The failed Senate vote on the CLARITY Act has shifted attention toward the SEC and CFTC, while crypto founders and investors prepare for a longer period without a federal market structure law, industry experts told crypto.news.

The U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Sep. 15. The procedural vote recorded 49 votes in favor and 50 against, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to open debate.

The result did not formally kill the bill, but it removed its immediate route through the Senate. The legislation sought to divide oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission while creating registration paths for crypto trading platforms and other intermediaries.

CLARITY Act setback turns attention to US agencies

Sid Powell, CEO and co-founder of Maple Finance, said the regulatory focus would now move from lawmakers to federal agencies. He expects the SEC and CFTC to use existing law, rulemaking and guidance to define the industry’s operating boundaries over the next year.

“The SEC and CFTC can do a great deal within existing law, through rulemaking and guidance, and that is where the perimeter actually gets drawn over the next year.”

Powell said market structure legislation was always more difficult to pass than to introduce. He expects meaningful near-term direction to come from regulators, with comprehensive legislation more likely to return in the next Congress.

Gabor Gurbacs, founder and CEO of OpenAssets, reached a similar conclusion, saying the vote did not resolve questions about regulatory authority, asset classifications or the framework institutions can use.

“The vote may have stalled. Regulatory work has not.”

Gurbacs, however, favors industry-led standards over broad top-down requirements. He argued that large regulatory bodies rely on committees, precedent and risk avoidance, which can produce rules that move more slowly than the technology.

Courtney Olujobi, principal at Moon Pursuit Capital, also expects regulators to deliver most of the immediate progress. She distinguished between agency action, which can change under later administrations, and legislation that gives founders and investors greater long-term confidence.

“What this vote means is that, for now, most of the progress will come from regulators rather than Congress.”

Edwin Mata, co-founder and CEO of Brickken, agreed that government action does not end when Congress stalls. He said agencies can use their current authority to issue rules and guidance, although the quality of those rules matters more than the mere existence of a framework.

“The SEC, CFTC and other regulators still have to do their jobs, and we are already seeing them use their existing powers to provide their own rules and guidance.”

Former CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo made a similar argument after the vote, saying the two agencies could continue developing digital asset frameworks under existing law, crypto.news reported.

Founders may build globally instead of waiting for Congress

The experts broadly rejected the idea that the vote would stop crypto development. Several said it could instead affect where companies hire employees, seek licenses, raise capital and launch products.

Kyle Sonlin, president and co-founder of Global Settlement Network, said founders serving institutions need to know how regulators will treat assets and which agency will supervise their businesses. He expects companies to retain an interest in the United States while considering clearer jurisdictions from the beginning.

“I do think more companies will build with a global footprint from the start and keep jurisdictions with clearer rules firmly in the mix.”

Varun Datta, founder and CEO of Truth Ventures, also said serious founders would continue operating in the United States. However, he expects regulatory predictability to take on greater weight when companies compare the country with competing markets.

“Founders deciding where to incorporate, hire, raise money will increasingly compare the US not just on access to capital, but on regulatory predictability.”

Olujobi described uncertainty as a cost that appears before a company faces a formal legal bill. It can influence whether an early hire is an engineer or compliance specialist, whether a product launches in the United States, and whether founders first approach American or overseas investors.

Mata pointed to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework as an example of both the benefits and costs of clear regulation. MiCA gave companies a defined entry point, he said, but also introduced compliance costs and rules that he considers excessive.

Bobby Gray, founder of TEXITcoin, offered a stronger version of the builders-will-continue argument. He said founders should create businesses that can withstand changes in the political and regulatory environment instead of relying on Congress to deliver certainty.

“Policymakers will eventually have to decide how America participates in this industry, but builders have already decided to keep building.”

The United States still offers deep capital markets, institutional buyers and an expanding base of regulated custody and investment products, according to Olujobi. Mata warned, however, that overseas decisions can become permanent once companies establish teams, banking relationships, licenses and customers in other jurisdictions.

Institutional adoption could become slower and more selective

The lack of legislation may have a larger effect on institutions that require stable compliance standards before committing capital or building products.

Raj Kamal, CEO and founder of TransFi, expects the setback to slow institutional adoption in the United States and other markets that take cues from American regulation. He also sees a risk that more activity will move to jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates and Singapore.

“In terms of the impact on the sector, this is going to delay institutional adoption and slow down the pace of stablecoin usage across payments and other parts of the financial sector, as well as the growth of tokenised deposits.”

Kamal expressed concern that the delay could bring back regulation through enforcement. Sonlin made a related point, saying financial infrastructure needs rules that can remain in place beyond one administration.

Jeff Ko, chief analyst at ViaBTC, drew a distinction between institutions that already hold Bitcoin through regulated exchange-traded funds and the next group considering broader crypto services. He expects banks exploring custody and trading, asset managers developing multi-token products and companies studying tokenization to move more slowly rather than leave the market entirely.

“The impact falls on the next wave of adoption, like banks building custody and trading desks, asset managers launching multi-token products, and corporates exploring tokenisation in the US.”

HashKey Group senior researcher Tim Sun also expects institutions to divide their capital according to regulatory risk rather than abandon crypto altogether. Assets and products that already fit established rules could continue attracting demand, while sectors that depend on new legislation may face more caution.

“This does not imply a total institutional retreat, but rather a sharp bifurcation in capital allocation strategies based on risk stratification.”

Sun said Bitcoin benefits from its relatively settled non-security status. Tokenized securities and real-world assets could also face less disruption because they can operate within existing securities and fund rules. DeFi developer liability and exchange token-listing standards remain more dependent on future policy decisions, he added.

Bitcoin remains more insulated than altcoins and DeFi

Bitfinex head of derivatives Jag Kooner said the muted initial response showed that traders had not positioned heavily for the bill to pass. With limited bets on approval, the failed vote produced fewer positions that needed to be closed.

“With few market participants betting on the bill’s approval, there were correspondingly few positions to unwind after it failed, which helps explain the market’s modest reaction.”

Kooner said the more important effect was the extension of regulatory uncertainty rather than a sudden repricing. His assessment matches Powell’s view that the failed vote was the more likely outcome throughout the legislative process.

Ko similarly said the bill had stalled without becoming legally dead. He argued that Bitcoin already has access to regulated ETFs and that the GENIUS Act has established a framework for payment stablecoins, leaving the largest regulatory gap elsewhere in the market.

“The real impact falls on the rest of the market.”

Ko expects altcoins, token issuers, DeFi protocols and U.S. exchanges to carry the largest regulatory discount because the divide between securities and commodities remains unresolved. He said that could keep Bitcoin dominance elevated and widen performance differences among tokens, favoring assets with clearer legal status and cash-generating businesses.

Sun offered a similar view, noting that crypto-linked companies could react more sharply than Bitcoin because their business models depend more directly on regulatory boundaries. Ko and Sun therefore both expect the delay to produce a more selective market rather than an equal effect across digital assets.

Rates and liquidity may matter more than the Senate vote

The regulatory setback is only one of several forces shaping the market. Ko said sticky inflation, oil prices above $95 and increased expectations of further interest-rate increases remained the larger headwinds.

“Crypto has rarely sustained a bull run while yields are rising and liquidity is tightening.”

Ko said a bull-market return this year was possible but not his base case. Such a recovery would likely require sustained ETF inflows, softer inflation readings and improved liquidity, with capital concentrating in fewer assets than in previous cycles.

Sun similarly said rising risk-free rates and the loss of regulatory optimism both pressured crypto following the vote. He expects Federal Reserve policy, long-term Treasury yields and U.S. dollar liquidity to determine Bitcoin’s next sustained move more than the timetable for legislation.

Despite differences over the severity of the delay, the experts largely agreed that development and investment would continue. The failed vote changes who shapes U.S. crypto rules in the near term, while making regulatory strength, jurisdiction and access to liquidity more important in decisions about what to build and where to allocate capital.

Ondo Finance has become the first tokenization company to enter DTCC’s Fund/SERV network, connecting its regulated U.S. subsidiary with infrastructure that processes more than 85% of domestic mutual fund transaction volume.

Ondo Finance said its subsidiary Oasis Pro Markets has joined Fund/SERV as a member, making it the first tokenization platform to enter the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation-operated network.

We’re excited to announce that Ondo Finance’s subsidiary Oasis Pro Markets, a U.S. registered broker-dealer, has joined DTCC’s Fund/SERV.

Ondo Finance is the first tokenization company to join the network, which processes over 85% of the U.S. mutual fund transaction activity.… pic.twitter.com/lTR8JlhvSw

Advertisement

— Ondo Finance (@Ondo) September 16, 2026

The membership gives Oasis Pro, a U.S.-registered broker-dealer, a standard route to fund companies, wealth platforms and other service providers already connected to Fund/SERV. Without such a link, the company could need separate technical connections for each distributor.

Fund/SERV sits at the center of mutual fund transaction processing in the United States. According to Ondo, DTCC infrastructure handles more than 85% of U.S. mutual fund transaction volume, giving participating firms access to an established network used across the investment industry.

Ondo gains one connection to multiple fund distributors

Through Fund/SERV, Oasis Pro can process several parts of a fund transaction within the same system. The network supports transaction confirmations, reconciliation and distributions, while account records, tax information and regulatory reports can also move through its infrastructure.

Using one established network may reduce the number of separate integrations required when Oasis Pro connects with fund companies, broker-dealers, advisers or wealth platforms. Ondo expects the connection to support distribution of its tokenized investment products through firms that already rely on DTCC systems.

“We’re excited to be the first tokenization platform to become part of Fund/SERV,” Ondo President Ian De Bode said.

De Bode added that the standardized connection allows Oasis Pro to reach multiple companies without building a new integration for each firm. His comments describe an operational benefit rather than a change to the legal status of the underlying investment products.

DTCC Managing Director Talia Klein said participation by a tokenization business shows how existing financial systems can accommodate products issued or managed using blockchain technology.

“Ondo’s participation in Fund/SERV demonstrates how established industry infrastructure can support the next phase of market evolution,” Klein said.

The connection deals mainly with distribution and fund processing. It does not replace the securities rules, custody arrangements, or investor protections that apply to each product offered through Oasis Pro.

Oasis Pro gives Ondo a regulated route into US markets

Oasis Pro Markets operates as an SEC-registered broker-dealer and alternative trading system and is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. Its affiliated Oasis Pro TA business is registered with the SEC as a transfer agent.

In July, Oasis Pro received FINRA authorizations covering tokenized corporate equities and fund products for U.S. institutions and retail investors. According to Ondo’s announcement at the time, the permissions support over-the-counter retail transactions, underwritten primary offerings, private placements and secondary trading.

The authorizations cover National Market System equities and interests in ETFs, mutual funds and index funds. Oasis Pro also said transactions could settle through fiat currencies or supported stablecoins, including transfers between blockchain wallets.

For American investors, the distinction between Ondo’s U.S. and overseas businesses remains important. Oasis Pro’s registrations provide the regulated channel for products offered domestically, while some Ondo products issued through offshore structures are restricted from U.S. persons unless they are registered or qualify for an exemption.

Omnibus account support also allows Oasis Pro to connect with existing broker-dealer and advisory channels. Ondo has said the structure could give institutions, registered investment advisers and retirement accounts access to tokenized securities through financial firms they already use.

Registration with the SEC and membership in FINRA or SIPC do not mean regulators have approved or recommended a particular tokenized security. Ondo’s regulatory disclosure also warns that buyers may lose some or all of the money invested in such products.

DTCC ties deepen after tokenization working group

The Fund/SERV membership builds on Ondo’s earlier involvement with DTCC. In June, crypto.news reported that Ondo had joined a DTCC tokenization working group alongside more than 50 financial companies, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Nasdaq, NYSE, Robinhood and Circle.

DTCC formed the group to test operational and technical processes for tokenizing assets held at the Depository Trust Company. The planned service covers DTC-custodied securities and is designed to preserve the ownership rights, investor protections and entitlements attached to their conventional forms.

A no-action letter issued by the SEC in December 2025 authorized DTC to operate the defined tokenization service for three years. DTCC said the eligible assets include Russell 1000 stocks, ETFs tracking major indexes and U.S. Treasury securities.

DTCC planned limited production transactions for July 2026, followed by a full launch in October. The organization said DTC held more than $114 trillion in assets when it announced the timetable in May.

Fund/SERV serves a different function within DTCC’s infrastructure. While the tokenization service focuses on converting eligible DTC-held securities into blockchain-recorded forms, Fund/SERV handles communication and transaction processing between fund managers and distributors.

Ondo has expanded its tokenized securities operations

Ondo has been adding products and distribution channels while developing its U.S. infrastructure. Oasis Pro can issue Ethereum-based tokens backed by securities held with regulated custodians, linking blockchain records with assets kept inside conventional custody systems.

In July, Ondo completed an onchain securities deployment tied to BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 ETF and shares of Micron Technology. The underlying securities remained with regulated U.S. custodians under a structure Ondo said followed an SEC staff framework.

The arrangement was designed to keep the underlying shares inside the regulated custody system while using Ethereum-based tokens to represent exposure to them. Investor rights and product terms still depend on the legal structure of each token rather than the blockchain record alone.

Ondo has also developed Ondo Network as an execution layer for tokenized financial markets. The network launched in July with separate functions for trade execution, validation, and settlement, while supporting tokenized assets and stablecoin-based payments.

Outside the United States, Japan’s SBI Group agreed in July to tokenize Japanese stocks with Ondo. Under the proposed structure, Ondo Global Markets would issue the products, SBI would distribute them through its financial platforms, and the JPYSC stablecoin would support settlement and collateral.

The SBI-linked products have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act and cannot be offered to U.S. persons unless they receive registration or qualify for an exemption.

Bitcoin has failed to activate every proposed soft fork since Taproot went live in 2021, leading Drivechain creator Paul Sztorc to argue that the network cannot approve any such upgrade for the foreseeable future.

Paul Sztorc, CEO of LayerTwo Labs and creator of the Drivechain proposal, told crypto.news that BIP-110’s failed activation points to a problem extending far beyond one disputed Bitcoin upgrade.

“All soft forks since Taproot have failed to activate, and this was no exception,” Sztorc said.

His assessment followed the collapse of BIP-110, a proposed temporary soft fork that sought to restrict some forms of non-financial data stored in Bitcoin transactions. The proposal drew only 51 supporting blocks during a 2,016-block difficulty period, leaving miner signaling at 2.53%.

BIP-110 enforcing nodes later split from the dominant Bitcoin network at block 961,632 on Aug. 8. The new branch produced only two blocks before stalling, while the main chain continued processing blocks at its usual pace.

BIP-110 failure points to a frozen Bitcoin upgrade process

The BIP-110 result showed how difficult it has become for developers to secure support for changes to Bitcoin’s consensus rules, according to Sztorc.

The proposal’s voluntary activation process required 55% of blocks to signal support. By Aug. 2, the target had become mathematically unreachable because just 28 of the first 1,108 blocks had signaled, according to earlier miner data.

Its enforcing software still entered a mandatory signaling period at block 961,632. Nodes running BIP-110 then rejected blocks that did not signal support, although most miners continued building on the non-enforcing Bitcoin chain.

By Aug. 9, the minority branch remained frozen at block 961,633 as the main chain moved 111 blocks ahead. OCEAN’s BIP-110 endpoint showed about 257 petahashes per second assigned to the branch at the time, while Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor estimated that roughly 99.85% of Bitcoin’s hash power had remained with the dominant chain.

The two-block chain stall became more severe because the branch inherited Bitcoin’s mining difficulty of 127.48 trillion. Without enough computing power, its miners could not quickly produce the remaining blocks required to reach a difficulty adjustment.

BIP-110, formally called the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposed seven consensus restrictions lasting 52,416 blocks, or approximately one year at Bitcoin’s normal block rate. The rules included an 83-byte cap on OP_RETURN outputs, a 256-byte limit on certain data pushes, and restrictions affecting some Taproot functions.

Supporters, including Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr, argued that the restrictions would reduce arbitrary data storage linked to inscriptions and keep Bitcoin focused on monetary transactions. Critics such as Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back said the proposal could undermine Bitcoin’s neutrality by rejecting transaction structures that the network currently accepts.

Even OP_CAT faces the same Bitcoin consensus barrier

Sztorc said BIP-110 was not an isolated failure, pointing to the lack of activation for other proposed soft forks since Taproot.

Taproot activated at block 709,632 on Nov. 14, 2021, after miners used the Speedy Trial process to signal readiness. The upgrade introduced Schnorr signatures and new Taproot spending rules without forcing non-upgraded nodes onto a separate blockchain.

Since then, proposals seeking to add features or change Bitcoin’s scripting rules have remained under discussion without activation. Sztorc cited OP_CAT as an example, describing it as a small code change that appeared in Bitcoin’s original software and has attracted support from developers.

“Nothing can — not even OP_CAT, which is just 13 lines of code and was in the original software and had lots of support,” he said when asked how BIP 300 could overcome resistance to consensus changes.

“Bitcoin cannot activate any soft forks, for the foreseeable future.”

OP_CAT would let Bitcoin scripts join two data elements. Satoshi Nakamoto disabled the operation in 2010 over security concerns, but a later proposal sought to restore it through a backward-compatible soft fork.

Supporters say the opcode could help developers create covenants, vaults, bridges and other programmable spending conditions. However, the OP_CAT proposal still depends on technical review and sufficient agreement among Bitcoin developers, miners, node operators and users.

Other proposals face the same coordination problem. BIP-360, for example, proposes a new output type designed to support post-quantum signatures through a soft fork. Its authors present the design as a possible path for users to move funds into quantum-resistant addresses, though activation would require the type of network agreement that Sztorc says Bitcoin can no longer achieve.

Drivechains would move experimentation away from Bitcoin’s base layer

Drivechains are designed to let developers test different rules and applications on opt-in sidechains instead of seeking repeated changes to Bitcoin’s base layer.

Under BIP 300, users could move BTC between Bitcoin and separate sidechains through a two-way peg. Each sidechain could apply its own rules, allowing developers to test privacy systems, smart contracts, faster transactions, or other functions without requiring every Bitcoin user to adopt them.

Sidechains would also maintain separate brands and software, which Sztorc compared with existing systems such as Liquid and Lightning. Users could choose whether to move funds into a particular chain, while Bitcoin’s base rules would remain unchanged after the initial Drivechain upgrade.

Asked whether multiple Drivechains could fragment liquidity and leave users unsure which implementations to trust, Sztorc compared the model with developers launching separate altcoins.

“Each Drivechain will have its own brand, same as Liquid, Lightning, etc.,” he said.

Drivechains would still face the same immediate obstacle identified in Sztorc’s assessment: BIP 300 itself needs a consensus change on Bitcoin. Without activation, developers cannot deploy its proposed withdrawal system as part of the network’s rules.

“It cannot,” Sztorc said when asked how BIP 300 could overcome the resistance that stopped other proposals.

Miner control remains Drivechain’s central security dispute

BIP 300 would assign Bitcoin miners a major role in approving withdrawals from Drivechains, an arrangement that has drawn concerns about theft, censorship and miner collusion.

Under the proposal, withdrawal requests would remain pending while miners vote on them through Bitcoin blocks. A request receiving enough support over the required voting period could release BTC from the sidechain peg.

Sztorc said the security model depends partly on the economic value that a popular sidechain creates for miners.

“If the chain is popular, it will be generating fees for miners. If this fee revenue is large, relative to the number of circulating coins on the L2, then it will be secure.”

Users would therefore need to assess the relationship between sidechain fee revenue, miner incentives, and the value of BTC held within the peg. Critics argue that miners could coordinate to approve an invalid withdrawal, while supporters contend that attacking a profitable sidechain could destroy future fee income and damage confidence in the system.

For U.S. participants, BIP-110 already demonstrated how American mining operations can become involved in Bitcoin governance disputes. Foundry USA Pool asked mining customers to vote on BIP-110 signaling before the mandatory period, while Strategy, a U.S.-listed company and one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders, publicly opposed the proposal through Saylor.

The failed fork also created a practical risk for holders because BIP-110 did not include automatic replay protection. Bitcoin developer Kevin Loaec warned that a transaction sent on one branch could potentially be copied to the other, putting pre-fork coins at risk if users tried to move or sell assets on the minority chain without first separating them.

BIP-110 supporters also prepared code for a possible proof-of-work change, which would allow the stalled branch to abandon Bitcoin’s existing mining algorithm. The code included a configurable hard-fork time, although developer Chris Guida described it as a contingency and had not set an activation date.

Bernstein analysts expect “aggressive and swift” rulemaking from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), after the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act failed to pass a Senate cloture vote on Tuesday.

Bernstein analysts said the regulatory agencies will publish new regulations to “make up for the time lost negotiating the CLARITY Act,” in a Wednesday note shared with Cointelegraph.

The analysts said they expect agency regulations including token taxonomy for raising capital, developer protection measures concerning decentralized finance and self-custodial protocols, innovation exemptions for equity tokenization, faster approval times for real-world asset perpetual futures, and amendments to rules around federal sports even contracts and their classification as swaps.

Bernstein said that these federal agencies will bring more regulatory clarity for the industry, to compensate for the failure of the CLARITY Act, which would have “fool-proofed the industry against political regime shifts.” 

On Tuesday, the US Senate failed to pass a cloture motion on the CLARITY Act, which would have established the country’s first regulatory framework for digital assets. Bernstein’s analysts said that a re-vote of the act was unlikely, citing a limited time window and concerns over the bill’s ethics provisions.

On Aug. 19, the SEC proposed new rules to create a “clear and fit-for-purpose framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets,” allowing entities to raise capital while preserving investor protections. The proposed rules offer crypto companies exemptions allowing the issuance of up to $5 million in tokens during four years and up to $75 million during 12 months, as well as a safe harbor exempting cryptocurrencies from being treated as ”investment contracts.”

On July 27, SEC Chair Paul Atkins told CNBC that the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules“ on digital assets if the Senate failed to pass the CLARITY Act. 

Related: Deutsche Bank awaits regulatory nod to launch institutional crypto custody solutions

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

Bitcoin (BTC) stayed near monthly lows at Wednesday’s Wall Street open as markets awaited the US Federal Reserve’s decision on interest rates.

Key points:

• Bitcoin continued to trade under $76,000 into the Federal Reserve interest-rate decision. It stands near its lowest levels since Aug. 21.
• Markets saw nearly 93% odds of the Fed enacting a 0.25% rate hike, bringing the federal funds rate to 3.75-4%.
• Onchain support thickened at $68,000 as bid liquidity moved toward the current spot price.

Fed rate-hike odds pass 90% despite Trump demands

Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD trading below $76,000 after hitting new September lows of $74,960 the day prior.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The weakness occurred as the CLARITY Act failed to garner enough votes in the Senate to advance to the debate stage, falling short of the 60 required. Now, attention has turned to the Fed, as it is facing a balancing act between taming inflation and satisfying the demand of US president Donald Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that rates be cut.

The latest data from CME Group’s FedWatch Tool put the odds of officials confirming a 0.25% rate hike at over 90% at the time of writing, bringing the federal funds rate to 3.75-4%.

Fed target rate probabilities for Sept. 16 FOMC meeting (screenshot). Source: CME Group

Commenting, trading resource The Kobeissi Letter noted that these odds made a rate hike a near certainty.

“In data going back to 2008, whenever expectations of a hike have been this high, the Fed has invariably delivered one. If the Fed decided to leave interest rates unchanged today, it would mark the biggest dovish surprise at a scheduled policy meeting since 1994,” it wrote in a post on X.

The meeting marks just one of three central-bank rate decisions this month. The European Central Bank enacted a 0.25% hike last week, while the Bank of Japan is expected to do likewise at its Friday meeting, bringing its benchmark rate to 1.25%, its highest in 31 years.

Central banks worldwide face increasing price pressures as oil supply chains battle the impact of an expanding war in the Middle East. US WTI crude oil hit $106.70 per barrel on Tuesday, its highest level since May 4.

CFDs on WTI crude oil one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

As Cointelegraph had reported earlier, oil-price increases have had a pronounced knock-on effect on US Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation.

Bitcoin price support converges around $70,000

Analyzing short-term BTC price action, onchain analytics platform Glassnode considered where BTC/USD could fall to should it deviate further from its local range, which has been in place since Aug. 21.

Related: Bitcoin Coinbase Premium hits monthly low as CLARITY Act vote squeezes US demand

“Resting bids, the buy orders waiting in the book, have pulled in toward price. Nearly two thirds of the bids resting within 20% of price now sit between 1% and 10% below it, up from about half at the start of the year,” it reported in the latest edition of its regular newsletter, The Week Onchain.

Bitcoin spot-market order-book depth data. Source: Glassnode

Exchange order-book bid liquidity points to $68,000 as the next line of support. Price currently sits just below the True Market Mean, the aggregate cost basis of the currently active BTC supply. The aggregate cost basis of short-term holders, defined as wallets holding an unspent transaction output (UTXO) for less than six months, provides another potential support level at $71,300.

“If the range breaks and those bids are used up, the next floor is the on-chain one at $62K to $65K, where the heaviest block of supply below the market was last bought,” Glassnode added, referring to the price at which around 9% of the supply last moved onchain.