The UK Financial Conduct Authority has considered exempting certain tokenized gold products from existing fund rules as regulators examine how digital bullion could be used more easily across London’s wholesale financial markets.

The Financial Conduct Authority will set out the potential changes on Monday as part of work with the Treasury and Bank of England on whether tokenized gold, or tokenized commodities more generally, need a dedicated regulatory framework.

One option under consideration is a targeted exemption from rules covering collective investment schemes and alternative investment funds. No decision has been made, and FCA officials have said the regulator remains open to different approaches.

Tokenized gold represents ownership rights over physical bullion held by an issuer or custodian. The digital tokens can then be transferred between investors while the underlying gold remains in storage.

Industry participants have told the FCA that uncertainty over whether such products fall within the collective investment scheme, or CIS, and alternative investment fund, or AIF, frameworks could restrict which investors can access them.

FCA could exempt tokenized gold from fund rules

The regulator plans to work with the Treasury to assess whether certain tokenized gold products or related market infrastructure should receive a specific exemption from the CIS and AIF regulatory perimeter.

The proposal builds on discussions that were already taking place between regulators and financial institutions. In August, crypto.news previously reported that the FCA was discussing tokenized gold standards with major banks and other market participants, including potential uses for digital bullion as collateral.

Jon Relleen, the FCA’s director of infrastructure and exchanges, said tokenized gold had emerged as an area of interest during the regulator’s discussions with the industry.

“We’re keen to understand whether existing regulatory frameworks remain the right fit for gold markets and how innovation could strengthen the efficiency and competitiveness of UK markets,” Relleen said.

The FCA sees a potential role for tokenization in making gold easier to divide and transfer through digital markets. Unlike shares and debt securities, which already move through established electronic infrastructure, bullion remains a physical asset with operational requirements around storage, custody and transfers.

London holds a dominant position in the international bullion market. The UK accounts for around 70% of global gold trading volumes, according to the World Gold Council, while China has been working to strengthen its own position as a bullion trading center.

Tokenized gold products have already developed outside the UK’s proposed framework. The global market includes products such as Tether Gold and Pax Gold, which issue blockchain-based tokens backed by physical bullion. The two products had a combined market capitalization of roughly $4.4 billion in July.

Regulatory treatment differs between jurisdictions and products. Under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, gold-backed tokens fall within the asset-referenced token category, although no asset-referenced token had received approval under that regime as of July.

Tokenized gold could unlock bullion for collateral

UK regulators are looking beyond trading access and examining whether tokenized bullion could make physical gold easier to use as collateral in financial transactions.

The FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority had previously identified tokenized gold as a possible collateral asset for uncleared over-the-counter derivatives. Regulators have been working with the industry on standards governing how tokenized collateral could operate within existing financial rules.

Gold-backed tokens are already being used for collateral in parts of the digital asset market. By late August, Aave’s $25 million debt ceiling for borrowing against Tether Gold had been fully used, while Arch Lending had started accepting tokenized gold through PAXG and XAUT for loans at loan-to-value ratios of up to 75%.

The FCA’s planned reforms would focus on the UK wholesale market and its existing bullion infrastructure, where large physical gold reserves are held in London.

Regulators believe tokenization could make some of those reserves easier to divide and transfer digitally, potentially allowing bullion to move through collateral arrangements without requiring the same operational processes involved in transferring physical bars.

The planned consultation forms part of the UK’s work on tokenizing wholesale financial markets, including securities, collateral and settlement infrastructure.

Bank of England considers tokenized assets as collateral

The Bank of England and FCA are expected to publish a separate paper on Monday setting out industry feedback on the use of tokenization in wholesale markets.

Market participants identified post-trade processes such as clearing and settlement as one of the main areas where tokenization could free capital and collateral, according to the regulators.

Recent research cited by the authorities found that U.S. market participants held an average of 7% more collateral than required as an extra safety buffer. Industry participants told UK regulators that digital infrastructure could reduce some of the operational constraints that contribute to excess collateral being held.

Work on that infrastructure has been underway for several months. The FCA and Bank of England opened a joint consultation in May covering tokenized securities, collateral, settlement tools and wholesale market infrastructure.

Sixteen firms were participating in the UK Digital Securities Sandbox at the time, with regulators examining longer operating hours and eventually settlement infrastructure capable of functioning close to around the clock.

The Bank of England is now considering whether tokenized assets, including stablecoins, could qualify as collateral under its Sterling Monetary Framework, through which it provides liquidity to financial institutions.

The central bank plans to consult later this year on whether central counterparty clearing houses should be allowed to accept tokenized assets as collateral.

UK moves more wholesale assets onto digital infrastructure

Collateral reform is developing alongside other UK tokenization projects involving government debt and payments.

The government selected HSBC’s Orion platform in July for its first digital sovereign bond, with the initial Digital Gilt Instrument targeted for issuance by the end of the first quarter of 2027.

The instrument is expected to operate inside the FCA and Bank of England’s Digital Securities Sandbox. The government has said further digital gilt sales could follow the first transaction if the initial issuance progresses as planned.

UK authorities have been examining tokenized money alongside securities. Bank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden said in May that the country’s future payment infrastructure could accommodate tokenized bank deposits, regulated stablecoins and potentially a digital pound.

The central bank has since continued testing how different forms of digital money could interact with existing financial infrastructure while maintaining settlement in central bank money.

For tokenized gold, the immediate regulatory question remains whether existing fund rules should apply to digital representations of bullion in the same way they apply to investment structures covered by the CIS and AIF frameworks.

The FCA will present its proposals on Monday, while any targeted exemption would require further work with the Treasury before changes to the regulatory perimeter could be introduced.

Metaplanet has approved a wholly owned Hong Kong subsidiary with $1 million in planned capital to manage Bitcoin-linked investments during Asian market hours.

Metaplanet said in a Sept. 11 disclosure that its board had authorized the creation of Metaplanet Asset Management Asia Limited. The company expects to incorporate the business in Hong Kong during September 2026.

The planned operation will invest client funds and Metaplanet’s own capital across Bitcoin, listed equities, preferred securities, credit products and other liquid instruments. Directors Simon Gerovich, Darren Winia and Kelvin Lee will oversee the new company.

Metaplanet described the subsidiary as an operating platform within Project Nova, its plan to develop financial services tied to Bitcoin. The company expects the unit to handle trading, position monitoring and risk controls when U.S. markets are closed.

Metaplanet’s Hong Kong unit will cover Asian hours

Based in Hong Kong, the subsidiary will execute purchases and sales for assets managed by Metaplanet’s investment businesses. Its planned duties include monitoring market conditions and managing positions during the Asian trading day.

The company said its structure would support investment coverage across Asia, the U.S. and Europe. Metaplanet Asset Management Asia will work with the group’s Miami operation, Metaplanet Asset Management, which was established in March 2026.

Miami serves as the group’s central institutional investment hub, while Hong Kong will provide execution and operational support from Asia. Metaplanet described the arrangement as infrastructure for its planned financial-services platform, not a separate change in corporate strategy.

An English reproduction of the company’s filing lists an initial capital contribution of $1 million. Metaplanet will own 100% of the subsidiary.

The disclosure did not provide a launch date for client services, identify initial assets under management or name outside investors. It did not announce that the Hong Kong operation had started managing customer money.

Project Nova turns Bitcoin into a financial-services base

Project Nova covers Metaplanet’s efforts to build securities, asset-management and capital-markets businesses around its Bitcoin treasury. The strategy includes credit products, preferred securities and investment structures connected to Bitcoin-focused companies.

During June, Metaplanet agreed to acquire Japanese brokerage Siiibo Securities for 2.1 billion yen. As crypto.news reported, the acquisition gave Metaplanet a licensed Japanese securities platform capable of distributing investment products.

Metaplanet completed the transaction in July and renamed the business Metaplanet Securities. The brokerage holds a Type I Financial Instruments Business registration in Japan, according to company documents cited in the report.

Working with JPYC and tokenization company Progmat, the group began studying Bitcoin-backed digital credit products. In related coverage, the companies said no product launch or commercial terms had been decided.

Possible structures include digital corporate bonds, security tokens and credit instruments supported by Bitcoin collateral. The participants said future products would require technical reviews, internal approvals and discussions with the relevant authorities.

The Hong Kong filing identifies several possible investment categories, including Bitcoin-related perpetual preferred securities, derivatives and structured-product income strategies. Equity and credit investments involving corporate Bitcoin holders could fall within the unit’s mandate.

No specific fund, preferred security or credit product was announced with the subsidiary. Any planned investment remains subject to the operational and regulatory requirements applying to the relevant product and jurisdiction.

Miami and Hong Kong divide Metaplanet operations

Metaplanet’s Miami business provides the U.S. side of its institutional investment framework. The Hong Kong company is designed to continue execution, monitoring and risk-management work as Asian markets open.

A separate U.S. transaction announced in August would place 2,100 BTC and $2.5 million into Nasdaq-listed Super League Enterprise. As previously reported, Metaplanet expects to secure a 95.7% stake before accounting for certain existing warrants.

Super League plans to change its name to Superplanet and has proposed the Nasdaq ticker SUPA. Metaplanet would appoint five members of the nine-person board under the announced transaction.

The proposed U.S. company would receive 2,100 BTC at closing and could use the assets to support future financing. Any preferred-share issuance would depend on decisions made after the transaction closes, the companies said.

Gerovich described Superplanet as Metaplanet’s route into U.S. capital markets. The agreement includes a five-year lockup covering common shares issued to Metaplanet through the initial transaction, warrant exercises or preferred-stock conversions.

Metaplanet reported 43,000 BTC in its treasury after buying 2,823 BTC during the second quarter. Gerovich later said the balance remained unchanged following transfers between company-controlled custodial addresses.

Crypto.news reported that 5,014 BTC moved between Metaplanet custodial addresses in August. Gerovich said, “No bitcoin was sold, and our holdings remain 43,000 BTC.”

Incorporation and regulatory steps remain ahead

Metaplanet plans to incorporate the Hong Kong subsidiary before the end of September. The filing did not disclose when trading operations would begin or whether the unit had hired employees beyond its three initial directors.

No Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission license was identified in the announcement. The disclosure did not specify whether the planned activities would operate under a local license, an exemption or another regulated group entity.

Metaplanet said the new subsidiary “is expected to have a minimal impact” on its consolidated results for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2026. The statement remains a management forecast, and the company said it would disclose any material financial effect if one emerges.

The board’s decision came as Metaplanet continued building separate financial operations in Japan and the U.S. It  disclosure archive lists the Hong Kong notice alongside recent announcements covering Bitcoin investments, securities operations and changes to its capital structure.

Senate Democrats have met to assess a final 635-page Republican CLARITY Act proposal before a Sept. 15 procedural vote requiring 60 senators to begin debate.

Politico reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer convened the Democratic caucus on Sunday evening after Republicans released the revised text. No Democratic leader had announced the caucus’s position on the motion as of Sept. 14.

Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis released the proposal with Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman. Their statement called the draft the product of more than one year of negotiations and said it incorporated 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats.

A Republican aide described the proposal to Politico as the party’s “last, best and final” offer before Tuesday’s vote. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, so at least seven members of the Democratic caucus must support cloture if every Republican votes yes.

CLARITY Act ethics text puts pressure on Democrats

Government ethics rules have remained the main obstacle in negotiations. Democratic senators have sought restrictions addressing the ability of elected officials and their families to profit from digital assets while influencing federal policy.

Republican sponsors said President Donald Trump accepted provisions based on “substantially all” of an ethics proposal developed by Sens. Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego. The sponsors said the rules would cover federally elected officials, federal judges and their spouses.

Eleanor Terrett reported that the proposal would require covered officials to divest certain “substantial” crypto-related financial interests or place them in a blind trust. Her account attributed the description to a Republican aide familiar with the negotiations.

The revised enforcement structure gives state attorneys general a role after earlier drafts concentrated authority within the federal government. Politico reported that state officials could pursue action involving the Justice Department or crypto exchanges when they believe the restrictions are not being enforced.

Lummis said Trump had voluntarily agreed to the new provisions. Her claim that the text creates some of the toughest ethics restrictions in U.S. history represents the sponsors’ assessment and has not been endorsed by Democratic negotiators.

Democrats must now decide whether the revised language adequately addresses their concerns about Trump-linked digital asset businesses. Incorporating requested amendments does not bind the senators who proposed them to support the entire bill.

Stablecoin circuit breaker targets deposit flight

The final draft gives the Treasury secretary new authority to respond to deposit movements linked to payment stablecoins. Sponsors described the provision as a circuit breaker intended to protect community banks if stablecoin products draw deposits away from insured institutions.

Banking groups have argued that stablecoin rewards can function like interest-bearing accounts and compete directly with bank deposits. Crypto companies maintain that overly broad restrictions could prevent platforms from providing lawful customer incentives that do not originate from stablecoin issuers.

The new language would allow federal intervention when authorities find evidence of widespread deposit flight. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent would hold the central decision-making role under the reported proposal.

As previously reported, the Sept. 15 Senate test will open debate without approving the bill. The stablecoin provision may still face amendments if senators agree to proceed.

The measure follows the GENIUS Act’s federal rules for payment stablecoin issuers. CLARITY addresses a separate question by setting rules for digital asset trading markets and dividing authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Developer protections lose their criminal safe harbor

The revised Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language would shield qualifying software developers from federal money-transmission registration requirements. Republican sponsors said the text creates a civil safe harbor for developers who do not control customer funds.

Terrett reported that negotiators narrowed the provision to Bank Secrecy Act requirements and civil enforcement. Earlier language expressly extending protection to criminal cases, including prosecutions under Section 1960, was removed from the final offer.

Section 1960 covers unlicensed money-transmitting businesses. Its removal means the revised developer language does not provide the explicit criminal protection contained in previous versions, according to Terrett’s description of the changes.

The Agriculture Committee section places new limits on affiliate trading and conflicts involving digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. It clarifies that state consumer-protection laws continue to apply to activities covered by the measure.

Developer protections in the agriculture section would not create exemptions from derivatives law or change the CFTC’s existing authority over prediction markets. Those clarifications respond to concerns that software protections could unintentionally reach regulated derivatives activity.

The full proposal would establish registration paths for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. It would give the CFTC authority over covered spot digital commodity markets while preserving SEC jurisdiction over securities and investment contracts.

Tuesday’s vote only decides whether debate begins

Senate Majority Leader John Thune scheduled cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 for 2:15 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 15. The motion generally requires 60 votes under Senate rules.

Crypto.news previously reported that Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes if their conference remains united. The required number would rise if Republican senators oppose the motion or miss the vote.

If cloture succeeds, Lummis, Boozman and Scott plan to offer the 635-page text as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment would replace the text currently attached to the House-passed legislative vehicle.

Senators could then debate the proposal and consider further amendments. Passage would require another set of procedural and final votes, while any changes from the House version would require the House to accept the Senate text or negotiate a common bill.

The House passed its CLARITY Act version by 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its portion by 15-9 in May 2026, when Democratic Sens. Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joined Republicans.

Committee support did not guarantee votes for the combined floor text. The final version now includes the Banking Committee framework, Agriculture Committee provisions, the revised ethics title, stablecoin language and developer protections.

If Tuesday’s motion fails, Senate leaders may reconsider it or negotiate another version. Senate rules do not automatically send the measure back to committee, and a failed cloture vote would not enact or reject the underlying regulatory provisions. The first recorded vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. Eastern. If 60 senators support cloture, the final Republican text will be offered as the substitute amendment during floor consideration.

US Senate Republicans released revised text of the CLARITY Act ahead of a Tuesday procedural vote that will determine whether the bill can move toward floor consideration. The updated proposal, described by its sponsors as a “final offer” following months of negotiations, spans 635 pages and includes notable changes to how federal ethics rules would apply to public officials and their digital-asset holdings.

The revised bill text also adjusts related frameworks, including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) and provisions addressing stablecoin “yield” mechanics. Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis released the draft with Senate Banking Chairs John Boozman and Tim Scott, and said the ethics provisions were agreed to by President Donald Trump.

Key takeaways

• The final CLARITY Act draft strengthens ethics restrictions around federal officials’ significant digital-asset interests, with potential civil penalties for violations.
• State attorneys general would gain enforcement authority tied to prohibitions on officials issuing, sponsoring, or holding significant interests, plus on exchanges listing assets in violation of those rules.
• Stablecoin reward restrictions would be tied to deposit-loss findings involving community banks, with an 18-month sunset for that authority.
• The revised BRCA expands protections beyond prior scope by extending treatment exemptions to miners and validators, while removing references to an unlicensed money transmitter provision.

Tuesday procedural vote sets the pace

Senate Republicans plan to test the CLARITY Act in a procedural vote Tuesday at 2:15pm ET. The vote is designed to establish whether the measure can advance toward potential floor debate. A Republican aide characterized the revised text as a final offer aimed at winning broader Democratic support, signaling that the party expects this version to carry the negotiations over the finish line.

Lummis said the bill’s final text reflects a year of intense, bipartisan work and that 126 changes were made at Democrats’ request. She framed the revisions as ready for Senate consideration, emphasizing the ethics package as a major bargaining point. In her remarks, Lummis said President Trump “voluntarily agreed” to what she described as sweeping ethics restrictions affecting federally elected officials, judges, and their spouses.

Ethics provisions broaden enforcement and add clearer divestment rules

The most prominent changes involve the ethics framework. The revised ethics rules would allow state attorneys general to enforce prohibitions on covered federal officials who issue, sponsor, or hold significant financial interests in digital assets. The draft would also authorize state-level enforcement actions related to exchanges that list assets in violation of those prohibitions.

Covered individuals would be required to divest significant financial interests or place them into a qualified blind trust. The bill specifies penalties for violations: $500,000 or 20% of the amount received in the prohibited transaction, whichever is greater.

According to the revised text, the ethics provisions would generally take effect 360 days after enactment. The bill also allows for earlier implementation if implementing regulations are finalized sooner, which could accelerate compliance obligations for relevant officials and market actors tied to the rules.

The breadth of enforcement—particularly the involvement of state attorneys general and the link to exchange listing behavior—could raise practical questions for exchanges and compliance teams if the measure becomes law. Traders may also watch how regulators define “significant” interests and the operational steps required for public officials and their spouses.

The sponsors’ announcement ties the ethics package to negotiated language they say was agreed at the White House level.

Stablecoin yield restrictions hinge on deposit-loss findings

On stablecoins, the revised bill would require the Treasury Secretary to introduce rules aimed at restricting rewards if Treasury determines that community banks are losing deposits on a substantial scale. The authority would not last indefinitely: it would expire 18 months after the bill becomes law.

This structure suggests Congress is attempting to address potential stablecoin “yield” incentives that could affect bank deposits—while limiting how long the special regulatory lever remains available. The key uncertainty for market participants will be what Treasury considers a “substantial” deposit loss and how Treasury will measure it in practice.

BRCA updates expand exemptions and adjust references

The revised BRCA retains protections aimed at preventing digital-asset developers from being treated as money transmitters or financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. The revision also extends the protections to miners and validators, which were previously excluded.

In addition to expanding who receives the BRCA-style safeguards, the revised text would remove references to Section 1960 of Title 18 of the US Code, which concerns prohibitions on unlicensed money transmitting businesses.

Other revisions in the updated draft would strengthen safeguards around affiliate trading and conflicts of interest at digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers. The bill also clarifies how consumer protection laws apply, signaling an effort to reduce ambiguity around enforcement and market conduct expectations.

These adjustments may matter for builders and network participants because they attempt to narrow the circumstances under which certain parties could face money-transmitter or financial-institution frameworks. Extending protections to miners and validators could reduce regulatory uncertainty for parts of network infrastructure that are often overlooked in traditional compliance debates.

Market odds reflect renewed attention, but the vote is still pending

While the procedural vote has not yet occurred, market-style betting odds have shifted. Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year reached 35% on Monday, according to the Polymarket event page, and were described as the highest since late July.

Still, odds trading is not a substitute for Senate arithmetic. What matters most for investors and developers is whether Tuesday’s procedural step clears and whether the Senate can coalesce around the revised ethics and regulatory provisions without further changes.

All eyes will be on the exact mechanics of enforcement—especially how “significant” holdings are defined, how blind trusts are handled, and what Treasury ultimately uses as the threshold for stablecoin reward restrictions. Even with a “final offer” framing, the outcome of the procedural vote will determine how soon stakeholders can plan around a clearer regulatory pathway.

House tax writers have reportedly scheduled a Sept. 16 review of two bills that could change how U.S. miners, stakers and traders calculate federal taxes.

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to consider H.R. 9175 and H.R. 9172 on Wednesday. The committee’s public calendar had not posted a markup notice as of Sept. 14, leaving the meeting time and final bill list unconfirmed in official records.

The introduced bills address separate parts of the tax code. H.R. 9175 would create an optional income-deferral system for qualifying mining and staking rewards. H.R. 9172 would apply existing wash-sale and constructive-sale restrictions to covered digital assets.

A committee markup would allow lawmakers to debate, amend and vote on the legislation. Reports that Republicans may remove the mining deferral or limit it to five years have not been confirmed through a published committee amendment or substitute text.

Reported crypto tax markup remains off the calendar

Representatives Mike Carey and Jodey Arrington introduced the two bills on June 8. The Congressional Record confirms that both measures were referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

One day later, the committee held a legislative hearing covering those proposals and several other digital-asset tax measures. Witnesses included representatives from Fidelity, Coinbase and Coin Center, along with an NYU Tax Law Center official.

Committee Chairman Jason Smith presented the package as an attempt to give taxpayers clearer rules for digital assets. His statement argued that the existing framework had not kept pace with new financial technology. Such comments represent the committee majority’s policy position.

No official Sept. 16 notice appeared on the committee’s full committee page by Monday morning. Without a notice, the publicly available record does not confirm which measures will receive votes or what amendments members may offer.

The lack of a posted notice does not prove that the meeting will be canceled. It means the reported schedule remains provisional until the committee releases an agenda or another official announcement.

Mining tax bill offers an elective deferral

The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act, H.R. 9175, would establish two possible tax treatments for qualifying newly created tokens.

Under the bill’s default rule, a taxpayer would include the token’s fair market value in ordinary income when acquiring it through mining, staking or another qualifying validation process. The recognized amount would become the taxpayer’s basis in the asset.

Eligible taxpayers could elect to postpone recognition for qualifying tokens received during the elected tax year. The election would continue in later years unless the taxpayer obtained Treasury approval to revoke it.

When an elected token was sold or otherwise disposed of, the taxpayer would recognize the deferred gain. The bill classifies that gain as arising from property that is not a capital asset, producing ordinary tax treatment under the proposed language. Certain acquisition costs would be capitalized while the election remained effective.

Current IRS guidance generally treats mining and staking rewards as ordinary income when taxpayers gain control of them. As crypto.news explained in its guide to IRS crypto tax rules in 2026, later disposals can generate a separate capital gain or loss based on the asset’s changed value.

H.R. 9175 would not make every token or taxpayer eligible. The introduced text contains restrictions involving controlled foreign corporations, passive foreign investment companies and several foreign ownership structures. It contains sourcing rules based partly on a taxpayer’s residence when the asset is acquired or disposed of.

Reports indicate that Republican lawmakers have discussed removing the deferral election or allowing it for only five years. Neither option appears in the introduced text, and no official amendment confirming either change had been published as of Sept. 14.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the introduced bill would reduce federal revenue by $2.956 billion between fiscal years 2026 and 2036.

Wash-sale bill targets rapid crypto repurchases

The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act, H.R. 9172, would expand two rules currently associated mainly with stocks and securities. Section 1091 of the tax code generally disallows an immediate loss deduction when a taxpayer sells stock or securities and acquires substantially identical property within 30 days before or after the sale. The disallowed loss normally adjusts the basis of the replacement property instead of disappearing permanently.

H.R. 9172 would replace references to “stock or securities” with a new category of “specified assets.” Covered property would include most digital assets and certain contracts or options connected to them. Tokenized or wrapped products could qualify as substantially identical to economically equivalent underlying assets. The Treasury Department would receive regulatory authority covering contracts and other arrangements linked to specified assets.

Qualified U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins would be excluded if they met the bill’s statutory requirements. The definition relies on permitted payment stablecoin issuers recognized under federal law. A dollar stablecoin may not qualify for the exclusion when the taxpayer uses another functional currency.

Certain tokens received through mining, staking or comparable validation activity receive a narrower exception. The introduced language addresses particular acquisitions within the wash-sale calculation; it does not remove all mined or staked tokens from every part of the bill.

The measure would separately extend constructive-sale rules under Section 1259 to digital assets. Existing constructive-sale rules can require recognition when transactions offset an appreciated position so completely that the taxpayer has effectively removed the economic exposure without formally selling the asset.

Crypto.news has previously reported that the statutory wash-sale rule does not currently cover cryptocurrency, allowing traders to sell a token at a loss and repurchase it without the same restriction that applies to covered securities.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 9172 would raise $2.074 billion over fiscal years 2026 through 2036. Earlier Treasury estimates cited for digital-asset wash-sale legislation covered different proposals and should not be treated as the official score for H.R. 9172.

Committee passage would begin another legislative stage

If the reported markup proceeds, committee members could approve the introduced bills, reject them or replace portions through amendments. The five-year mining deferral mentioned in press reports would require a formal amendment before becoming part of the legislation.

A favorable committee vote would permit the measures to be reported to the full House. Approval would not guarantee floor consideration because House leaders control the schedule, and no floor date has been announced. Any bill passed by the House would then require Senate approval. Differences between House and Senate versions would need to be resolved before identical legislation could reach the president.

The committee could combine the measures with other tax legislation during markup or at a later stage. Congress often moves tax provisions through larger packages, but no official document currently shows that either crypto proposal will be attached to another bill.

However, Until new committee text appears, the June versions remain the only verified legislative language. The committee had not published a chairman’s amendment, substitute text, meeting time or voting agenda for the reported Sept. 16 markup as of Sept. 14.