Japanese Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet’s executive stock pool continues to draw shareholder backlash over stock dilution concerns. 

Multiple shareholders objected across social media to Metaplanet’s 10th Series executive option pool, which was designed as 20% of fully diluted shares and automatically expanded as the company issued new shares to fund its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation.

Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended Metaplanet’s executive stock model, saying that giving the team 20% of the cap table over five years “isn’t some crazy number” and that his company has been invested in Metaplanet since “day zero,” in a Tuesday X post.

Source: David Bailey

Some shareholders are now asking Metaplanet to cancel the additional 273 million shares created from the changes and to provide more transparency on future decisions. Metaplanet said it froze the pool at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18, but critics contend this magnified dilution for existing shareholders, as the pool grew from 46 million shares to 319.5 million.

Pseudonymous Metaplanet shareholder Bitcoin Pharaoh claimed that Bailey personally benefited from Metaplanet’s stock options and received 300,000 options at a 105 Japanese yen strike price, when the stock was trading at 510 yen, as compensation for his role as a strategic board advisor at Metaplanet.

“Set the pool against what the shareholders contributed and the cut is 26% of the bitcoin: of every four coins the shareholders’ money bought, management took one,” wrote Bitcoin Pharaoh in a Wednesday X reply to Bailey.

Related: Metaplanet buys 2,823 BTC, surpasses 43,000 in Bitcoin holdings

Metaplanet CEO addresses MMXX ties 

Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich pledged to review the company’s governance and compensation policies and sought to distance himself from Metaplanet shareholder MMXX Ventures, explaining that he is a significant but non-majority shareholder in MMXX’s parent company and holds no executive role. 

“We are continuing to review our governance and compensation policies and will share any updates when that work is complete,” wrote Gerovich in a Sunday X post.

On Aug. 31, Metaplanet revealed that its CEO exercised 92,000 shares from the 10th Series executive options pool.

VanEck’s head of digital asset research, Matthew Sigel, said that Metaplanet should “freeze” further exercise rights from the 10th Series option pool, have holders voluntarily surrender the excess rights and weigh additional options related to the shares that have already been exercised.

“Finally, replace Series 10 with a shareholder-approved, five-year incentive plan tied primarily to BTC per fully diluted share,” wrote Sigel in a Wednesday X post. 

In an Aug. 18 notice, Metaplanet acknowledged that the decision to expand the share pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders.” 

Cointelegraph has request comment from Metaplanet on whether it would consider freezing the remaining shares in the executive pool.

Metaplanet stock price, five-day chart. Source: Yahoo Finance

Metaplanet’s shares closed up in Wednesday’s Tokyo trading, trimming their five-day decline to roughly 16.3%, according to Yahoo Finance.

Magazine: Bitcoin adoption metrics say one thing, price action says another

With lawmakers in the US Senate set to consider legislation pushed by many in the cryptocurrency industry for regulatory clarity, there’s a limited window for the bill to become law, potentially delaying it into the next session of Congress with different politics in play.

The US Senate is scheduled to return to session on Monday after more than a month in which lawmakers were on state work periods. Senator John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the chamber, has scheduled a cloture vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act for Tuesday, in which his compatriots will need support from a handful of Democrats to meet the 60-vote threshold and overcome a filibuster.

Should the bill fail to advance with a three-fifths supermajority, the Senate will have less than 36 days of business before 2027, when a new session of Congress is scheduled to be sworn in, one where Democrats could be in control, depending on the outcome of November’s midterm elections.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of CLARITY’s biggest supporters, warned on Sept. 6 that the “next real opportunity” for the bill to pass might not be until 2030 if lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement and send it to the president’s desk. She is also not running for reelection in 2026.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 in the Senate are up for grabs in the midterm elections . Event contracts on prediction market platforms currently give Democrats the odds on retaking a majority in the House, while the party’s chances in the Senate are basically a coin flip.

Related: Rushed CLARITY Act vote could set legislation back, Gallego warns

When Republicans took the Senate from Democrats following the 2024 elections, this left the party with a legislative trifecta — control of the Senate, House and the presidency — giving it exceptional influence over passing laws favorable to the crypto industry, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. A reversal of this party control could likewise leave Republicans approaching bills on Democrats’ terms beginning next year.

Crypto money potentially swaying voters in 2026

Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democratic lawmaker who previously chaired the Senate Banking committee, was voted out in 2024 in a race that saw cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake and many others pouring millions of dollars into ads supporting his opponent, Republican Bernie Moreno.

Now, Brown is back, running in a special election against Republican Jon Husted to complete the term won in 2022 by now-Vice President JD Vance.

A PAC like Fairshake, backed by crypto exchange Coinbase and Ripple Labs, is just one way the industry is pushing to get what it calls more “pro-crypto” lawmakers in Congress. Although many candidates, both Democrat and Republican, supported by Fairshake-backed ads, have gone on to win their 2026 primaries, the PAC hasn’t always been successful. 

In March, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Democratic primary for one of the state’s US Senate seats despite being the target of industry-funded attack ads. Many incumbents who have voted in favor of bills like GENIUS or CLARITY while in office have found support from crypto PACs, while challengers or those critical of digital assets are sometimes named in negative ads.

“Rep. Auchincloss voted for the CLARITY ACT, which explains why the crypto industry is heavily supportive of his reelection,” said Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate who ran against Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss in the primary for the state’s 4th congressional district. A Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent about $189,000 on ads supporting Auchincloss. Poulos added:

“The influx of outside crypto industry cash means that these oligarchs have an outsized influence on our representation and federal policies. It is why we need to get big money out of politics […]”

Presidency, regulators unlikely to change before 2029

Whether Democrats retake both chambers of Congress in November, neither, or just one, the result will not change Republican control of the White House until January 2029 and maintaining the power to veto legislation. For example, if the president chooses to veto a Democrat-backed crypto bill, both the House and the Senate would need a two-thirds supermajority vote to override his actions.

In addition, the heads of two of the major financial agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), are unlikely to change while Trump remains in office. The president nominated Paul Atkins to chair the SEC and Michael Selig the CFTC, both of whom have signaled plans to proceed with digital asset regulation if Congress fails to advance CLARITY this year.

Magazine: Is Bitcoin too volatile to risk your retirement on?

Kalshi filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to launch two new perpetual futures contracts. The prediction market plans to list GOLDPERP and SILVERPERP on September 9. Both contracts settle in cash and carry no expiration date.

Gold Perpetual Futures Enter Kalshi’s Lineup

Kalshi submitted its filing under CFTC Regulation 40.2(a). This self-certification path lets exchanges list products without prior agency approval, so Kalshi confirmed compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act directly. No separate review step was required before the listing date.

The gold perpetual contract tracks the spot price of one troy ounce. Traders hold a single position instead of rolling between dated contracts, and Kalshi set the reference price through Pyth Network. Settlement stays entirely in cash, with no physical metal changing hands.

A periodic funding payment keeps the contract price near the spot rate. Kalshi said the structure can cut roll costs and basis risk for hedgers. Fabricators, bullion desks and producers may benefit most from that continuous exposure.

Silver Perpetual Futures Add New Options

The exchange also plans to list a silver perpetual contract on the same day. SILVERPERP tracks the spot price of silver in U.S. dollars, and settlement remains fully in cash. No physical delivery applies to this contract either.

Kalshi cited consecutive annual supply deficits in silver dating back to 2021. It also noted tightness in the market during late 2025 and early 2026. Cash settlement removes any risk of delivery pressure tied to those shortages.

The contract trades continuously, without daily or weekend closures. Kalshi set the schedule wider than its earlier proposal from July, which had suggested a five-day trading week. The final structure instead runs seven days a week, around the clock.

Kalshi Builds on Earlier Crypto Perps Success

Kalshi first launched a Bitcoin perpetual contract in May this year. The CFTC approved it as the first such product in the country. The exchange then expanded to eighteen crypto assets, including Ethereum and XRP.

The company also added contracts tied to Hyperliquid, BNB and Cardano. Kalshi separately sought approval for metals, copper and equity-index products. Gold and silver perps mark the next step in that broader plan.

CME Group has sued the CFTC over how it classifies Kalshi’s Bitcoin perps. The dispute centers on whether the product counts as a future or a swap. Kalshi’s existing gold and silver event contracts remain separate, short-dated products with fixed expiries.

Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty has urged undecided and opposing senators to hear from an estimated 67 million American crypto holders before the CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote procedural test on Sep. 15.

Alderoty asks senators to meet crypto holders

Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty said in a post that he had contacted the offices of senators who either oppose the CLARITY Act or have not decided how they will vote.

With the procedural vote approaching, Alderoty asked those lawmakers to meet “real people with digital assets” and hear how federal crypto rules could affect them. He argued that senators should listen to individual holders rather than limit their discussions to lobbyists, industry executives, and trade groups.

The Ripple executive based his appeal on research from the National Cryptocurrency Association, which estimates that about 67 million people in the United States own cryptocurrency. According to the association’s 2026 survey, around one in four American adults holds some form of digital asset.

Alderoty said the size of the holder population gives individuals a direct stake in legislation that could change how tokens, trading platforms, and other crypto services operate in the United States. His request also adds a retail-focused argument to a lobbying campaign that has largely centered on companies, banks, and Washington policy groups.

Reuters reported on Sep. 9 that Stand With Crypto supporters called or emailed members of Congress nearly 50,000 times during August. The advocacy group also arranged meetings and placed opinion articles in local newspapers as senators spent their recess working from their home states.

Banking organizations have run their own campaign. According to Reuters, the Independent Community Bankers of America has asked local bankers to contact senators over provisions that the group believes could let digital tokens compete with bank deposits and reduce funds available for lending.

CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to open debate

The Senate’s Sep. 15 action will not decide whether the CLARITY Act becomes law. Senators are expected to vote at about 2:15 p.m. ET on cloture for the motion to proceed, a step that would allow the chamber to begin formal debate on the legislation.

Cloture requires support from 60 senators. Republicans hold 53 seats, meaning the bill needs votes from at least seven Democrats or independents, even if every Republican supports moving forward.

Full Republican support is not assured, however. As crypto.news reported on Sep. 8, some members of the party have raised concerns about presidential ethics rules, stablecoin rewards, and the treatment of decentralized finance. Republican defections would increase the number of opposition-party votes needed to cross the threshold.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed before the August recess, according to a recent bill breakdown. The filing placed the vote one day after senators are scheduled to return to Washington, leaving limited time for negotiations before the chamber acts.

If cloture succeeds, senators could debate the bill, propose amendments, and later hold a separate vote on passage. Failure to secure 60 votes would prevent the chamber from taking up the measure under the scheduled process.

The legislation would create a federal market structure for digital assets and divide oversight duties between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its rules would also help determine when a digital asset falls under securities law and when it should be treated as a commodity.

After passing the House by 294 votes to 134 in July 2025, the measure advanced from the Senate Banking Committee in May 2026 by a 15–9 vote. Only two Democrats supported it at the committee stage, according to the earlier report, leaving Senate leaders with a more difficult calculation for the floor vote.

Ethics dispute threatens bipartisan support

Presidential ethics provisions remain one of the main obstacles in the Senate negotiations. Democrats have sought tighter restrictions on digital-asset activities involving the president, senior government officials and their families.

Their concerns have included crypto businesses connected to President Donald Trump and his relatives, including World Liberty Financial and the Official Trump meme coin. Democratic senators have argued that the pending language does not provide enough protection against conflicts of interest, illicit finance, and possible influence over federal policy.

Republican lawmakers have offered competing views on whether enough compromise has already been made. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s main supporters, has blamed Democratic demands for putting the legislation at risk while maintaining that the remaining differences can still be resolved.

Sen. Mike Rounds gave a more cautious assessment, saying the bill’s prospects “don’t look good right now.” Sen. Thom Tillis also warned that the measure would fail if lawmakers and the White House showed no interest in closing the gap over ethics provisions.

Stablecoin rewards have created another dispute. Community banks contend that rewards offered on stablecoin balances could draw deposits away from insured banks, while crypto companies oppose restrictions that would prevent third parties from offering such payments.

Lawmakers have also debated legal protections for decentralized finance software developers. Some senators want stronger safeguards for developers who do not control customer assets, while others have sought rules intended to address money laundering and other illicit financial activity.

US holders face rules shaped by the SEC and CFTC

For American token holders, the bill’s division of authority between the SEC and CFTC could affect how trading platforms list assets and which federal rules apply to their transactions. The legislation would also set requirements for intermediaries operating in the U.S. digital-asset market.

Supporters say a statutory framework would replace part of the uncertainty created when agencies apply existing securities and commodities laws to crypto products. Critics, including several Senate Democrats, have said any framework must include stronger consumer, financial-crime, and ethics protections.

Ripple executives have repeatedly supported congressional action on crypto market structure. Earlier in September, CEO Brad Garlinghouse called for lawmakers to finish the country’s regulatory framework while saying that making the United States a global center for crypto remained “within reach.”

Even if senators approve the motion to proceed and later pass the bill, the legislative process would not be complete. Any Senate text that differs from the House-approved version would need to be reconciled between the two chambers before it could go to the president.

The House is scheduled to have only four legislative days in session after Sep. 15 before another recess, giving lawmakers little time to review and approve any changes adopted by the Senate.

U.S. lawmakers are racing to move the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act through the Senate before congressional politics reset after the 2026 midterms. With the Senate scheduled to return to Washington on Monday, Majority Leader John Thune has set a cloture vote for Tuesday—an immediate procedural test that will determine whether the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

The timetable is tight. If CLARITY fails to advance this session, the chamber would effectively be left with less than 36 business days before the 2027 Congress is sworn in, according to earlier reporting linked in this piece. That creates a high-stakes decision point: either push the bill through now, or risk carrying it into a later Congress where party control—and priorities—may look very different.

Key takeaways

• Senate Majority Leader John Thune has scheduled a cloture vote on the CLARITY Act for Tuesday, requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster.
• If the vote fails, the bill may miss its remaining window and roll into the next Congress, potentially delaying meaningful progress on digital-asset policy.
• Senator Cynthia Lummis, a prominent CLARITY backer, suggested the next realistic opportunity for passage could be years away if lawmakers cannot agree.
• Control of the White House remains Republican until January 2029, meaning any future crypto legislation could still face veto risk.
• Crypto-linked political spending continues to shape competitive races leading into 2026, with campaigns and outcomes potentially influencing the next legislative agenda.

CLARITY faces a narrow procedural deadline

After more than a month of state work periods, the U.S. Senate is set to resume session on Monday. The next step for CLARITY is a cloture vote—scheduled for Tuesday—where Republican support alone may not be enough. Under Senate rules, the bill cannot advance past a filibuster without at least 60 votes, meaning a “yes” coalition will need some Democrats to reach the supermajority.

That procedural math is central to why the current session matters. As noted in earlier coverage referenced in the article, a failed push would reduce the Senate’s remaining effective calendar before the 2027 Congress begins. In practical terms, it turns CLARITY from a policy target into a scheduling challenge: even if lawmakers agree on direction, they still must align on timing, floor strategy, and the votes required to move the legislation forward.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of CLARITY’s best-known advocates, warned on Sept. 6 that the “next real opportunity” for the bill to pass might not come until much later if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement in the near term. She also indicated she is not running for reelection in 2026, underscoring that the political incentives for individual lawmakers could shift as the calendar turns.

Midterm elections could reset the negotiating dynamics

The midterms are a major variable in how quickly—if at all— CLARITY (and other crypto legislation) could proceed. The 2026 election will determine all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats. Event contracts referenced in the article currently suggest Democrats have the odds on retaking the House, while their chances of controlling the Senate are described as close to a coin flip.

This distinction matters because the Senate is often the harder venue for major regulatory legislation to clear. A potential change in chamber control could also change leverage: if Republicans lose their legislative trifecta after the midterms, bills like CLARITY may face a different set of priorities, committee dynamics, and negotiating positions.

The backdrop for this urgency is that Republicans previously captured unified control after the 2024 elections. The article notes that this gave the party significant influence over legislation favored by parts of the crypto industry, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. If political control shifts next year, the balance could move toward Democrats’ preferences instead.

Crypto-backed political spending and competitive races

Beyond Capitol Hill procedural votes, 2026 is also shaping up as a test of how much influence crypto-aligned advocacy and political spending can translate into electoral outcomes. The article points to Senator Sherrod Brown, a former chair of the Senate Banking Committee, describing how his 2024 race involved substantial spending by cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake and others. Brown was voted out in 2024 by Republican Bernie Moreno.

Brown is now back in a special election race, the article says, running against Republican Jon Husted to finish the term won in 2022 by now-Vice President JD Vance. That puts a familiar storyline in play: crypto industry-aligned groups seek to support candidates perceived as more receptive to digital-asset regulation, while opponents sometimes become the target of attack ads.

The article also highlights that industry-aligned spending does not always guarantee victory. It cites an example from March, when Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won a Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat despite being the target of attack ads funded by industry-linked interests.

In Massachusetts, the article references commentary by Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate who previously ran against Rep. Jake Auchincloss in a primary for the state’s 4th congressional district. Poulos attributed Auchincloss’s reelection support among crypto-industry groups to his prior vote on CLARITY, while also noting that a Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent about $189,000 on ads supporting Auchincloss.

“The influx of outside crypto industry cash means that these oligarchs have an outsized influence on our representation and federal policies. It is why we need to get big money out of politics […]”

Whether one agrees with that critique or not, the practical takeaway for traders and investors is that legislative timelines are tied to electoral incentives. As these races settle, the coalitions needed for future regulatory bills could either consolidate or fragment.

Presidency and regulators likely keep the pressure on timing

Even if Democrats were to retake one or both chambers in November—or if they fail to win either—one constant remains: Republican control of the White House is scheduled to persist until January 2029. The article explains that this continuation keeps veto power on the table. It also notes that overriding a veto would require a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers, a high bar for major regulatory legislation.

Regulatory leadership adds another layer. The article says the heads of key U.S. financial agencies—specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—are unlikely to change while Trump remains in office. It further states that President Trump nominated Paul Atkins to chair the SEC and Michael Selig for the CFTC, both of whom have indicated plans to proceed with digital-asset regulation even if Congress does not advance CLARITY this year.

That combination—an enduring executive branch, potential gridlock risk, and regulators signaling continued action—helps explain why CLARITY is being treated as a narrow opportunity rather than a flexible target. Investors often assume regulatory clarity follows legislation, but this story highlights how the absence of congressional momentum can shift the center of gravity toward executive and agency rulemaking.

What to watch next

All eyes are on Tuesday’s cloture vote: whether the CLARITY Act can reach 60 votes will largely determine if lawmakers can lock in statutory clarity during this session or whether the bill becomes a casualty of election-year arithmetic. After the vote, the next question is how quickly—if at all— both parties can align on a path forward, especially given the uncertain control landscape after the 2026 midterms.

The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and Blockchain Association (BA) are seeking to block Illinois from enforcing a 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency transactions before it takes effect in January 2027.

The trade groups said Wednesday that they have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois to protect digital asset firms from suffering irreparable harm.

“Companies are being asked to spend millions to build systems for a tax that violates their constitutional rights without answers to basic questions about what is taxed and when, all under the threat of criminal penalties,” said Ji Hun Kim, CCI CEO, in a statement. “These costs are being borne right now, against a Jan. 1 deadline, forcing companies to divert key resources and employees to a clearly unlawful tax.”

The two groups last month filed a lawsuit challenging Illinois’ digital asset tax on the grounds it violated the US Constitution, the state’s constitution, federal and state due process laws and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the measure into law as a “privilege tax” in June as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget, requiring crypto users to be taxed as applied to transaction volume rather than income. Another trade group, the Digital Chamber, filed a similar suit days earlier.

The Midwestern state was the first in the nation to single out crypto transactions.

“The state loses very little by waiting. Everyone else loses a great deal by forging ahead. And if this Act stands, Illinois will not be the last state to try it,” said Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association.

Separately, Illinois is also targeting prediction markets. Kalshi’s has filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials over a law that went into effect on July 1 that “expressly bans sports event contracts,” which the company said is in violation of federal law by requiring state licensing.

Separately, Pritzker signed an executive order banning state employees from betting on the platforms in April in an effort to ”prevent insider trading amid the rapid growth of online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts.”

Magazine: Crypto industry ties were a liability in Illinois primary

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.