-to-day payments.

In a notice released Tuesday, the FASB said it is seeking public comment on an update that would add illustrative examples to the existing cash-equivalents definition without changing the core definition itself. The proposal is designed to give companies a clearer framework for evaluating whether specific stablecoins meet the standard required for cash-equivalent treatment.

Key takeaways

• FASB’s proposal would add examples to GAAP cash-equivalents guidance while keeping the definition unchanged.
• To qualify, a digital asset would generally need an on-demand redemption right and reserves held in short-term, highly liquid assets on at least a one-to-one basis.
• Active secondary market trading alone would not be sufficient if holders cannot redeem directly from the issuer for a known amount of cash.
• Companies would still decide whether to present qualifying items as cash equivalents and must consider applicable laws and regulations.
• The proposal would increase annual disclosure requirements, including major cash-equivalent components and their amounts.

What FASB is proposing for cash-equivalent classification

FASB said the proposed Accounting Standards Update would enhance clarity around the “cash equivalents” evaluation for certain digital assets, including stablecoins. According to the filing, the cash-equivalents definition for a qualifying digital asset would require, among other conditions, an on-demand contractual redemption right.

The proposal outlines additional redemption and reserve requirements. Specifically, it would require:

• a direct redemption right with the issuer for a known cash amount, and
• segregated reserves held at least on a one-to-one basis, comprised of short-term, highly liquid assets.

While these conditions aim to make the evaluation more consistent, the FASB emphasized that the change would not automatically classify every dollar-pegged token as a cash equivalent. In other words, a stablecoin’s price peg would not be the only determinant—its contractual redemption terms and the quality of its reserves would be central.

Why redemption rights and reserves matter more than “being pegged”

A key element of the proposed examples is that classification depends on the holder’s ability to convert the token to cash under defined terms, not merely on market activity. One example in the proposal indicates that an active secondary market would not qualify a stablecoin if the holder lacks a direct issuer redemption right.

Similarly, the guidance suggests that reserve composition can disqualify a token even if it appears stable in practice. In another example, the proposal indicates that reserves made up of a mix of crypto assets and gold would fail the cash-equivalent test because valuation risks could undermine the “highly liquid” expectation embedded in the definition.

This distinction is important for investors and reporting teams because stablecoins can vary widely in contractual redemption structure and in how issuers allocate and manage reserves. If a company uses stablecoins for treasury operations—such as parking funds temporarily—the question becomes whether those assets behave like cash in both timing and certainty of conversion.

Disclosure requirements would expand for cash equivalents

Beyond classification, the proposal would change what companies disclose. It would require annual disclosure of the significant components of cash equivalents and the related amounts. That list could include items such as Treasury bills, commercial paper, stablecoins, and money market funds.

FASB said the proposed disclosure obligations would apply to all entities that present cash equivalents, regardless of whether they hold digital assets. That means even companies not using stablecoins directly could still face the new component-level transparency requirements for their cash equivalents mix.

How the proposal connects to US stablecoin regulation

FASB’s accounting update comes after the passage of the GENIUS Act, which earlier created a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States. According to earlier coverage cited in the article, the law—signed in July 2025—established requirements for permitted issuers, including maintaining one-to-one reserves in assets such as dollars and short-term Treasurys, publishing monthly reserve details, and setting redemption procedures.

That regulatory backdrop may affect how companies evaluate stablecoin structures for accounting purposes, but it does not replace the cash-equivalent test. The FASB proposal is aimed at the GAAP definition and how to apply it consistently, including whether reserves meet the “short-term, highly liquid” condition and whether redemption rights are direct and contractual.

For market participants, this linkage matters because accounting treatment can influence balance-sheet presentation, internal treasury policies, and how auditors evaluate risk. A stablecoin that satisfies the GENIUS Act’s reserve and redemption concepts could be better positioned to meet the cash-equivalent framework—though the proposal still leaves room for judgment and scenario-specific analysis.

What happens next for companies using GAAP

FASB is accepting public comments on the proposed update until Nov. 19. After reviewing feedback, the board will set an effective date.

Companies that hold stablecoins for treasury or payment-related purposes may want to start reviewing their arrangements now—especially the contractual redemption terms available to holders and the actual reserve structure behind the token. Even with improved illustrative examples, the filing underscores that not every stablecoin will automatically qualify as a cash equivalent.

Until FASB finalizes the update, investors and stakeholders should watch for how issuers and auditors interpret the on-demand redemption and segregated reserve standards, and whether companies adjust their reporting processes ahead of any new effective date.

Mantle price rebounded more than 6% on Aug. 19 as MNT tested a key resistance level near $0.46, while liquidation data pointed to a larger pool of leveraged positions above the market.

Mantle price approaches a breakout level

According to data from crypto.news, Mantle (MNT) price traded around $0.455 after rising 6.6% during the daily session shown. The recovery extended a rebound that began after MNT reached approximately $0.39 at the start of August.

The token has since formed a series of higher lows and briefly reached $0.467 on Aug. 13. Sellers rejected that advance, but MNT held above $0.42 before returning to the upper end of its recent range.

The daily chart places immediate resistance at $0.4575, which matches the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement of MNT’s decline from $0.7149 to $0.3874. A daily close above that level would indicate that buyers have recovered the final Fibonacci barrier before the previous breakdown area.

Momentum indicators support the rebound without showing an overbought market. The daily relative strength index stood at 58.46, above its signal average of 56.10 but below the 70 level commonly associated with overbought conditions.

The moving average convergence divergence indicator also remained positive. However, the small distance between its two lines showed that MNT still needed stronger momentum to confirm a sustained breakout.

Liquidation clusters could pull MNT toward $0.49

CoinGlass’ one-week liquidation heatmap showed several layers of leveraged positions immediately above MNT’s market price. The closest concentrations appeared between $0.46 and $0.47, while brighter and denser bands extended from around $0.475 to $0.49.

Liquidation clusters do not guarantee that price will move toward them. They mark areas where leveraged positions could be closed if the market reaches their trigger prices, potentially adding forced buying or selling to an existing move.

A break above $0.4575 could therefore expose the first liquidity band near $0.47. If rising prices force traders holding short positions to buy back MNT, the resulting pressure could push the token toward the stronger $0.48–$0.49 cluster.

The heatmap showed the nearest large downside liquidity pool between roughly $0.412 and $0.418. MNT could revisit that region if it loses recent support and leveraged long positions begin closing.

MNT must defend $0.44 to preserve momentum

The 4-hour chart showed MNT reaching $0.4547, close to the upper Bollinger Band at $0.4561. Trading at the upper band reflects strong short-term momentum, although it can also leave the token vulnerable to a pullback if buyers fail to clear resistance.

The Bollinger Band midpoint at $0.4409 forms the first support level. Holding above it would preserve the short-term upward structure and allow MNT to make another attempt at $0.4575 and $0.467.

Chaikin Money Flow stood at 0.01, indicating that buying pressure had moved slightly above neutral. The reading did not show strong capital inflows, making confirmation through higher volume important if MNT attempts to break its August peak.

A close below $0.4409 would weaken the immediate setup and expose the lower Bollinger Band near $0.4257. Further selling could bring the Aug. 19 intraday low around $0.42 back into view, followed by the larger daily support at $0.3874.

On the upside, clearing $0.467 would open a path toward the liquidation concentrations at $0.48–$0.49. MNT would then face broader Fibonacci resistance at $0.5125, followed by $0.5511.

Mantle’s tokenized asset push adds fundamental support

The rebound comes as Mantle expands its decentralized finance and real-world asset operations. A Q2 report published by Nansen said the network’s DeFi total value locked exceeded $1 billion after growing 230% during the first half of 2026.

Nansen reported that RWA-focused DeFi TVL passed $90 million, while assets managed through Mantle Vault exceeded $200 million. The network’s stablecoin market capitalization reached $955 million, representing 120% year-over-year growth, according to the report.

Mantle also increased the number of tokenized equities on its network from 10 in April to 155 by the end of June. Its lineup included products linked to SpaceX and Franklin Templeton’s U.S. Equity Index ETF, although those tokens do not provide direct ownership in the underlying companies or funds unless their terms explicitly state otherwise.

The network’s Aave market was another source of growth. Mantle said the deployment reached $1 billion in 19 days, while Nansen reported that deposits had exceeded $1.45 billion by April.

For US investors, the presence of tokenized US equities does not establish that the products are available legally in the United States. Mantle’s xStocks announcement described access as available only where permitted, leaving eligibility dependent on each platform’s restrictions and applicable securities rules.

MNT’s immediate direction now rests on whether buyers can convert the ecosystem narrative into enough spot demand to break $0.4575. A confirmed close above that level would strengthen the case for $0.48–$0.49, while losing $0.44 would put the rebound at risk.