The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act was always doomed to fail.

The bill faced an uphill battle from launch; numerous political, policy and social factors would have needed to fall into place for it to succeed. In the end, a variety of issues combined to continually decrease the odds of its passage over the past year. Ultimately, the bill saw bipartisan opposition when it hit the Senate floor for a key make-or-break procedural vote earlier this month, and its future is now in limbo.

There had been warning signs for months.

According to interviews conducted with more than a dozen industry participants and legislative aides over the past 10 days — some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity so they could talk candidly about this fraught process — a confluence of factors killed the Clarity Act.

The Senate ignored the House of Representatives’ own Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which had passed with a massive bipartisan vote; the Senate version was constructed in a piecemeal fashion; U.S. President Donald Trump and his White House complicated the negotiations; the crypto industry conducted a scattershot engagement with lawmakers throughout the process; Democrats rejected an ethics deal they felt fell short of their demands; and time was not on lawmakers’ side as they headed into a midterm election.

The result is that, despite a massive campaign and lobbying operation that resulted in “the most pro-crypto Congress in history” after the 2024 election and the passage of a key stablecoin bill last year, the crypto industry’s top priority for legislation — market structure reform — remains out of reach.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act was aimed at clearly defining how the industry’s two main regulators, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, would oversee the roughly $3 trillion and growing crypto sector. While last year’s Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS) outlined how federal regulators should oversee stablecoins specifically, this broader market structure bill has long been desired by the industry for a few reasons.

For one thing, crypto spot markets currently exist in a sort of federal regulatory gray zone. The CFTC does not have spot market authority over these markets outside of outright fraud and related derivatives products. For another, the SEC had never previously issued formal rulemakings outlining how it would oversee crypto-related securities products, and many leaders in the sector were panicked by former Chair Gary Gensler’s effort to corral crypto spot trading platforms into an existing securities regulation framework. There is also no explicit authority delineating where the SEC’s authority ends and the CFTC’s authority begins.

In the absence of this legislation, the agencies began to lay out how they view the crypto markets in joint advisories published earlier this year, but a crypto market structure bill could sort out all of these issues in a much more legally tangible — not to mention durable — way.

The ethics provision

It’s difficult to say whether the Clarity Act vote failed solely due to the controversial section that sought to limit senior government officials — namely, Trump — from personal crypto ties, but ethics concerns hung over the bill throughout its conception and development and remain one of the dominant talking points around this entire debate.

Democrat concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto business ties stretch back to 2025. In May of last year, Sen. Ruben Gallego and eight other Democrats said they would not vote for the GENIUS Act because of how Trump was profiting off the sector. Ultimately, those lawmakers did vote for the bill with marginal changes, but it was always clear that the Trump family’s crypto dealings — which include World Liberty Financial, the $TRUMP memecoin and mining firm American Bitcoin — would weigh on future market structure discussions. At the time, Trump told “Meet the Press” that he was “not profiting from anything … I want crypto because a lot of people, you know millions of people want it.” More recently, in his June financial disclosure, he admitted to making $1.4 billion from his various crypto ventures during his first year back in office — more than half of the $2.2 billion total he raked in in 2025.

The goal for Democrats was to restrain Trump from so blatantly profiting off of the crypto sector, which had in turn poured millions into the president’s 2024 campaign, inaugural balls, a ballroom to replace the demolished White House East Wing, a military parade and his political action committee.

While the goal of the ethics provision has been described as generically applying to all present and future presidents and senior government officials, it’s specifically Trump’s crypto business ties that have alarmed Democrats. These concerns have been consistent since Trump’s return to office last year, multiple people said, with one person saying the Democrats writ large “actually care about this stuff.”

The crypto industry should not have been surprised by the conviction Democrats had on the ethics piece, this person said.

In May, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a longtime crypto champion who has cosponsored multiple bills addressing the sector, told CoinDesk’s Consensus 2026 attendees that the bill would not advance without an ethics provision. Similarly, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, who voted for the bill during a hearing in the Senate Banking Committee, said at the time that she would not vote for further advancement without additional work.

Even industry participants expected a clear deal on the ethics provision before a floor vote — so-called because it takes place on the Senate floor, with all 100 senators expected to participate. Cody Carbone, head of the Digital Chamber, told reporters after the Banking Committee advanced the bill in May that he expected “the deal will be completed before this goes to the floor, because they’ll want to only bring it to the floor if they feel confident they’ve got 60” votes.

Lawmakers from the two parties ultimately did not agree to any such deal. The White House and Senate Republicans published a few proposals; Senate Democrats sent counteroffers; and Sens. Thom Tillis and Gallego even pitched a bipartisan counterproposal earlier in the year. The three parties were unable to reach a consensus agreement prior to this month’s floor vote.

Multiple people pointed to Trump’s June financial disclosure as the event that really supercharged these concerns by giving politicians an easy-to-grasp headline figure in their push to force Trump to sell off his crypto holdings.

Those concerns only strengthened as the November election drew nearer.

“I think politics was very clearly elevated over policy,” said Stu Alderoty, the chief legal officer at Ripple Labs. “It was good policy, and the industry needs to get better at politics.”

Ron Hammond, the head of policy and advocacy at Wintermute, pointed to the fact that both Gallego and Alsobrooks ultimately voted against the bill on the floor as a sign of just how near the election is, and how that’s overshadowing everything else. Still others noted that Gillibrand, likewise, had voted against the procedural motion. Even sympathetic Democrats couldn’t risk being seen as soft on Trump’s corruption with an election around the corner.

Speaking at CoinDesk’s Policy & Regulation event last week, Rep. Ritchie Torres put the blame on Trump’s crypto activity.

“My personal opinion … even though the failure of Clarity had multiple causes, I am convinced that if it were not for Donald Trump, we likely could have seen both Democrats and Republicans get to yes,” he said. “Once the president issued his personal memecoin, that created a political problem for Democrats.”

Coinbase and the January delay

The industry’s involvement in the legislative process has also been under scrutiny. Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that industry insiders laid some portion of the blame for the failed vote on Coinbase and its CEO Brian Armstrong, after Armstrong publicly withdrew support for the Senate Banking Committee’s version of the bill ahead of a key vote in January.

One of the key issues, Armstrong said, was that the version of the bill was problematic with how it treated stablecoin yield and rewards. The delay kicked off a months-long fight between the crypto and banking industries, while lawmakers sought to find a compromise. It’s not clear that other outstanding issues were debated much during the yield fight.

Industry figures and Sen. Cynthia Lummis rallied to Coinbase’s defense after the Journal’s report came out, but industry participants told CoinDesk they saw Armstrong’s tweet and the subsequent months-long fight over stablecoin yield and rewards as being harmful to the overall cause of getting Clarity passed.

One individual involved in crypto lobbying said if the ethics proposal released earlier this month had come out in the spring, it would have likely raised the odds of a successful vote.

Alderoty, the Ripple CLO, said in a phone call that there was “an opportunity in January” without the midterms to make further progress.

“The January timeframe would have given more airspace for negotiations without the midterms breathing down their necks,” Alderoty said.

Charley Cooper, the president and COO at Ava Labs, similarly told CoinDesk that the fact that the floor vote was held less than two months prior to election day made it difficult to see success.

The crypto industry felt a renewed sense of optimism after an ethics proposal was published earlier this month, which raised hopes that the overall bill could pass, he said. But, “we’re six weeks before election day in a heated midterm with a very divided electorate, very partisan fighting going on.”

To be clear: Nobody guaranteed that an earlier vote would have been successful. Many of the individuals who spoke to CoinDesk praised Armstrong and Coinbase generally for their involvement in the bill’s development. And, despite industry claims that the banking industry should have negotiated stablecoin yield issues during the GENIUS Act passage, one individual said that the Senate Banking Committee’s July 2025 discussion draft for market structure invited the debate by asking, “How should legislation address interest or yield-bearing digital assets, including stablecoins.”

If the ethics proposal released by Senate Republicans in early September had instead been released in the spring, the back-and-forth over the details may have been more fruitful, three people said, though others weren’t so sure, suggesting the political weight of the ethics debate was destined to hang over everything else — including the stablecoin yield question, disagreements over the risks of decentralized finance and others.

But the timing was bad.

Right after the Senate Banking Committee postponed its initial January hearing, the U.S. started its conflict with Iran, which caused fuel prices to spike and fanned the flames of an increasingly wonky global financial situation. Americans’ frustration over Trump’s foreign policy and the economy has seen Trump’s poll numbers sliding downward over the last few months. Meanwhile, progressive challengers won primary contests in Democrat elections, and the Democratic party as a whole is more afraid of alienating its base than the possible political fallout from voting for a crypto bill, multiple people said.

“Neither side was going to take a leap and do something big that could be claimed as a victory for the other side,” Cooper said. “So it doesn’t surprise me at all that it failed.”

The House bill

The timing problem is a byproduct of another thing multiple people took issue with: The fact that the Senate was working on its own homegrown bill to begin with. The House of Representatives passed its version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act with a massive 294-134 vote in July 2025; 78 Democrats supported the bill. The Senate largely ignored it to work on its own bill, originally named the Responsible Financial Innovation Act. (The Senate adopted the Clarity Act moniker later in the process.)

The Senate did something similar with the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act — while the House had a bill, the Senate started its own version of the legislation, and that is the text that ultimately became law. Congressmen expressed their desire to see the Senate take up their version of the Clarity Act over the past year, but that didn’t happen.

“Clarity’s chances really faced an uphill battle when it came to the Senate decision not to take up the Clarity Act that passed the House as-is and [instead] just worked on their own,” Wintermute’s Hammond said.

A lot of the issues that bogged down the Senate bill in recent months just weren’t major considerations last year, he told CoinDesk in a phone call. The banking industry was not lobbying on stablecoin yield issues in the same way it had through most of 2026; political concerns were not as strong, and many of the interest groups had not had time to mobilize last fall.

Two other individuals said the House likely never expected the Senate to take up its bill, but the House had to pass it anyway. And when it drew more than two thirds support in the House, it showed the Senate there was plenty of bipartisan energy.

Rep. French Hill, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, told CoinDesk in April that the Senate version of the bill did adapt some of the work the House did on its version of the Clarity Act and its predecessor, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act.

Still, a further risk with the Senate launching its own version of Clarity is that the bill would have to go back to the House after successful Senate passage, and it’s unclear what would have happened at that point.

The House announced it would leave almost immediately after the Senate returned earlier this month, meaning that even if there had been a successful series of votes on Clarity, the House wouldn’t have voted on it until the lame duck session after the election. And even then, the House wouldn’t necessarily vote on the Senate bill as-is, one former House aide told CoinDesk.

Tim Ryan, a former Congressman who now advises a number of crypto companies, told CoinDesk through a spokesperson that the House would first need to understand how the Senate bill would impact its own version.

“A strong Senate agreement could have created real momentum for the House to act,” he said. “The deciding factors would have been the substance and whether House leaders could assemble the votes. The goal should be a workable law that gives people the confidence to build here.”

Negotiating tactics

Several individuals took issue with the negotiating process itself. While in years past, legislation may have been written by legislative staffers from both parties cramming into a room, this did not seem to happen.

Industry sources told CoinDesk that instead, Republican legislative staffers would draft something and share it with their Democrat counterparts. The Democrats would then share feedback, which could get incorporated into the next Republican draft. This would then be presented as a bipartisan effort.

But sometimes Republicans would include concessions on their own in the hopes of getting Democrats to say yes, two industry sources said, pointing to changes to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act as one example.

A Democrat aide said that at times, negotiators would agree to some provisions, but their Republican counterparts would later backpedal.

And earlier this year, after Senate Republicans and the White House agreed to the first draft of an ethics provision, negotiators briefed the crypto industry on the details and began aggressively selling the language before sharing the proposal with Senate Democrats.

“I think Republican staffers f***** up the negotiation by not including Democratic staffers in the process,” one person said, adding that it gave Democrats leverage in the negotiations. “If you don’t say ‘we agree to this concession’ then you have the power in negotiations.”

Another person pointed to the announcement of the revised ethics proposal, which came from Sen. Lummis’s office, as a second example, saying it was “odd” that the press release was only signed by Republicans if it was meant to champion a bipartisan effort.

Punchbowl News reported details about the negotiations last week.

Multiple people also pointed to White House adviser Patrick Witt, who they all said seemed to want the bill to pass but didn’t necessarily have the experience needed to coordinate a bill as complex as Clarity. One person said Witt’s posts on X, suggesting breakthroughs or successful passage, were unhelpful, as they may have changed industry expectations. Witt declined to speak with CoinDesk at a Georgetown event last week.

Two legislative aides and an industry participant told CoinDesk that a final, last-ditch negotiation spearheaded by Sen. Tillis, as the procedural vote began on Sept. 15 led to the idea of allowing the entire Senate to vote on the Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal as an amendment to the bill. One Democrat aide said the party was at the “one-yard line” on a successful procedural vote when the negotiation was shut down.

It was abruptly ended by a staffer for Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, several people told CoinDesk. Sens. Gallego and Chuck Schumer said in press statements that there was a bipartisan deal in the works but it was “killed.”

Crypto in America’s Eleanor Terrett first reported that a staffer for Scott ended negotiations.

A source familiar with the discussions told CoinDesk that the staffer had specifically told his own team to leave the negotiation, and the White House and Senate Agriculture Committee Republican staff were not present at this meeting. Republicans had already rejected the previous counterproposal sent by Senate Democrats late the night before, and formal talks had already ended. The staffer didn’t see the talking as an active negotiation because the process had already been closed, and he disputed that he halted progress at that point, the source said.

An industry participant said during the vote that Tillis and the Republican staffers negotiating were doing so without the support of their leadership. Another person, the Democrat aide, said Republican leadership had undermined Tillis and Lummis after the two had essentially secured a deal. The industry participant said that the parties had reached an agreement on some provisions but needed details on paper.

The industry’s own approach to negotiations likewise drew scrutiny; one person said the Clarity fight did eventually see the majority of the crypto industry align on at least the crypto-specific portions of the bill. But there were steps the overall industry could have taken that would have better served its cause, another person said, such as getting better at providing real-world use cases for merchants or other constituents. The industry just focused on hypotheticals, at least in Washington.

Industry leaders could have done more to encourage bipartisan negotiations, one aide said.

The upcoming midterm

2026 is a midterm election. Earlier this year, the general consensus was that the House of Representatives would likely flip control from Republicans to Democrats, while the Senate would remain under Republican control.

Many people said this means Democrats could not give Trump “a win” ahead of the election, particularly when, as noted, progressives tend not to vote for crypto.

Sen. Bill Hagerty told audiences at a Georgetown University event last Wednesday that he had warned his colleagues that the closer the negotiations got to Nov. 3, the lower the chances of any sort of passage, though he said the Senate could take up the legislation again after the election.

“It’s sad, but it’s the political reality,” he said. He told CoinDesk that there may be room for continuing negotiations on some of the provisions.

“My Democratic colleagues, this close to the election, couldn’t resist playing politics,” he said. “Is there room to do more fine-tuning? Perhaps.”

The future of Fairshake

One major question raised by the failure of the vote: What will happen to the crypto political action committees? Fairshake, the biggest crypto super PAC, has already announced a $30 million spend against former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Ohio Sen. John Husted in a bid to return to the Senate. Brown, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee when he was last in the Senate, had criticized the crypto sector and opposed bringing any legislation for a committee hearing when he was in office, but hadn’t said much about crypto during this most recent campaign.

Neither party saw much political risk in failing to pass Clarity, said Wisdomtree Chief Legal Officer Ryan Louvar.

Whether Fairshake or the other PACs can even affect the overall trajectory of the 2026 election is a mystery. Recent polls suggest that Democrats will pick up a number of seats in the House of Representatives, and several Senate races are likewise competitive. The PACs throwing in with the Republican party exclusively, were that to happen, would reflect badly on the crypto industry if Democrats do regain power in at least one chamber of Congress, or if they win the presidency in 2028.

Fairshake was not built for a “wave” election, one person said. And the PAC has already had two high-profile misfires. Fairshake opposed Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton’s Senate bid to the tune of $10 million; Stratton won anyway and is almost certainly going to win the general election.

And the PACs have to maintain a delicate balance, this person said. They cannot risk a complete break from Democrats.

Another person said it was unclear whether the threat of Fairshake was ineffective in getting Clarity done or if Democrats just chose to run out the clock on 2026 in a strategic effort to avoid facing multimillion-dollar ad spends against them.

The elusive crypto voter

A Democrat aide said the crypto industry cannot just assume that a future administration or legislature would be fully bipartisan and on board with crypto bills, rather than the political pendulum swinging away from complete Republican control following the current term. For the PACs to essentially do what Republicans hope and direct funds against Democrats because of this month’s vote would risk alienating necessary political allies.

Another issue with the PACs like Fairshake is the lack of supporting infrastructure in Washington, D.C., a former legislative staffer said.

The industry can tell lawmakers that tens of millions of Americans own crypto, but without constituents demonstrating why this matters for them, elected officials won’t care, this person said. Even worse, lawmakers may question these claims if they go back to their home districts and don’t hear any of their constituents discuss crypto.

Alderoty, who also heads up the Ripple-backed National Cryptocurrency Association, said the organization estimated that some 67 million Americans held crypto, but his organization could not convince any senators to sit down with holders to talk about their use cases.

And it’s true that crypto just isn’t a major issue for voters. In a CoinDesk-commissioned survey of 1,000 registered voters across the country, just 1% described crypto as a top concern. The cost of living, jobs, the economy, Social Security and Medicare were all more important issues, respondents said.

And Democrat voters — both those who described themselves as leaning Democrat or as being strongly Democrat — had a more unfavorable view of crypto than a favorable one, further disincentivizing senators from acting on crypto. Independent voters also had a more unfavorable view of the sector.

Also, 62% of respondents said they did not trust Trump’s administration to oversee crypto.

Lessons

The future of the Clarity Act is unclear. Several individuals said that there are hopes of reviving the bill before the end of the year; however the election goes, a new Congress will be sworn into office in January, and any legislative process will have to start anew.

One industry participant said that it’s likely Democrats will come up with their own version of a crypto market structure bill, which will, at least, give the party a starting point to work from, even if that bill does not go anywhere on its own.

WisdomTree’s Louvar said it is helpful that crypto products are continuing to become more tangible. What’s even more helpful are tokenization or other blockchain-based products that aren’t strictly crypto. Even if lawmakers have a negative perception about cryptocurrencies, divorcing crypto from the underlying blockchain technology could demonstrate its use, he said.

In the absence of legislation, the SEC and CFTC are pushing out guidance and taking steps to try and fill in what gaps they can. However, the SEC Chair Paul Atkins has said repeatedly that a market structure bill is still needed to ensure that any missing authorities are granted.

“The crypto bill transformed into an ethics bill, and that was really unfortunate,” Ripple’s Alderoty said. “We lost a really good opportunity.”

Hester Peirce plans to leave the Securities and Exchange Commission on Oct. 2, leaving Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda to handle a crypto offering proposal still open for comment. The agency can legally operate with two commissioners. Whether the two agree on what its final rules should say is the question her exit brings forward.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s largest proposed crypto offering rule cannot be finalized before the public finishes commenting on it. That deadline is Oct. 20. Hester Peirce plans to leave the commission on Oct. 2, according to her resignation letter. Count the dates: the final 18 calendar days of public comment on Regulation Crypto Assets will arrive after the commissioner who led the agency’s Crypto Task Force has left.

That does not stop the proposal. Nor does it prevent a vote by the two commissioners expected to remain, Chair Paul Atkins and Mark Uyeda. The SEC’s own quorum rule permits the commissioners in office to constitute a quorum when fewer than three hold office. A federal appeals court upheld that arrangement in a case nearly 30 years ago. The question after Peirce leaves is less dramatic and more consequential: can Atkins and Uyeda agree on a final text after comments arrive, and who will carry the task force’s work to that decision?

Peirce has not been the only official shaping the agenda. Atkins chairs the commission and publicly supports the proposal. Uyeda helped launch the Crypto Task Force while serving as acting chair in January 2025 and has issued his own statement supporting the August proposal. The three have approved work together. From Oct. 2, if the membership remains as currently listed, there is no third vote available to resolve a disagreement between the two who remain.

The departure date moved forward, and the rulemaking did not

Peirce joined the SEC in 2018. The commission’s membership page currently lists her alongside Atkins and Uyeda and says her term expired in 2025; SEC commissioners may remain for a limited period after a term expires if they have not been replaced. She had previously indicated that she would join Regent University School of Law, leading earlier accounts to place her departure in November. Her subsequent resignation set Oct. 2 as the exit date. As of Sept. 27, the SEC’s membership and Crypto Task Force pages still identify her as serving. Their status should be checked again on the day she actually leaves.

The date corrects a point in our own archive. An earlier crypto.news feature on the SEC’s delayed crypto vote said she would depart in November and suggested that operating with two members would create an untested quorum problem. The new Oct. 2 date supersedes the earlier calendar. More significantly, the quorum claim needs correction: the rule expressly allows two sitting members to form a quorum, and a federal appeals court has already upheld its use. The risk of a divided two-person commission is real, but it is a voting and policy risk, not an automatic inability to meet.

The pending Regulation Crypto Assets docket, file S7-2026-27, gives this change an unusually clear measure. The SEC issued the proposal on Aug. 18. The Federal Register published it on Aug. 21. The docket lists Oct. 20 as the deadline for public comments. The proposed rule contains two tailored Securities Act registration exemptions for investment contracts involving crypto assets: one for up to $5 million over four years and another for up to $75 million in any 12-month period. It proposes a conditional route for an asset to cease being subject to an investment contract once promised essential managerial work has ended.

Those numbers are proposed limits, not permissions that an issuer can use today merely because the SEC published a draft. The SEC must review comments, decide whether to revise the draft and vote on a final rule before the new exemptions can operate. A material revision could require further notice and comment. An Oct. 20 deadline starts the next stage; it is not a deadline by which the commission must approve the measure.

Two commissioners are a lawful quorum, not an unprecedented experiment

The SEC ordinarily has five seats, and the standard quorum is three. Rule 200.41 contains an exception: when fewer than three commissioners are in office, the members who are in office constitute the quorum. The SEC’s listed membership as of Sept. 27 consists of three officials. If Peirce leaves Oct. 2 and no replacement takes office, Atkins and Uyeda would meet the text of that exception.

This is not merely an agency’s untested assertion about its own powers. In Falcon Trading Group v. SEC, 102 F.3d 579, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered a challenge to an SEC decision issued in December 1995 when only two commissioners held office. The petitioners argued that a five-seat commission could not act through two members. In December 1996, the court upheld the SEC’s quorum rule and the decision made under it.

The court reasoned that Congress had empowered the SEC to make rules needed to carry out its functions and had not imposed a conflicting statutory quorum. That is a direct precedent for the legitimacy of the two-member quorum. It concerned an enforcement-related administrative decision, not Regulation Crypto Assets or a final crypto rule. It therefore does not pre-approve the contents or procedure of any future crypto regulation. A party could still challenge a final rule on other statutory or administrative grounds.

The practical limit is arithmetic. Two commissioners voting yes can approve a measure that requires commission approval. If one supports a proposed final rule and the other opposes it, there is no third sitting member to make a majority. An abstention or recusal would raise a distinct procedural question that cannot be resolved by simply assuming the remaining official may act alone on every matter. Staff can continue preparing recommendations, receiving comments and administering existing rules while a commission vote is unavailable. The exact authority for a particular staff or delegated action depends on its own governing rule.

The finding changes how to read Peirce’s departure. Losing a commissioner reduces the number of decision makers and leaves less room to negotiate a contested final text. It does not switch off the SEC. The difference matters because a project deciding whether to submit a comment by Oct. 20 should not assume that its submission will go to an agency legally incapable of finishing the work.

The Crypto Task Force loses its named leader, not its entire staff

The SEC’s Crypto Task Force page still identifies Peirce as its leader. Uyeda announced its formation on Jan. 21, 2025, while serving as acting chair. He said then that the task force would coordinate work across SEC divisions and offices. The commission has since issued an interpretation, a proposed offering rule and relief for a specific tokenized stock trading model. They are agency actions or proposals, not personal orders signed by Peirce alone.

The agency has not, on its public task force page as of Sept. 27, identified a successor. That is a specific open question. Atkins could name a new commissioner or otherwise reorganize the work, subject to the powers available to the chair and the commission. The present record supports neither the assertion that the task force will close nor the claim that a named replacement has already taken over. Its channels for public submissions and meetings are still displayed on the SEC site.

Peirce’s role has nevertheless been distinctive. Her 2020 token safe harbor proposal argued that teams building decentralized networks should have time to develop before facing all the consequences of conventional securities registration. When the SEC proposed its new offering framework on Aug. 18, she described the proposed exemptions in her own statement. She has pressed the agency to write paths a project can follow instead of relying on individual enforcement cases to set the boundary. Removing her from the commission removes one participant in the final vote and one source of institutional memory about the arguments behind the draft.

It does not remove the work from everyone else. Uyeda’s statement on the same Aug. 18 proposal thanks staff in the divisions of Corporation Finance, Trading and Markets, Investment Management and Economic and Risk Analysis, along with the task force and other offices. Drafting, economic analysis, legal review and public comments run across that structure. A public announcement of who will lead the task force after Oct. 2 would reveal how the SEC intends to coordinate those people, but the people do not all depart with Peirce.

The unfinished rules are at different stages

Three frequently grouped SEC crypto measures have different legal statuses. Confusing them makes Peirce’s exit seem either more destructive or less important than it is.

First, the SEC’s March 17 interpretation of federal securities law has already been issued. It explains the commission’s view of how existing law applies to certain crypto assets and activities, including staking and wrapping. A change in personnel does not automatically withdraw it. An interpretation also lacks the same permanence as an act of Congress; future agency action or a court’s reading of the statute could change the operative guidance.

Second, Regulation Crypto Assets is a proposed rule. Its $5 million and $75 million offering paths remain drafts. The SEC’s docket gives the public until Oct. 20 to respond to file S7-2026-27. This is the measure whose next substantive steps will fall most clearly to the commission after Peirce’s departure. Its final content can change in response to comments on investor disclosures, investor eligibility, state-law treatment and the conditions under which an investment contract ends.

Third, the SEC issued a temporary innovation exemption on Sept. 17 for a defined model of trading tokenized National Market System stocks on permissioned automated market maker venues. Crypto.news covered the five-year exemption when it was issued. Its published conditions include limits on symbols and volume, equivalent shareholder rights and coordination with trading halts in the underlying stock. The order says the exemption is set to expire five years after publication and requests comments on possible changes. Peirce leaving does not erase relief already granted. Whether the agency modifies, replaces or extends the arrangement later is a separate choice.

There is another pipeline item relevant to tokenization: the SEC’s September transfer agent proposal would update recordkeeping and other obligations for the firms responsible for shareholder registers, including the use of newer technology. Crypto.news reported on the proposed overhaul when it appeared. Like Regulation Crypto Assets, it is not final law. A tokenized stock trading exemption and a transfer agent proposal address different parts of the securities market, so neither substitutes for the other.

The transfer agent docket supplies a second test of the new commission’s capacity. Its comment deadline is Nov. 3, more than a month after Peirce’s planned departure. Unlike the offering proposal, this rule reaches ordinary securities infrastructure as well as digital assets: transfer agents track changes in legal ownership, maintain records and perform services for issuers. Changes to the register matter for a company whose shares are recorded using blockchain technology because an investor’s token and the legally recognized shareholder entry need a dependable connection. A trading exemption cannot fill a gap in ownership records. Staff will have to weigh comments on operational controls, costs and the relationship between electronic records and existing transfer-agent duties before commissioners decide whether to adopt a final rule.

Put the dates in sequence. Oct. 2 removes one commissioner if her resignation takes effect as announced. Oct. 20 closes comments on crypto offering exemptions. Nov. 3 closes comments on the transfer-agent proposal. The first two dates are 18 days apart; the latter deadline falls 32 days after the departure date. Neither docket says a final vote follows the next morning. Both may require revision, legal review and an explanation of why the agency chose one approach over alternatives raised in the record.

The stage of each measure is the first practical filter. An interpretation stays in place unless changed or superseded. A temporary order operates under its conditions and expiry. A proposed rule still needs the commission to finish notice and comment, consider the record and approve a final version. Peirce’s exit changes the voters for the last task; it does not reset every item to zero.

The final vote belongs to Atkins and Uyeda if no one else joins

The strongest case against a narrative of paralysis comes from the two officials expected to remain. Atkins proposed the crypto offering package as chair, saying the commission wanted tailored pathways for raising capital while Congress considered a longer-lasting market framework. Uyeda, who formed the Crypto Task Force, supported advancing the proposal. They have shared public positions on the direction of the SEC’s crypto work. If those positions continue through the public comment process, a two-member commission can approve a final rule without Peirce.

The opposing case is not that the rule is unpopular. It is that support for a proposal does not commit either commissioner to every detail of a final text. The agency could receive objections to how an exemption treats disclosures, a $75 million annual fundraising ceiling or the proposed separation of a crypto asset from an investment contract. One commissioner could decide that a revised version gives too little investor protection, while another could view additional conditions as defeating the point of the safe harbor. With three members, an internal disagreement might still yield two votes. With two, it cannot.

This is an inference about incentives and arithmetic, not a reported disagreement between Atkins and Uyeda. Their Aug. 18 statements show support for issuing the draft. They do not reveal how either will vote after comments are analyzed. Public records matter more than assumptions about party affiliation: even commissioners who agree on the objective can disagree on a sentence that determines who is exempt.

The task force’s public consultations may become more significant under that constraint. The SEC can respond to a well-supported objection by changing a provision before seeking a final vote. A measured change that satisfies both commissioners can move the file forward. A change one regards as essential and the other rejects could stall it. The public comment docket will expose some of that pressure, although internal negotiations need not be public.

The Senate can change the membership by confirming nominees if the president puts names forward. The SEC is designed for up to five commissioners, with no more than three from the same political party, according to the agency’s membership page. The current public roster names Atkins, Uyeda and Peirce, not an incoming replacement. A future appointment is possible, but the article cannot assign a date or presume it will happen before the proposal reaches a final vote.

Peirce’s last work illustrates what can move without a new rule

On Sept. 25, SEC Corporation Finance staff published questions and answers on the March interpretation. They address, among other things, staking receipt tokens, representations about managerial effort and when a token associated with a functioning network might be treated differently from an investment contract. The document is staff guidance about an existing commission interpretation. It is not Regulation Crypto Assets finalized in miniature.

That distinction illustrates what continues when the commission has only two members. Staff can explain an existing interpretation and answer questions within their authority. Staff guidance does not create a new statutory exemption or bind a future commission in the way a duly adopted rule might. Someone designing a crypto offering cannot substitute the Sept. 25 FAQ for the conditions and effective date of a future Regulation Crypto Assets rule.

Peirce’s public Sept. 23 remarks to a securities industry conference show why she thought these lines mattered. As more assets, intermediaries and uses enter the category, the SEC must identify the transactions that fall within securities law and avoid treating every technological arrangement as the same instrument. Her view has shaped the discussion, but a speech remains a commissioner’s perspective. The agency’s published releases and orders identify what it has formally done.

That division of labor will remain after Oct. 2. The chair can speak for his program, divisions can publish staff guidance where authorized, the task force can gather input if it continues, and the commission can vote on action requiring commission approval. None of these acts is interchangeable. Crypto.news traced the rulemaking underway after the CLARITY Act vote, but the SEC’s interpretation, proposal and exemption each demand a separate test of what changed. Readers trying to judge whether the crypto rulebook is actually changing should look at the document’s legal form as closely as its headline.

The comment record will test the rule’s limits

The most important work between an Oct. 20 deadline and any vote is sorting the objections by the provision they address. The $5 million pathway and the $75 million pathway solve different financing problems. A smaller issuer may care most about the cost of preparing disclosures across a four-year period; a larger issuer may care about whether a 12-month cap can accommodate a capital raise without ordinary registration. If comments show that either exemption can be divided into successive offerings to evade its limits, staff would have to decide whether to propose an aggregation rule or recommend rejecting that approach. Those are examples of questions the final record could raise, not defects the SEC has already found.

The proposed route for separating a crypto asset from an investment contract creates another choice. Its practical value depends on how an issuer demonstrates that promised essential managerial efforts have ended and what happens if a promoter later resumes them. Commenters can ask for clear evidence, time periods and disclosure duties. The commissioners then must decide whether a workable test can be written under existing securities law. A final release that merely repeats the proposed aspiration would give firms and courts less to apply than a release that explains how it handled competing examples in the comments.

Public comments do not amount to a referendum. The SEC need not adopt the position with the most submissions, and submitting a comment does not give the writer a vote. The agency does need a reasoned basis for its final choices and must operate within the authority Congress gave it. If it makes a substantial change that people had no fair opportunity to address, a further round of public comment may be needed. That possibility makes the Oct. 20 date a checkpoint in the process rather than a finish line.

For a reader following the rule, the useful comparison is concrete: line up the proposed exemption conditions with the final adopting release and its response to significant objections. The text will show who qualifies, what an issuer must disclose, when the limits reset and when a token’s treatment can change. The accompanying explanation will show whether Atkins and Uyeda reached the same account of investor protection and market access. A final rule adopted with both votes would settle their immediate disagreement on that text; it would not settle every court challenge or bind Congress from changing the law.

What the exit does not decide

Peirce’s departure will not itself determine whether a token is a security, whether the proposed safe harbor becomes final or whether Congress passes a digital asset market structure law. Those questions are governed by legal texts and future decisions. The SEC can act only within its statutory authority, and the pending congressional debate concerns powers an agency cannot simply give itself.

Nor does Falcon Trading guarantee that every action approved by two commissioners will survive litigation. It validates the SEC’s reduced quorum under the circumstances before that court. A new rule could still be challenged for its substance, the scope of its exemption, its treatment of comments or procedural defects unrelated to headcount. Conversely, saying the two-member commission is inherently invalid ignores a directly relevant court decision.

This article cannot name Peirce’s successor at the Crypto Task Force because the SEC’s public page still lists her as leader as of Sept. 27. It cannot say how Atkins or Uyeda will vote on a final rule because the comment period remains open. It can identify the next documents that will answer those questions: a revised task force leadership page or announcement, the comment docket after Oct. 20, a final adopting release and the votes recorded for it.

The timetable is plain. Peirce’s stated exit is Oct. 2. Public comments on the flagship proposal close Oct. 20. The gap is 18 days. Under the current rule and precedent, Atkins and Uyeda can act as the commission if no replacement arrives; each would then be indispensable to a contested final crypto rule. Nothing in the SEC’s docket promises that the final vote will occur in October or even in 2026.

What to watch

• Oct. 2 membership. Check whether Peirce leaves as announced and whether the SEC names another commissioner.
• Task force leadership. A new SEC designation would identify who coordinates the work Peirce led.
• Oct. 20 comments. File S7-2026-27 will show objections to the proposed offering caps, disclosures and safe harbor.
• A revised proposal or final vote. Either filing would reveal whether Atkins and Uyeda agree on the rule’s terms.
• Commission votes. The SEC publishes votes on rules and orders, allowing readers to distinguish a unanimous decision from an unresolved proposal.

FAQ

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures reflect regulatory filings and reporting available at the time of writing and change with each disclosure. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 27, 2026.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs have attracted about $5.3 billion since the Treasury announced larger long-dated bond buybacks, according to ETF analyst Nate Geraci.

Geraci said on Sept. 26 that the funds collected $2.4 billion during the latest week alone, while Monday’s roughly $1 billion intake ranked as the ninth-largest single-day inflow since U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024.

The rebound has pushed 2026 flows back into positive territory after the group sat nearly $5.8 billion in the red during July. Market data puts year-to-date net inflows near $934 million after the latest five-session run.

Bitcoin ETF inflows reach $5.3 billion since Treasury announcement

The U.S. Treasury announced on Aug. 19 that it would increase the maximum size of liquidity-support buybacks involving longer-dated nominal Treasury securities.

Operations covering the 10-to-20-year and 20-to-30-year sectors were raised from a maximum $2 billion to at least $4 billion each. The larger operations took effect Sept. 9 and are scheduled to remain in place through Nov. 4.

Geraci linked the timing of the ETF recovery to that policy announcement. His calculation puts cumulative spot Bitcoin ETF inflows since then at approximately $5.3 billion.

The figure describes two developments that occurred over the same period. It does not by itself establish that Treasury buybacks caused investors to allocate money to Bitcoin funds.

Treasury said the larger operations were intended to provide more liquidity in long-dated government bond markets. It cited consistently strong offers from market participants in those sectors as the reason for increasing the transaction sizes.

Treasury buyback program, the Aug. 19 announcement coincided with falling long-term yields and stronger risk-asset prices. The report noted that the 30-year Treasury yield declined after reaching a 19-year high.

Geraci’s observation focuses on ETF flows since the announcement date, while Treasury’s larger transactions themselves did not begin until Sept. 9.

Bitcoin ETFs collect $2.39 billion in one week

The strongest part of the ETF recovery came during the Sept. 21–25 trading week. U.S. spot Bitcoin funds drew approximately $2.39 billion over five consecutive positive sessions, according to Farside Investors data compiled by crypto.news. Monday generated about $999 million, followed by $714.7 million Tuesday and $346.9 million Wednesday.

Thursday added $190.7 million before another $134.5 million arrived Friday. The five sessions produced the largest weekly total since October 2025.

As crypto.news reported on the weekly ETF flows, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust led the period with approximately $1.16 billion. Fidelity’s FBTC attracted $701.6 million, while ARK 21Shares’ ARKB added $294.7 million.

Morgan Stanley’s MSBT received another $203.3 million during the week, its largest weekly intake since the fund launched in April.

Monday’s $999 million intake was the strongest daily total of 2026 and the ninth-largest single-day inflow recorded by U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs since their launch, according to SoSoValue figures cited by The Block. The pace slowed during each subsequent session, but the funds remained positive through Friday.

2026 ETF flows recover from a $5.8 billion deficit

The latest subscriptions reversed a much weaker first seven months of the year. U.S. Bitcoin ETFs were roughly $5.8 billion underwater on a year-to-date basis around July 13. The latest weekly inflows brought 2026 net flows to approximately $934 million above zero.

Separate Farside-based calculations put the year-to-date low near negative $5.69 billion. By Sept. 22, ETF flows had turned positive for the first time since May 26.

The funds have now collected approximately $57.6 billion in cumulative net inflows since their January 2024 launch, while total net assets stood near $108.4 billion at the end of Friday.

The turnaround did not occur in a straight line. During the Sept. 14–18 week, Bitcoin funds finished with only about $6.1 million in net inflows after losing a combined $746.3 million on Tuesday and Wednesday. Friday’s $433 million inflow erased most of that decline.

As crypto.news reported after the Federal Reserve meeting, flows changed direction on Sept. 17 with $159.5 million entering the funds. Another $433 million arrived the following session before demand accelerated the next Monday.

Bitcoin holds near $84,000 after ETF demand rises

Bitcoin’s price rose sharply during the ETF inflow streak before giving back part of the advance. BTC moved above $87,000 early in the week, reaching roughly $87,363 before retreating toward $84,000 by Sept. 26. Crypto.news put Bitcoin near $84,008 on Binance early Friday. The cryptocurrency remained up around 3.8% over seven days, while the total crypto market value stood close to $2.98 trillion.

In related coverage, crypto.news reported that the rally began alongside stronger ETF demand, with $999 million entering Bitcoin funds Sept. 21 and $714.7 million following a day later. Futures traders added more than $2 billion in open positions over the same period. Bitcoin subsequently pulled back despite continued ETF subscriptions. Crypto.news reported on Sept. 25 that funds remained in a six-session inflow streak even as BTC consolidated near $84,000.

Sell orders were concentrated between roughly $85,000 and $85,800 on Sept. 26, while the four-hour Supertrend indicator stood near $86,435. Bitcoin remained above its daily 20-period midpoint after retreating from the weekly peak.

Treasury buyback schedule runs through November 4

The Treasury’s expanded long-end buyback program remains scheduled through the current quarterly refunding period.

Under the Aug. 19 announcement, each operation in the targeted long-duration sectors can reach at least $4 billion, double the prior $2 billion maximum. Treasury said it would provide information on future buyback sizes during its next Quarterly Refunding on Nov. 4.

The department described the transactions as liquidity-support operations for older Treasury securities, not monetary stimulus or purchases conducted by the Federal Reserve.

Geraci’s $5.3 billion ETF calculation uses the Treasury announcement as the starting date for measuring Bitcoin fund flows. Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas separately pointed to the same period while discussing the ETF rebound, according to The Block.

Friday’s $134.5 million intake extended the Bitcoin ETF inflow streak to seven trading sessions. The run beginning Sept. 17 accumulated approximately $3 billion before markets closed for the weekend.

GIWA has rejected claims that its mainnet RPC was leaked, saying the Ethereum Layer 2 network has not launched its mainnet.

The project said on X on Sept. 27 that a mainnet RPC leak was impossible because no mainnet has gone live. GIWA told users to “DYOR” and remain alert to false information and scams circulating before launch.

Official GIWA documentation supports the main point of the clarification. The network’s mainnet section remains marked as under development, while GIWA Sepolia is available as a public test environment.

GIWA mainnet remains under development

GIWA’s connection documentation does not provide a mainnet RPC endpoint. Instead, developers can access the GIWA Sepolia testnet through sepolia-rpc.giwa.io, while a separate Flashblocks test endpoint is available for faster transaction preconfirmation.

Both endpoints are rate limited and intended for development and testing, according to the project’s network guide. GIWA specifically says its mainnet is “currently under development.”

The same distinction appears in GIWA’s smart contract documentation. Its contracts page lists deployed contracts for the Sepolia testnet but leaves the mainnet section marked as under development.

A separate Flashblocks document identifies a working testnet endpoint while listing the corresponding mainnet endpoint as “Coming soon.”

The available documentation therefore supports GIWA’s statement that a public test network exists while the production network has yet to launch.

The clarification follows social-media claims involving what was described as a leaked mainnet RPC. GIWA did not identify the accounts or URLs behind those claims in the statement supplied for this report.

No evidence provided by GIWA indicates that its Sepolia testnet RPC was compromised. The project’s response specifically addresses claims involving the unlaunched mainnet.

GIWA uses OP Stack for its Ethereum Layer 2

GIWA is an Ethereum Layer 2 built with the OP Stack, the open-source software framework maintained within the Optimism ecosystem.

Its technical documentation describes a one-second block time and compatibility with Ethereum Virtual Machine development tools. Developers can deploy Solidity contracts using tools already common in Ethereum development.

The network uses a sequencer for block production, while Ethereum provides the Layer 1 environment underlying GIWA’s settlement architecture. The current design specifies a 60 million block gas limit and one-second block intervals.

Unlike some Layer 2 networks, GIWA does not currently advertise a separate native token. Its FAQ says ETH is used as the base asset and for transaction fees, while stablecoin-based fee payments may be supported later through a Paymaster system.

Upbit’s involvement became public earlier in 2026. Upbit partnered with Optimism to build GIWA using the OP Stack under the Self Managed OP Enterprise tier.

The arrangement allows Upbit to manage its own infrastructure while receiving technical support and failover services from Optimism, according to the report. Sequencer control gives the operator responsibility for ordering transactions on the network.

GIWA’s own documentation describes the chain as “Powered by Upbit” and positions it as infrastructure linking users, developers and liquidity to Web3 applications.

GIWA Wallet and stablecoin products remain unfinished

GIWA’s public website shows that several planned products have not yet entered general release. The official site lists GIWA Wallet as “Coming Soon.” It describes the wallet as a self-custody product designed for GIWA Chain with multichain support and integrated views of exchange assets.

A planned stablecoin ecosystem carries the same status. GIWA says it intends to support stablecoin payments involving Korean won and global stablecoins, including Paymaster infrastructure that could allow stablecoins to cover transaction fees.

The project currently directs developers toward its testnet instead. Test ETH is available through a faucet, and developers can use GIWA Sepolia for smart contracts, wallet integrations and other testing before production deployment.

GIWA’s smart contract development guide supports Foundry, Hardhat and Remix IDE. Applications can use Solidity or other EVM-compatible tools because the network follows Ethereum’s execution environment.

The node documentation provides a similar test-focused setup. Developers can run their own GIWA node or use the free Sepolia RPC endpoint, while the project recommends external node services for future production workloads.

Upbit continues building around blockchain infrastructure

GIWA forms one part of Upbit operator Dunamu’s efforts to expand beyond centralized exchange trading.

The project’s website describes on-chain identity, data oracle services, a wallet and stablecoin payments among planned components. Some remain in development as GIWA progresses toward a production network.

Upbit has previously had to clarify reports concerning unreleased blockchain products. Crypto.news reported in July that the exchange rejected claims it was participating in issuing Open USD after Dunamu appeared on a list connected to the stablecoin initiative.

At the time, Upbit said it had not agreed to issue or launch the dollar-backed stablecoin. Several other South Korean companies named in the same initiative similarly denied having made formal commitments.

GIWA’s current clarification is narrower. It concerns technical claims about an RPC endpoint and states only that no GIWA mainnet has been launched.

The project’s public documentation does not provide a mainnet launch date. Its connection, contracts and Flashblocks pages continue to show mainnet features as being under development or coming soon.

Bitcoin’s seven-day average hashrate has fallen to roughly 915.8 EH/s while miner holdings dropped by 1,530 BTC over one week, according to mining data covering Sept. 20 through Sept. 26.

Digital Asset reported that the seven-day moving average stood at 915,844,520 TH/s on Sept. 26, down approximately 34.86 million TH/s from a week earlier. The reading was the lowest since around Sept. 3.

During the same period, CryptoQuant data cited by the report placed miner Bitcoin reserves at 1,192,766 BTC. The balance was 1,530 BTC lower than seven days earlier.

Bitcoin hashrate slips after September recovery

The hashrate reading indicates that less computing power was securing the Bitcoin network on a seven-day average basis than one week earlier.

Hashrate measures the combined computational power miners use to process Bitcoin transactions and compete to add new blocks. A higher network hashrate generally means more computing resources are participating in mining.

Public Mempool mining data supports the weaker late-September trend. Individual daily and pool-level readings moved below one zettahash during several sessions after climbing above that threshold earlier in September.

CoinWarz recorded Bitcoin network hashrate at roughly 954 EH/s on Sept. 25 after readings near 984 EH/s a day earlier. Its daily estimates showed substantial swings throughout September, including levels above 1 ZH/s on Sept. 15 and Sept. 9.

The movement follows a longer decline from Bitcoin’s late-2025 peak. Twenty One Capital CEO Raphael Zagury described the period as Bitcoin’s first “hashrate bear market,” based on the distance from the network’s previous record. 

Zagury’s presentation put the decline from the late-2025 peak at roughly 22% to 24%. He linked part of the reduction to mining companies directing more power and capital toward artificial intelligence computing.

The Sept. 26 seven-day average represents a shorter-term reading and should not be treated as proof that all miners are reducing capacity. Bitcoin hashrate can fluctuate because of block timing, power conditions, mining difficulty and changes in active equipment.

Miner reserves fall by 1,530 BTC in one week

Miner-held Bitcoin declined during the same week. CryptoQuant data cited by Digital Asset showed miner reserves at 1,192,766 BTC on Sept. 26. The figure was down 1,530 BTC from the previous week.

CryptoQuant defines miner reserve as Bitcoin held in wallets associated with miners and mining pools. A falling balance indicates that coins have moved out of tracked miner wallets, although the destination and purpose can vary.

Outflows can involve exchange sales, transfers to custodians, collateral arrangements, lending or other treasury activity. A decline in reserves therefore does not establish that every transferred Bitcoin was sold in the open market.

Earlier in September, miner reserves briefly moved in the opposite direction. Reporting based on CryptoQuant data placed miner holdings near 1.1919 million BTC on Sept. 5, an increase of 261 BTC from the previous week.

Public mining companies continue to show different treasury policies. CleanSpark, for example, mined 593 BTC in August but sold 821 BTC during the month.

As crypto.news reported on CleanSpark’s August production, the company finished August holding 13,703 BTC. Its average operating hashrate reached 38.3 EH/s. Other miners have reduced or abandoned mining activity as computing infrastructure is redirected toward AI customers. Hyperscale Data stopped Bitcoin mining at its Michigan facility on Sept. 1 while preparing the site for an AI computing contract.

Crypto.news reported on the Michigan shutdown that the company’s Bitcoin holdings had fallen roughly 79% from 1,006 BTC in July to around 215 BTC.

Bitcoin’s Puell Multiple increased during the week even as miner reserves and hashrate declined. Digital Asset reported a reading of 1.13 on Sept. 26, up 0.24 from seven days earlier. The metric compares the daily U.S. dollar value of newly issued Bitcoin with its 365-day moving average.

A reading above one means daily miner issuance revenue is higher than its one-year average. The indicator does not directly measure miner profit because it does not account for each operator’s electricity, financing or equipment costs.

Public mining dashboards show similar readings around the neutral range. HalvingLens placed the Puell Multiple near 1.01 on Sept. 26 and classified the level as normal. The site estimated daily miner issuance near 450 BTC and daily miner revenue around $37.8 million at the time. 

The difference between individual Puell readings can result from data timing, price sources and methodology. The Digital Asset figure of 1.13 refers specifically to the source it cited for Sept. 26.

Bitcoin’s current block subsidy remains 3.125 BTC after the April 2024 halving. Crypto.news explained in its updated halving guide that the next scheduled reduction is expected around 2028, when the subsidy will fall to 1.5625 BTC per block. 

Mining conditions remain uneven across regions

Mining conditions have differed sharply between operators during September. Ethiopia reduced electricity supplied to Bitcoin miners to 23% of contracted levels after reservoir inflows fell 20%, according to Ethiopian Electric Power.

Crypto.news reported on the electricity restrictions that Bitcoin mining consumed nearly one-third of Ethiopia’s electricity and generated 35% of the utility’s revenue during the previous fiscal year.

The utility plans to reassess conditions in October. Further restrictions could depend on reservoir levels and electricity demand. At the network level, Bitcoin continued producing blocks normally despite the lower seven-day hashrate reading. Mempool showed blocks continuing to clear on Sept. 26 while pool shares and short-term hashrate estimates shifted throughout the day.

Bitcoin’s difficulty mechanism adjusts approximately every 2,016 blocks to account for changes in network computing power. The next adjustment will respond to actual block production over the full difficulty period rather than a single seven-day hashrate reading.

Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy and co-founder of the firm, argues that the next era of digital intelligence should be built around a “bill of digital rights” rather than expanding restrictions on how people and businesses use digital assets. In an essay posted on X on Saturday, Saylor positioned digital assets as essential infrastructure for productivity and capital formation—especially as automation reshapes industries.

Saylor’s framework outlines five core freedoms he says should apply to both individuals and companies: the ability to create new digital assets, to issue them to markets to finance productive activity, the right to hold them or choose custodians, the ability to transfer assets across users and service providers, and the freedom to use them—whether for spending, investing, earning income, or borrowing against collateral.

Key takeaways

• Saylor proposes a “bill of digital rights” centered on five freedoms: create, issue, hold/custody, transfer, and use digital assets.
• He argues that restricting what owners can do with assets undermines their economic value—because asset value depends on owner utility.
• Saylor links AI-driven productivity gains to the need for more flexible capital markets that can fund new businesses.
• He calls for “digital dollars” to be able to compete on yield and operate with minimal friction—where law allows it, and with legal updates where it doesn’t.
• Strategy’s recent Bitcoin buying resumed after a brief pause, reinforcing Saylor’s broader message about capital formation through digital assets.

From digital assets to a “rights” framework

In his essay, Saylor frames digital rights as a practical foundation for economic growth in an age where “digital intelligence” will automate tasks and make existing products obsolete. Rather than treating digital assets as a niche financial tool, he suggests they function as a general-purpose mechanism for raising capital and reallocating resources faster than traditional systems typically allow.

The five rights Saylor highlights start with creation and issuance. He argues that participants should be free to create new digital assets and to issue them to markets so businesses can finance productivity and expansion. From there, he emphasizes ownership and custody choice—owners should be able to hold assets themselves or select custodians that fit their needs.

Transferability is the next pillar. Saylor stresses that rights should include the ability to move digital assets among people, companies, wallets, and service providers. Finally, he argues that digital assets should be usable in real economic activity, including spending, investing, earning income, and borrowing against them.

“An asset’s value depends on what its owner can do with it,” Saylor wrote, adding that “restrict its usefulness, and you restrict its economic potential.” The argument is less about any single token category and more about what regulations and market design allow owners to do—particularly during periods of fast technological change.

Why AI-era capital markets may require fewer bottlenecks

Saylor connects his “rights” idea to the economics of AI adoption. He writes that an AI age can increase production, but he argues it will only reach its potential if capital markets and money systems are capable of supporting the businesses and innovations that emerge from automation.

He also criticizes what he describes as a mismatch between protecting today’s business models and financing their successors. According to Saylor, shielding existing models while making it difficult for new ventures to raise capital leaves the economy less prepared for technological change.

To underscore the scale of what he envisions, Saylor says the ambition should be to enable “10 million new companies” to raise capital. The core implication is that digital assets and modernized rails for money and funding could shorten the time between technological opportunity and real-world investment.

This is where his policy argument becomes more pointed. If future prosperity depends on rapid entrepreneurship, then the rules governing digital asset creation, issuance, custody, transfer, and use are not just technical questions—they determine whether new market entrants can fund their growth.

“Digital dollars” should compete—and move quickly

Saylor’s essay extends beyond general digital assets to the specific question of money. He argues that “digital dollars” should be allowed to compete on yield and operate at “the speed of light.” In his view, banks, fintech companies, and technology platforms should be able to provide digital dollars through the applications and devices people already use.

In other words, the differentiator shouldn’t be whether these systems are compatible with legacy processes, but whether they can deliver competitive returns and low-friction settlement. Saylor also calls for legal reform where necessary, writing that “where the law prevents it, the law should change.”

For investors and market participants, the practical question is what regulatory barriers might be slowing interoperability or limiting issuance and distribution. Saylor’s framework suggests that the more restrictive the rules on custody, transfers, or usage, the less capital the system can efficiently mobilize for new activity.

Strategy’s Bitcoin buys align with Saylor’s capital-formation thesis

While Saylor’s essay is a policy and philosophy statement, it lands alongside Strategy’s ongoing Bitcoin accumulation. Cointelegraph reported earlier this week that Strategy resumed buying Bitcoin after a two-week pause. The company acquired 950 BTC for $75.7 million, averaging $79,670 per coin.

Cointelegraph also reported that this brought Strategy’s holdings to 846,000 BTC, acquired for about $63.8 billion at an average cost of $75,416 per coin. At the time of publication in the source report, Bitcoin was trading at roughly $84,523.

Strategic Bitcoin purchasing has been a central part of Strategy’s public narrative for enabling capital exposure through a digital asset. Read alongside Saylor’s essay, the purchases reinforce his larger claim: that economic transformation requires funding mechanisms that can move quickly and function across modern financial rails, rather than being constrained by older frameworks.

At the same time, Saylor’s broader critique about “protecting existing business models” hints at a tension that investors may watch as AI accelerates. If regulations or market structures slow down funding channels for new companies—even while incumbents benefit from continuity—the economy could fail to realize the full productivity promised by automation.

Going forward, readers may want to watch how lawmakers and regulators respond to calls for more flexible digital-money systems and clearer rights for digital-asset usage—particularly around custody choices, transferability, and the ability to deploy digital assets for borrowing and investment. The direction of those rules will likely determine how quickly new ventures can access capital in an AI-driven economy.