Sen. Ruben Gallego has warned that pushing the proposed CLARITY Act toward an early Senate vote before lawmakers finalize unresolved ethics and stablecoin-yield issues could derail U.S. crypto legislation rather than accelerate it. Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Wednesday, Gallego said Congress still needs to complete several procedural steps that could determine whether the bill can actually clear the Senate.

His remarks add friction to the Trump administration’s push for faster movement on the legislation, even as Senate leaders have previously signaled they intend to wait until after the August congressional recess. Gallego’s core message was that timing without agreement may produce an outcome lawmakers “don’t want,” potentially forcing the bill to be restarted later with weaker momentum.

Key takeaways

• Sen. Ruben Gallego urged lawmakers to avoid a “fast vote” on the CLARITY Act until disputes—particularly around ethics and stablecoin yield—are resolved.
• Gallego said he and Sen. Thom Tillis submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the recess but received no clear, point-by-point response.
• The warning suggests procedural action in the Senate could arrive before a bipartisan coalition is in place, risking failure at the 60-vote threshold.
• While the White House has pressed for a “fair version” of the bill, Senate leaders have already indicated the vote could be deferred to September.

Why Gallego says rushing the process could backfire

Gallego framed his concern around how complex the legislative package still is. In his view, the Senate cannot simply move forward to voting if the bill’s components haven’t been fully coordinated and assembled into a final package capable of winning the votes needed for passage.

He specifically noted that lawmakers still have work to do, including addressing the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion, consolidating the broader package, and determining how to route it to the House. Gallego argued that these steps matter because an early vote could lock lawmakers into a timeline that doesn’t match negotiation progress.

“Don’t go for a fast vote,” Gallego said. “A fast vote gets you a fast result, but I’m not sure it’s the result you want.” He added that Congress still had “a lot of steps to complete,” and that “any premature movement is going to set it back further.”

The practical implication for investors and market participants is straightforward: if the bill is advanced before the coalition is ready, the probability of a legislative stall increases. That can prolong uncertainty around U.S. crypto market structure even if the bill ultimately returns later with stronger terms.

Ethics negotiations appear to be the sticking point

Gallego’s criticism also focused on the bill’s ethics framework. He said he and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis had submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the congressional recess. However, he told the symposium he had not received a detailed response addressing the proposal point-by-point.

According to Gallego, the lack of feedback has made it difficult to close the gap needed for Democratic lawmakers to support the bill. He argued that “sufficiently strong ethics restrictions” were important to earn Democratic support and move the legislation forward.

“We’ve been sending offers over and over again to the White House, and they’ve been coming back either blank, or they’ve come back even slightly further back, or we’ve heard nothing,” Gallego said.

Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response before publication, leaving Gallego’s characterization of stalled negotiations unaddressed in the reporting.

Administration push for speed vs. Senate procedural timing

Gallego’s warning complicates the broader push for swift passage coming from the White House. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described the administration’s push for moving toward passage, and on Wednesday Trump urged Congress to pass a “fair version” of the CLARITY Act during a White House appearance with crypto executives.

However, Senate timelines have already suggested that immediate action may not be available. In a report discussed by Cointelegraph, Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed on Aug. 7 that the chamber was “punting” the vote and that CLARITY would be queued up “first thing” after lawmakers returned from recess—positioning September as the likely window for consideration.

Patrick Witt, a White House crypto adviser, had previously said the administration would negotiate with Democrats until the September vote, while also stating the administration “can’t afford to wait forever.” That tension—between negotiating leverage and deadline pressure—is now colliding with Gallego’s insistence that substantive ethics resolution must come first.

In other words, even with a September target already on the table, Gallego’s comments suggest the real question is whether negotiations are likely to produce a version strong enough to build a bipartisan coalition—particularly given the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.

What lawmakers still need to finalize before any Senate vote

Beyond ethics language, Gallego indicated multiple procedural and substantive hurdles remain before the bill can be ready for the next legislative stage. He mentioned the need to resolve the bill’s Agriculture Committee component, then assemble the broader package, and finally determine the correct path for sending the finalized measure to the House.

He also linked these remaining tasks to timing and negotiating discipline. For Gallego, the key risk is that procedural momentum—such as a vote being placed on the calendar—could outpace the actual work of building consensus. If that happens, the Senate could be forced into action on a version that lacks enough support, turning a negotiation problem into a legislative failure that makes future compromise harder.

The larger takeaway is that U.S. crypto regulation is still being shaped by how these bills navigate both policy disputes and legislative mechanics. Even when political actors want speed, the Senate’s structure and voting math reward coalitions that are assembled deliberately rather than rushed.

Readers should watch whether the White House provides the detailed ethics feedback Gallego says it has not yet delivered, and whether negotiators converge on a version of the CLARITY Act capable of clearing the Senate—particularly as September approaches.

Bitcoin (BTC) falling more than 50% from its $126,200 all-time high was a “positioning correction,” BlackRock says.

Key points:

• A BlackRock report attributes Bitcoin’s decline below $60,000 to cascading liquidations as leverage was purged from the market.
• The long-term BTC investment thesis as a “low-correlation diversifier” remains intact, analysts confirm.
• BlackRock sees Bitcoin’s risk-asset correlation declining as time goes on.

BlackRock predicts falling correlation of BTC with risk assets

In a report published this week, the world’s largest asset manager preserved its bull thesis despite waves of outflows from its spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) in 2026.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) saw net outflows of $78.9 million in the week through Aug. 14. Across all ETF products, outflows totaled $267.2 million.

“We view bitcoin’s ~50% pullback from October 2025 highs as a positioning correction rather than a change in its investment case. A historically overleveraged market, enabled by perpetual futures, suffered cascading liquidations compounded by slowing ETP outflows and digital asset treasury demand,” the report states.

US spot Bitcoin ETF netflows (screenshot). Source: Farside Investors

During last year’s peak, Bitcoin experienced a surge in speculative positioning. BlackRock pointed to open interest on Bitcoin derivatives markets passing $90 billion in early October amid heavy use of leverage. The unwinding of these positions increased the correlation between BTC/USD and risk assets more broadly. 

“A macro-driven risk-off catalyst (China tariff headlines) triggered large-scale deleveraging across precious metals and crypto markets. The resulting liquidation waves drove prices down to cycle lows below $60,000 per bitcoin by June 2026,” it explained.

 

Bitcoin futures open interest data (screenshot). Source: BlackRock

Institutional Bitcoin demand has suffered this year as a combination of geopolitical uncertainty and growing inflation pressures saw capital flowing into established risk-asset classes, among them US equities, with the S&P 500 hitting record highs last week. Bitcoin has failed to follow suit, but BlackRock forecasts that this may change.

“With speculative excess now largely purged, we believe bitcoin’s recent episodes of elevated risk correlation should normalize lower, consistent with its longer-term record as a low-correlation diversifier,” it continued.

Longer-term resilience of BTC stands out

The report highlights that long-term BTC investment returns follow key political and macro events. These include the COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020, the US presidential election the same year, as well as the regional banking crisis and president Donald Trump’s multiple international trade-tariff declarations. 

Related: Bitcoin price spike to $64.5K was ‘low-volume liquidity trap’: Analysis

While it initially struggled following some of these events, Bitcoin produced solid returns on a 60-day basis. In the case of the 2020 election, these hit as high as 113%.

“Through multiple shocks in recent years, bitcoin often outperformed both the S&P 500 and gold in the weeks and months following the onset of disruptions,” BlackRock commented.

“This pattern has held true thus far in 2026 amid ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Iran, with bitcoin delivering positive returns and outperforming equities and gold following the onset of hostilities in February and the end of the ceasefire agreement in July.”

Macro asset returns comparison (screenshot). Source: BlackRock

Further data puts Bitcoin’s 12-month realized volatility at 40% compared to 26% for gold and 12% for the S&P 500. The rolling six-month correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P, presented as a 10-year average, is now 0.18 — still notably higher than gold’s 0.06 reading.

“Bitcoin’s underlying investment case aligns more closely with that of gold — as a global monetary alternative and a hedge against inflation, global disorder, and declining trust in fiat currencies. Even for gold, which tends to be viewed as a standard uncorrelated, store-of-value asset, brief periods of high equity correlation exist, including COVID in 2020-2021 and the monetary easing cycle in 2023,” the report added.

Bitcoin vs. S&P 500 correlation data (screenshot). Source: BlackRock

Since October 2025, BTC price performance has led some to question its role as a form of “digital gold.” In a Q1 report, asset manager Grayscale described short-term behavior as being more like a growth stock than gold, noting its low correlation to the latter.

Know when to adapt instead

Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego warned that rushing the CLARITY Act to a Senate vote before lawmakers resolve disputes over ethics and stablecoin yield could set United States crypto market structure legislation back.

Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Wednesday, Gallego said the crypto industry should encourage Senate Democrats and Republicans to continue negotiating instead of pushing for an immediate vote. He said lawmakers still had to address the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion, assemble the broader package and determine how to send it to the House. 

The warning complicates the Trump administration’s push for swift passage by suggesting that a procedural vote could arrive before negotiators have assembled the bipartisan coalition needed to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

“Don’t go for a fast vote,” Gallego said. “A fast vote gets you a fast result, but I’m not sure it’s the result you want.” He added that Congress still had a lot of steps to complete and that “any premature movement is going to set it back further.”

Gallego says White House has not answered ethics proposal 

Gallego said he and Republican Senator Thom Tillis submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the congressional recess but had not received a point-by-point response. He said that sufficiently strong ethics restrictions were necessary to attract Democratic support and advance the bill. 

“We’ve been sending offers over and over again to the White House, and they’ve been coming back either blank, or they’ve come back even slightly further back, or we’ve heard nothing,” Gallego said. 

Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response before publication. 

Related: CLARITY Act delay gives Asian financial hubs an opening: First Digital CEO

The remarks follow renewed pressure from the administration. On Wednesday, Trump urged Congress to pass a “fair version” of the CLARITY Act during a White House appearance with crypto executives. 

Senate leaders have delayed action until September. On Aug. 7, Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed to Cointelegraph that the chamber was “punting” the vote and said CLARITY would be queued up “first thing” after lawmakers returned from recess.

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt previously said the administration would negotiate with Democrats until the September vote but “can’t afford to wait forever.”

Magazine: ‘Fabricated rumors’ about BitMart founder, Binance bStocks dominate: Asia Express

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Standard Chartered and HSBC have completed what they describe as the first live cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain-based ledger, marking an early interoperability milestone for banks experimenting with tokenized deposits. The test took place about a month after Swift said the ledger was ready for initial use.

According to the details of the transaction, payment messages were exchanged between the two banks via Swift’s ledger, while the resulting obligations were recorded on HSBC’s Tokenised Deposit Service and StanChart’s tokenized deposit infrastructure. Swift’s ledger then acted as an orchestration layer—matching and netting obligations between the banks before final settlement through existing payment systems.

Key takeaways

• HSBC and Standard Chartered report the first live cross-border trade on Swift’s blockchain-based ledger.
• Swift’s ledger is positioned as an orchestration and netting layer, with settlement still tied to existing payment infrastructure.
• The test builds on Swift’s July announcement that 17 banks would pilot live transactions using tokenized deposits.
• The approach targets 24/7 cross-border settlement while keeping established compliance, risk, and settlement controls in place.
• Interoperable tokenized deposits are increasingly being tested across jurisdictions, with broader industry trials also underway.

What happened in the first live transaction

Swift’s blockchain-based ledger is designed to connect tokenized deposits issued on separate bank infrastructure. In the live transaction between HSBC and Standard Chartered, the mechanics were centered on messaging, obligation recording, and settlement orchestration rather than a full replacement of the banks’ existing settlement rails.

Rather than moving funds end-to-end solely on-chain, the transaction used Swift’s ledger to handle the exchange of payment messages between the banks. The obligations that resulted from those messages were captured within each bank’s own tokenized deposit setup—HSBC’s Tokenised Deposit Service for HSBC and Standard Chartered’s tokenized deposit infrastructure for StanChart.

Swift’s ledger then netted and matched the obligations between the two counterparties, after which settlement proceeded through existing payment systems. That structure is significant for banks that want faster and more continuous execution without abandoning the operational, legal, and risk frameworks already embedded in traditional payment workflows.

How Swift’s ledger fits into the broader tokenized-deposit push

The live report follows Swift’s July announcement that its blockchain-based ledger was ready for initial use. Swift said it would support a pilot involving 17 banks spanning six continents, preparing to conduct live transactions using tokenized deposits.

The banks named as part of that pilot include Citi, BNP Paribas, BNY, Wells Fargo, UBS, MUFG, DBS, and ANZ, alongside HSBC and Standard Chartered. Swift has framed the ledger as a way to enable interoperability between tokenized deposits across different institutions, while still respecting the settlement, compliance, and risk controls that financial institutions require.

For investors and market participants watching the “tokenization” trend, the key signal is not only that banks are testing digital assets, but that they’re working toward connectivity between separate tokenized systems. Interoperability is often the hardest problem: tokenized value can exist inside a silo, but cross-border payment usefulness rises substantially when institutions can transact across siloed infrastructures.

Why orchestration and netting matter for adoption

Swift describes its ledger as an orchestration layer that matches and nets obligations before final settlement. That design choice can reduce the operational complexity of cross-border payments between different tokenized deposit environments—each bank can maintain its own infrastructure while relying on Swift’s ledger to coordinate the interaction.

The emphasis on netting also reflects a practical reality: cross-border payment systems must handle large numbers of transactions without turning every transfer into a fully independent settlement event. By pairing messaging with netting, banks can potentially reduce friction and execution overhead—while still settling obligations via established payment rails.

Swift’s positioning is also relevant to a wider debate in crypto-adjacent payments about how far blockchain should be used in the payment stack. This pilot suggests a hybrid direction: blockchain-based infrastructure for coordination and continuity, alongside conventional settlement processes where required.

Industry momentum beyond Swift’s pilot

The Swift-anchored cross-border transaction is occurring as other major institutions pursue tokenized deposit and “real-value” settlement trials.

HSBC previously indicated plans to expand its Tokenised Deposit Service to corporate clients in the US and UAE in the first half of 2026, building on deployments in Hong Kong, Singapore, the UK, and Luxembourg. The service was also launched in the US in April, with coverage for eligible corporate and institutional clients seeking 24/7 domestic and cross-border transfers using tokenized deposits.

Standard Chartered has participated in broader efforts to test tokenized bank money across institutions. In July, it was among 28 financial institutions and central banks involved in the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Agorá, which conducted real-value settlement trials using tokenized commercial bank deposits and central bank reserves across six currencies.

Meanwhile, the US payments landscape is also moving toward connectivity between legacy systems and tokenized rails. The Clearing House has reportedly discussed plans to launch a tokenized deposit network in the first half of 2027, connecting traditional payment networks with digital asset infrastructure for around-the-clock settlement.

Taken together, these efforts point to a broader pattern: rather than treating tokenized deposits as isolated experiments, major players are working toward networks and coordination layers that can make tokenized money function across boundaries—geographic, institutional, and regulatory.

Next, market participants will want to track how quickly the Swift ledger pilot expands beyond initial counterparties, and whether additional banks can complete similar end-to-end workflows with the same level of operational readiness—particularly around reliability, compliance processes, and how netting and orchestration behave as transaction volumes increase.