Senator Bill Hagerty, a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, signaled on Monday that a viable path for a US digital asset market structure bill could crystallize in the coming weeks after months of congressional stalling. Speaking at the Digital Assets and Emerging Tech Policy Summit at Vanderbilt University, Hagerty indicated that fellow Republicans intend to move the CLARITY Act through the banking panel starting next week, with the goal of pushing it through committee in the April work period.

“We will be in a position, I hope, to bring all of this together very soon,” Hagerty said, noting that the banking committee is “very close” and that he expects the bill to be in committee in the next work period beginning Monday. “Over the next several weeks we should have this into the banking committee.”

“There’re several issues still outstanding, I think none of them are insurmountable and we will get to a point I believe in April that we’ll have it out of the banking committee. There’s still a lot more work to do.”

The event underscored the sense among lawmakers that a comprehensive framework for digital assets—long discussed but repeatedly delayed—could finally move forward in the first half of the year. Hagerty’s comments come as the bill’s path remains tethered to negotiations across committees and the broader political calendar as the midterm cycle looms.

Key takeaways

• April markup target for market-structure legislation: Hagerty said the banking committee is close to moving the CLARITY Act into a markup during the next work period, signaling a potentially decisive push in the coming weeks.
• Rebalancing crypto oversight to the CFTC: The draft framework envisions shifting primary regulatory oversight of crypto markets from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, reflecting a broader rethinking of how digital assets are regulated in the United States.
• Inter-committee dynamics complicate the timeline: The Agriculture Committee has already advanced its version of the bill in January, and the banking panel must hold its own markup before a potential floor vote, highlighting a multi-committee negotiation process.
• Industry players flag progress and risks: Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal said lawmakers were “close to a deal” on stablecoin yield and related issues, underscoring that the negotiations are moving but still hinge on several contentious points.
• Crypto lobbying accelerates ahead of elections: With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, crypto-focused political action committees are mobilizing—Fairshake has reported a large war chest and influence ambitions, while the Fellowship PAC has appointed crypto-aligned leaders to key fundraising roles.

Regulatory architecture and interagency dynamics

The core idea behind the CLARITY Act—often referred to as a landmark crypto bill—would reframe how the United States oversees digital assets. By potentially elevating the CFTC as the lead supervisor for most crypto markets, while preserving certain securities/commodities distinctions, the bill aims to provide a clearer regulatory pathway for exchanges, issuers, and other market participants.

The legislation would not simply replace one regulator with another; it would require a coordinated push across major congressional committees. The agriculture panel has already signaled its support by advancing its version in a January markup, but the banking committee’s involvement remains pivotal because the bill’s broad scope touches both commodities and securities issues. The banking committee would need to complete its markup for the bill to reach the Senate floor, subject to further refinement and negotiations with the Agriculture Committee.

Earlier coverage noted that the agriculture committee’s version confronts topics such as tokenized equities, ethics concerns, and stablecoin yield—areas that have contributed to delays in the banking committee’s schedule. The interplay between SEC oversight, CFTC leadership, and the evolving treatment of tokenized assets adds a layer of complexity to any final package. Readers should note that related commentary from industry observers frames this as a critical juncture for how the United States could regulate the crypto market for years to come. Related reporting has highlighted optimism that the CFTC could oversee a broader swath of the market, should a comprehensive framework pass into law.

For market participants, the exact division of regulatory responsibilities matters because it shapes how exchanges operate, how asset classifications are determined, and how enforcement actions will be structured in the coming years. It also helps define whether new requirements—such as registration standards, reporting duties, or capital and conduct rules—apply uniformly across related crypto markets or are tailored to specific asset classes.

Political appetite and the broader electoral backdrop

The crosswinds of policy and politics are particularly salient this year as lawmakers weigh the potential impact of crypto regulation on electoral outcomes. Hagerty’s framing that there is still work to do and a sense of urgency ahead of the midterm cycle mirrors public remarks from other policymakers who have stressed the need for timely, predictable rules to reduce regulatory uncertainty for builders and investors alike.

Coinbase’s legal chief has echoed similar sentiment. Paul Grewal recently said lawmakers were “close to a deal” on stablecoin yield and other elements of the market-structure bill, signaling growing consensus on several core issues even as stalemates persist. This alignment between industry and lawmakers could help narrow the gaps, though significant policy hurdles remain to be resolved in the coming weeks.

Beyond Congress, political action committees with crypto ties have started to mobilize at scale. The Fairshake PAC, a crypto-backed group, reported spending substantial sums on media buys during the 2024 elections and has projected a sizable war chest for the 2026 midterms. Stand With Crypto, another advocacy coalition, has pointed to how the vote on the market-structure bill could influence crypto policy and, by extension, the 2026 electoral landscape. Stand With Crypto cites the broader strategic calculus around crypto policy and its potential impact on voters’ perceptions of lawmakers’ willingness to support the industry.

In another notable development, the Fellowship PAC—speaking on behalf of industry-aligned donors—announced the appointment of Jesse Spiro, a senior executive from the tether-backed ecosystem, as chair. The move underscores the intensifying choreography between policy debates and political fundraising as the 2026 cycle approaches.

Analysts and lobbyists say the outcome of these efforts could shape market sentiment and liquidity decisions for many market participants over the next 18 to 24 months. A clear, stable framework would reduce policy risk for exchanges and asset issuers, while overly fragmented or uncertain rules could slow innovation and push activity toward jurisdictions with clearer guidance.

What to watch next for traders and builders

For users, developers, and investors, the primary takeaway is that a more predictable regulatory regime could emerge if the banking committee marks up the CLARITY Act in April and advances it toward a floor vote. The next several weeks are crucial, as lawmakers negotiate terms on tokenized assets, stablecoins, ethics considerations, and how to coordinate oversight across multiple agencies.

Market participants should monitor committee activity, statements from House and Senate leadership, and comments from vocal industry groups and lobbying coalitions. The degree to which consensus can be reached on sensitive points—such as stablecoin yield, tokenized securities, and the proper distribution of regulatory authority between the SEC and the CFTC—will likely determine the policy’s momentum into the summer and beyond.

Another point of ambiguity remains the broader political calendar. With midterms approaching and crypto policy a potential differentiator for voters, the incentives for rapid progress could either accelerate or stall legislative activity depending on how negotiations unfold and how much leverage lawmakers perceive they have with stakeholders on both sides of the aisle.

In the near term, the market structure bill’s fate seems tethered to a blend of substantive policy compromises and political timing. If April proves decisive, a committee vote could pave the way for broader debate on the Senate floor. If negotiations stall, the path to a comprehensive framework could slip into the 2026 cycle, risking renewed policy drift and continued regulatory uncertainty for the industry.

As the process unfolds, investors and builders should stay alert to progress on the core sticking points—especially stablecoin yield and tokenized assets—as well as any shifting leadership roles within the relevant committees. The coming weeks will reveal not just whether a market structure bill can pass but how the United States intends to calibrate regulation in a rapidly evolving digital asset landscape.

Stay tuned for updates on committee markup schedules, voting timelines, and any new comments from lawmakers or industry groups as the debate over the digital asset market structure heats up in the spring.

Key Takeaways:

• What It Is: Circle’s post-quantum security roadmap for Arc covers wallets, signatures, validators, and offchain infrastructure across four phases through 2030.
• The Roadmap: Phase 1 launches opt-in quantum-resistant wallets and NIST-standard post-quantum signatures at mainnet; Phases 2–4 add private state encryption, validator security, and infrastructure hardening.
• The Algorithms: Arc targets NIST-finalized lattice-based schemes – CRYSTALS-Dilithium (ML-DSA) and Falcon – with transaction size increases of 2–10x initially, offset by hardware acceleration and algorithm optimization.
• The Threat Context: Current quantum hardware sits at 1,000–1,500 qubits; breaking ECDSA requires millions of error-corrected qubits – but active addresses that have already exposed public keys must migrate before Q-Day regardless of timing.
• What to Watch: Arc mainnet launch date confirmation and Phase 1 opt-in adoption rates among enterprise users – the first concrete test of whether quantum-resistance is a selling point or a friction point for USDC-native workflows.

Coinglass data shows Ethereum trapped in a tight “liquidation corridor,” with $1.414b in longs at risk below $2,040 and $889m in shorts exposed above $2,253.

If Ethereum (ETH) slides below $2,040, around $1.414 billion worth of long positions on major centralized exchanges could be forcibly liquidated, according to derivatives analytics platform Coinglass. The same data set indicates that a break above $2,253 would reverse the pressure, putting approximately $889 million in short exposure at risk of liquidation on mainstream CEXs. That leaves spot ETH trading in a narrow but dangerous corridor where a relatively modest price move can trigger outsized forced flows across futures venues.

In a recent Ethereum liquidation heatmap update, Coinglass described these bands as “price ranges where large‑scale liquidation events may occur,” highlighting how dense leverage clusters can create mechanical selling or buying once price crosses key thresholds. Earlier this month, a crypto.news story on ETH’s “trapdoor” setup noted that nearly $1.8 billion of combined long and short leverage sat between roughly $1,952 and $2,154, meaning that a 5–7% move could turn into a cascading wipeout for over‑levered traders. Another crypto.news story on liquidation “walls” between $2,057 and $1,863 cited Coinglass and ChainCatcher data showing shorts facing up to $928 million in liquidations above $2,057, with $454 million in longs vulnerable below $1,863.

At current levels, Coinglass estimates Ethereum’s open interest at more than $27.3 billion, underscoring how tightly coiled derivatives positioning has become relative to spot liquidity. In a separate Ethereum price story, crypto.news pointed out that ETH’s market capitalization was hovering near $247 billion with 24‑hour trading volumes above $13 billion, yet leverage pockets of $700–$800 million in either direction were enough to skew short‑term price action. Coinglass has warned that “liquidations play a crucial role in the cryptocurrency market, often causing sharp price movements and significantly impacting traders’ positions,” particularly when large clusters sit just a few percentage points away from spot.

The current configuration means that if ETH breaks below $2,040, long traders could face a $1.414 billion liquidation cascade that accelerates downside far beyond the initial move. Conversely, a breakout above $2,253 risks inflicting about $889 million in pain on shorts, potentially turning forced buying into a sharp short squeeze. For traders using high leverage on Ethereum, Coinglass’ maps, highlighted in multiple crypto.news stories on liquidation traps and walls, offer a stark risk warning: once price enters these bands, risk management becomes less about discretionary exits and more about surviving the next wave of forced unwinds.

More than $273 million in bearish crypto positions were unwound in under 24 hours on April 6, as reports of US-Iran ceasefire talks triggered a sudden and sharp shift in market sentiment.

Bears paid a heavy price on Monday. Bloomberg reported that roughly $273 million in bearish crypto bets were unwound within 24 hours, with short positions absorbing the vast majority of losses in a near 3-to-1 ratio over longs. The trigger was an Axios report that the US, Iran, and a group of regional mediators are discussing a potential 45-day ceasefire. Within hours of the report surfacing, risk assets snapped higher and over-leveraged bearish positions were forced to cover.

Bitcoin’s 24-hour range ran from $66,634 to $69,350, a $2,700 swing that caught the worst of the short positioning built up over the Easter weekend.

Ethereum led the major assets with a gain of 5.1%, the largest percentage move among top tokens and a direct reflection of how concentrated bearish exposure had become on the second-largest network. SOL added 2%, XRP climbed 2.2%, and ADA, AVAX, and LINK all posted double-digit increases in open interest alongside positive funding rates, extending the risk-on move well beyond Bitcoin.

The total crypto market cap crossed back above $2.5 trillion, recovering roughly $70 billion on the day.

Why the Short-Side Was So Crowded

Heading into the Easter break, sentiment had collapsed after weeks of escalating US-Iran war headlines and a string of ceasefire hopes that failed to convert into anything concrete. As crypto.news reported, the Bitcoin derivatives market had been sitting between a $1.143 billion long liquidation wall below $65,000 and a $754 million short pocket above $68,000. That structure left the market tightly wound and vulnerable to a sharp move in either direction.

Traders who had positioned for continued downside were essentially betting the $65,000 to $73,000 war range would hold or break lower. Monday’s ceasefire headlines upended that positioning in a matter of hours.

Open Interest Data Points to More Than a Squeeze

What separates Monday’s move from prior headline-driven spikes is how open interest behaved. In both Bitcoin and Ethereum, open interest climbed at a faster pace than spot prices, suggesting fresh capital flowing into the market rather than mechanical short covering alone. That distinction matters: a pure short squeeze exhausts itself quickly, while new capital entering can sustain a move.

As crypto.news noted in its analysis of Monday’s ceasefire developments, a confirmed deal could reduce oil prices and ease inflation pressures, improving the case for a more accommodative Federal Reserve stance. Caution remains warranted. Polymarket currently puts the odds of a ceasefire by April 30 at roughly 30%, and several major tokens including BCH and HYPE are still showing negative funding rates, signalling pockets of bearish positioning that have not yet been cleared.

JPMorgan (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon said the bank must move faster to keep up with blockchain-based competitors as tokenization reshapes parts of the financial system, according to his annual letter to shareholders.

“A whole new set of competitors is emerging based on blockchain, which includes stablecoins, smart contracts and other forms of tokenization,” Dimon wrote, framing the technology as a direct challenge to traditional banking models.

He added that these technologies, alongside fintech firms, “may change the fundamental nature of how all this is done,” referring to core banking functions such as payments, trading and asset management.

Dimon’s response is not to dismiss the shift but to accelerate JPMorgan’s own efforts. “We need to roll out our own blockchain technology and continually focus on what our customers want,” he said.

The comments come as tokenization—turning assets such as money market funds, bonds or real estate into blockchain-based tokens—has become a central focus for both crypto firms and large financial institutions.

Major players, including BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and Goldman Sachs, have launched or tested tokenized funds in the past year. Crypto-native firms are also pushing into the space, offering blockchain-based versions of traditional financial products that run continuously and settle almost instantly.

JPMorgan has spent years building blockchain infrastructure through its Onyx unit, now branded Kinexys, with products designed to mirror core banking functions on new rails. Its flagship JPM Coin is a bank-issued stablecoin that enables institutional clients to move money instantly, replacing slower internal transfers. The bank has also pushed into tokenization of traditional assets, running pilots that turn instruments like government bonds and money market funds into blockchain-based tokens that can be transferred and used as collateral in near real time.

Dimon said the shift to blockchain-based versions of traditional products raises pressure on banks. Faster settlement can reduce fees tied to payments and trading, while tokenized systems can allow assets to move directly between users. Stablecoins, which act as digital dollars, also present a potential alternative to bank deposits.

Dimon did not endorse crypto assets like bitcoin BTC$69,793.18 in the letter, focusing instead on the underlying infrastructure and its impact on competition. He noted that clients are increasingly seeking guidance on areas such as “digital assets,” signaling growing institutional interest even as the bank remains cautious.

Beyond technology, Dimon struck a cautious tone on the economy. He warned that geopolitical tensions, including conflicts in the Middle East, could drive “significant ongoing oil and commodity price shocks” and lead to “stickier inflation and ultimately higher interest rates than markets currently expect.”

He also pointed to high asset prices and global debt levels as risks, suggesting markets may be underestimating potential volatility.

Still, the letter makes clear that emerging financial infrastructure—not just macro conditions—is shaping JPMorgan’s strategy. As tokenization gains traction, Dimon signaled that the bank sees the shift as structural, not cyclical.

Polymarket said it expects to roll out a new 1:1 USDC-backed collateral token in the coming weeks as part of a broader overhaul of its trading platform, according to a post on X.

The upgrade, described by the company as a “full exchange upgrade,” includes a rebuilt trading engine, updated smart contracts and a new collateral token called Polymarket USD. The token will replace USDC.e, a bridged version of Circle’s USDC stablecoin that originates on Ethereum (ETH) and is wrapped for use on other chains.

USDC.e acts as a stand-in for native USDC but relies on bridge infrastructure, which can introduce added risk and friction. By moving to its own collateralized token, one-to-one with USDC, Polymarket appears to be aiming for tighter control over settlement and liquidity.

The update follows earlier signals that a broader token strategy is in the works. In October, Polymarket’s chief marketing officer confirmed plans for a POLY token but did not provide a timeline or details on its function.

That token has yet to be formally unveiled. Still, its potential role has drawn attention.

Polymarket has long relied on UMA’s “optimistic oracle” to resolve market outcomes. In that system, users propose results and UMA token holders vote to settle disputes. The design rewards consensus, not accuracy, which critics say can leave outcomes open to influence by large token holders.

Recent controversies, including disputes tied to geopolitically themed markets, have exposed those limits. If POLY is used to internalize resolution, it could mark a shift toward in-house governance of truth.

Read more: Polymarket pulls controversial Iran rescue markets after intense backlash

One hypothetical model would separate trading from governance. Users would continue placing bets in stablecoins like Polymarket USD, while POLY (if launched) would handle dispute resolution and market curation. That split could allow the platform to price honesty independently from trading outcomes.

Polymarket’s push comes as it rebuilds its presence in the U.S. The platform shut down domestic operations in 2022 but registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in July 2025. Since then, it has reported strong growth and a valuation above $20 billion.

The coming token launch and infrastructure changes suggest the company is tightening control over both trading and truth—two pillars that define prediction markets.

Read more: Prediction markets backlash builds possible stormcloud for 2027

Chaos Labs, one of Aave’s key risk managers, is leaving the DeFi lending giant’s ecosystem, marking the latest in a string of high-profile contributor exits that have reshaped the protocol’s core operating team in recent months.

The departure follows earlier exits from major contributors like ACI (Aave Chan Initiative) and BGD Labs, signaling growing internal friction over the protocol’s direction.

Since 2022, Chaos Labs has overseen risk across Aave’s markets, helping the protocol grow from roughly $5 billion to more than $26 billion in total value locked, while maintaining “zero material bad debt.” But despite that track record, the firm says it can no longer continue under current conditions.

“The engagement no longer reflects how we believe risk should be managed,” said Omer Goldberg, CEO of Chaos Labs, in a post on X, pointing to a “fundamental misalignment” with Aave’s evolving strategy.

A key sticking point is Aave’s V4 upgrade, which introduces a new architecture and significantly expands the scope of risk management. Chaos argues this shift increases both operational complexity and responsibility, without a matching increase in resources or alignment.

“Taking on something new responsibly requires new infrastructure… and the full operational burden of going from zero to one again,” Goldberg wrote.

The firm also flagged economics as unsustainable. Even with a proposed $5 million budget, Chaos said it has been operating at a loss and would continue to do so. “Even with an increase of $1m, we’d still be operating Aave’s risk with negative margins,” Goldberg said.

At the same time, Chaos warned that the loss of experienced contributors is raising operational risk, especially as Aave transitions between versions. “Continuity of brand is not the same thing as continuity of system,” Goldberg wrote.

For Aave, the departure leaves open questions around how risk will be managed through its next phase of growth.

CoinDesk reached out to Aave Labs for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

Read more: Aave governance rift deepens as major governance group exits $26 billion DeFi protocol

Tom Lee says Ethereum has become the No. 2 “wartime” asset, outpacing Bitcoin and stocks as war spending surges and crypto gains appeal as a liquidity and risk trade.

Since the latest Middle East conflict escalated, Ethereum has become the second best‑performing major asset globally, trailing only top safe‑haven trades and beating both Bitcoin and equities, according to Fundstrat co‑founder Tom Lee. In a recent post shared by the TomLeeTracker X account, Lee said that while “crypto has been outperforming since the war started,” Ether has led the pack, with Bitcoin ranking third and both digital assets “significantly” outpacing the stock market.

Lee quantified the current war impulse at roughly $30 billion per month in additional government outlays and warned that this figure “could rise to a scale of $100 billion” if the conflict broadens, effectively turning defense budgets into a persistent fiscal shock.

By contrast, he argued that the drag from higher oil is smaller than many investors assume, saying each $10 increase in crude prices adds only about $4 billion to $5 billion per month in pressure on US consumers. That arithmetic, Lee contends, means the net macro effect still leans toward stimulus rather than contraction, even with oil near $100 per barrel.

Fundstrat’s March research, cited by Lee and first reported by DL News and Yahoo Finance, shows Ethereum up roughly 17% on a relative basis versus the S&P 500 since the US‑Israeli conflict with Iran began in late February, beating Bitcoin, gold, real estate, MSCI World Energy and the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks. “As a wartime store of value, crypto looks a lot stronger,” Lee said, adding that “crypto has been outperforming since the war started while gold has actually underperformed,” a view echoed in his call to “ditch gold, buy crypto” during the conflict.

Ethereum’s performance is also underpinned by structural factors, including a market cap near $230 billion, growing institutional positioning and a staking rate approaching 30% of total supply that tightens available float. Lee, a long‑time Ether bull who chairs Bitmine Immersion Technologies, has maintained a long‑term price target of $250,000 for ETH and recently backed that stance with action, as Bitmine disclosed another $133 million purchase that lifted its Ethereum holdings above $9 billion.

Against this backdrop of elevated fiscal spending and volatile energy prices, Lee says the allocation value of crypto as both “liquidity and risk assets” is rising. He argues that defense outlays and still‑accommodative financial conditions create a powerful liquidity environment in which high‑beta assets such as Ethereum and Bitcoin can benefit disproportionately, even as headlines are dominated by war and oil shocks. In earlier research notes covered by outlets like MarketWatch and other financial media, Lee has emphasized that “stock markets bottom in the early stages of military conflict,” suggesting the recent outperformance of Ether and Bitcoin could be an early signal of how capital will be repriced if the conflict and spending surge persist.