US crypto policy momentum hit a wall as the Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the proposed CLARITY Act, leaving digital-asset firms to rely on agency rulemaking and shifting interpretations rather than a clear statutory framework. The procedural vote came up short of the 60 votes required to move forward—49-50 on a motion to invoke cloture.

Industry leaders described the outcome as disappointing but not necessarily final, pointing to potential regulatory action from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Still, lawyers and executives warn that without legislation, compliance timelines and market planning could remain exposed to ongoing administrative discretion.

Key takeaways

• The Senate voted 49-50 on a cloture motion for the CLARITY Act—short of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance the bill.
• Crypto firms are increasingly looking to SEC and CFTC rulemaking to “fill the legislative gap,” rather than expecting near-term certainty from Congress.
• Legal executives argue that agency guidance may prolong case-by-case assessments, increasing compliance burden and prolonging uncertainty for budgeting and product rollout.
• A reconsideration move by Senator Thom Tillis keeps the possibility of another cloture attempt alive, but timing uncertainty remains high.

Why the CLARITY Act’s procedural failure matters

At the center of Tuesday’s outcome was the Senate’s failure to invoke cloture, a procedural step that determines whether debate on the CLARITY Act can move forward. While the vote does not kill the bill outright, it delays the legislative path and underscores how difficult it can be to secure consensus in a divided chamber.

Industry executives said the result creates a meaningful setback—especially because the stakes are not only legal theory. A legislative framework would be expected to reduce the unpredictability of how digital assets are classified and regulated across different product types. Without it, market participants may remain dependent on regulator-by-regulator and fact-specific interpretations.

As this gap persists, the question for investors, builders, and exchanges becomes less about the promise of a future law and more about whether agencies can deliver stable, consistent rules quickly enough to support real-world planning.

Regulators as the next avenue for clarity

In the immediate aftermath, executives highlighted what they viewed as the most plausible alternative: rulemaking from the SEC and the CFTC. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said on X that continued regulatory work by both agencies could still provide the clarity firms need.

According to Garlinghouse, “the SEC, under Chair Atkins, and the CFTC, under Chair Selig, will continue to work hard to issue rules” to address the gap left by the stalled legislation. The comments align with earlier remarks from SEC Chair Paul Atkins during the Solana Policy Institute Summit on Monday, where he reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to clearer crypto rules regardless of legislative progress.

That “agency-first” approach may help address certain questions faster than Congress can. But it also changes how certainty is produced: rather than coming from a statute that applies broadly, clarity may depend on a series of rule proposals, comment periods, and final determinations—each of which can evolve over time.

Executives warn about “temporary reprieve” and case-by-case risk

Legal and compliance leaders cautioned that rejecting the bill may leave firms exposed to administrative discretion. NEAR chief legal officer Abhishek Vaidyanathan said the lack of legislation would force continued reliance on agency guidance rather than a definitive statutory framework.

In particular, Vaidyanathan argued that firms preparing budgets for 2027 would likely face another prolonged delay, pulling them back toward “case-by-case judgments and repeated legal work.” In his view, that is not just a legal inconvenience—it also affects how counterparties price risk when regulatory interpretation remains in flux.

Similarly, Bitget Wallet chief operating officer Alvin Kan told Cointelegraph that the bill’s failure maintains uncertainty about how securities, commodities, and money-transmission rules apply across different products. The practical effect is that product categories can face different compliance pathways even when they serve similar users, and the line between those categories can remain contested.

Another Senate attempt and what happens after this Congress

Despite Tuesday’s setback, the CLARITY Act discussion is not over. Senator Thom Tillis moved to reconsider the failed attempt, potentially allowing another cloture vote. That kept the door open for renewed procedural progress in the current session.

1inch chief legal officer Orest Gavryliak characterized the Tuesday result as a delay rather than a verdict, noting that legislation of this scale rarely moves in a straight line and that another cloture vote can be pursued.

Still, the odds of passage before the end of the current congressional term are far from certain. Vaidyanathan suggested that the “next Congress” may be the more likely opportunity to tackle crypto market structure, implying that legislative timing and election-driven priorities could become barriers.

He also pointed to near-term calendar constraints: the House has reportedly canceled weeks of September 21 and 28, while the Senate’s state work period begins October 5 ahead of the November 3 election. Those scheduling dynamics matter because even when support exists, floor time and procedural momentum can be difficult to sustain.

Market sentiment around the bill’s prospects also softened. Polymarket odds of the CLARITY Act being signed in 2026 fell to 5% on Tuesday, the lowest probability since the market opened in January, indicating that traders and bettors rapidly adjusted expectations following the cloture failure.

For readers trying to anticipate what changes next, the key watchpoints are whether Tillis’s reconsideration leads to another cloture vote and, in parallel, how quickly the SEC and CFTC move from commitments into concrete rule proposals and final guidance—because those will determine whether firms get durable clarity or continue to operate in a regime of shifting administrative interpretation.

Stablecoins may be doing more than speeding up crypto payments. Speaking at Queen’s University Belfast on Tuesday, Carolyn Wilkins of the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee argued that the rise of dollar-linked “digital dollars” could further entrench the US dollar’s role in global finance—while also creating a channel through which stress in US Treasury markets could spread back to stablecoin issuers.

Wilkins highlighted how dollar-denominated stablecoins can simplify cross-border settlement and extend access to dollar-linked assets beyond traditional US banking rails. She tied that convenience to a straightforward market consequence: greater demand for US Treasuries, especially for reserves backing stablecoin issuance.

Key takeaways

• Dollar-linked stablecoins can increase US Treasury demand by extending reserve access to dollar assets beyond the US, according to Bank of England financial policy committee member Carolyn Wilkins.
• Stablecoin issuers are already large holders of Treasury bills, with figures cited showing nearly $150 billion held at end-2025 by Tether and Circle, and about $33 billion of purchases during 2025.
• Wilkins warned the relationship works both ways: in a large-scale redemption event, issuers could be forced to sell Treasuries, potentially amplifying volatility in an already pressured market.
• The stablecoin market remains overwhelmingly dollar-oriented, with the US dollar accounting for 98% of stablecoin value, giving it a “first-mover advantage,” Wilkins said.
• In the UK, regulators are moving to facilitate development of stablecoins through sandboxes and finalized rules, while the Bank of England experiments with digital money for cross-border use cases.

How dollar stablecoins could strengthen Treasuries—and the dollar

Wilkins’ core argument is about incentive alignment. Dollar stablecoins, by design, are meant to track the US dollar, so expanding their use naturally encourages broader participation in dollar settlement and dollar-linked asset access. As stablecoins become a more common bridge for international transfers, the demand for dollar exposure can rise not only among traders, but also among institutions and intermediaries that prefer simpler settlement mechanics than traditional correspondent banking.

In her remarks, Wilkins specifically pointed to Treasury demand. She cited data indicating that Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC (USDC) held nearly $150 billion in Treasury bills at the end of 2025, and bought about $33 billion worth during the year—illustrating that at least for the biggest issuers, Treasuries are not peripheral. They are integral to how dollar stablecoin reserves are positioned.

The implication for investors is practical: when stablecoin growth continues, Treasury demand from reserve managers tied to stablecoin issuance can become a persistent, if evolving, source of incremental demand. That matters in a market where Treasury liquidity and funding conditions can have wide knock-on effects across rates and collateral markets.

The other side of the trade: redemptions and volatility risk

Wilkins also emphasized that stablecoins are not a one-way beneficiary of dollar liquidity. Because reserves are connected to marketable US government debt, issuer balance-sheet dynamics can become a financial stability variable when redemption flows surge.

Her warning was specific in direction: at sufficient scale, mass stablecoin redemptions could compel issuers to sell Treasury bills. If that happens during periods of market strain, the forced selling mechanism could contribute to higher volatility—an effect that could be amplified by the fact that Treasuries are widely used as collateral and a benchmark across the financial system.

This is the central tension in the stablecoin-reserves narrative: the same structure that supports stablecoin issuance and cross-border convenience can transmit liquidity pressures when flows reverse quickly. Readers should treat the “stability” of a stablecoin as distinct from the stability of the markets used to back it.

Stablecoins remain dollar-dominated—UK regulators are still watching

The Bank of England official framed dollar dominance as a key structural feature. The stablecoin market is described in the remarks as overwhelmingly tied to the US dollar, with the dollar accounting for 98% of stablecoin value. Wilkins characterized that as a “considerable first-mover advantage,” reinforcing why dollar stablecoins could keep scaling faster than alternatives.

Broader adoption trends were also referenced in the context of market size, including reporting that stablecoin circulation has surpassed $300 billion. Even with continued growth, the near-total concentration in dollar-linked products suggests that, for now, the US dollar will likely remain the primary beneficiary of global stablecoin usage.

For the UK, the policy question is whether—and how—to develop stablecoins in a way that captures benefits without importing unnecessary risk. Wilkins’ remarks align with ongoing UK regulatory and experimental steps aimed at shaping how these products could fit into a broader financial system.

UK’s regulatory push: sandboxes, finalized rules, and digital pound tests

While dollar stablecoins dominate the global picture, British pound-denominated stablecoins have been slower to gain traction. Still, UK regulators have taken concrete steps this year to make local issuance and experimentation easier.

The Financial Conduct Authority began testing prospective stablecoin issuers through a dedicated regulatory sandbox and finalized rules for UK stablecoin issuance in June. The Bank of England has also been experimenting with digital money, including work to assess whether stablecoins and a simulated digital pound could be used together for cross-border trade payments, according to coverage of the Bank’s interoperability testing.

Wilkins’ comments also come in the broader context of the Bank of England adjusting its stance. Earlier coverage noted industry criticism of proposed rules and a subsequent softening of the UK stablecoin regime, reflecting a policy balance between innovation and oversight.

For market participants, this matters because local frameworks can influence which stablecoin projects get launched, which institutions are willing to integrate them, and how quickly alternative fiat currencies could gain traction outside the US dollar orbit.

What to watch next is whether UK and broader European efforts can diversify currency exposure in stablecoin reserves—or whether the dollar’s structural advantages continue to pull most growth back toward US Treasuries. Equally important will be monitoring redemption stress scenarios: if large-scale outflows coincide with Treasury-market strain, Wilkins’ warning about volatility transmission could move from theory to a measurable market dynamic.

The bulk of the spending—$21.7 billion—comes from replacing munitions expenditures, the CBO found, including $13.1 billion for missile defense interceptors and $7.3 billion for land-attack cruise missiles. Other costs include repairing or replacing equipment, increased flying hours for air operations and transportation, and increased fuel costs. However, it does not factor in the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East.

The separate report from the Defense Department’s inspector general, released a day before the CBO’s, estimated the cost of repairing “physical damage from Iranian strikes” to U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE at approximately $184 million. It also determined that throughout Operation Epic Fury the U.S. military has spent $22.3 billion on munitions and has lost around $3.7 billion in aircraft and equipment, including four destroyed F-15 fighter jets, seven KC-135 tanker aircraft, a dozen damaged or destroyed KC-135 refueling aircraft, and the loss of up to 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones. 

Standard Chartered’s Geoff Kendrick is making a pointed bet on Arbitrum’s long-term upside, arguing that the layer-2 network could become a standout beneficiary as traditional finance accelerates the shift toward onchain and tokenized assets.

In a note shared with Cointelegraph, Kendrick highlights Arbitrum’s revenue model as a key reason for optimism: the network receives 10% of net protocol revenue generated by companies building on it. He points to Robinhood Chain—developed by the online brokerage Robinhood—as an early, high-visibility example of that mechanism in action.

Key takeaways

• Standard Chartered expects Arbitrum’s revenue share (10% of net protocol revenue) to translate into stronger token economics.
• According to Kendrick, Robinhood Chain materially increased Arbitrum’s run-rate revenue after launching in July.
• Arbitrum revenue is projected to reach $5 million in September, the bank says—more than five times the pre-Robinhood level.
• Standard Chartered’s base case targets ARB potentially rising to as high as $10 by 2030, contingent on tokenization growth and competition.
• The bank flags slower-than-expected asset tokenization and competing layer-1/layer-2 ecosystems as the main risks.

Why Standard Chartered thinks Arbitrum’s token economics can expand

At the center of Standard Chartered’s outlook is the idea that Arbitrum is not only a destination for crypto-native users, but also an infrastructure layer for tokenization and onchain financial services. Kendrick’s argument ties network growth to economics that ultimately flow back to the system—and by extension, to the ARB token.

In the note, Kendrick emphasizes that Arbitrum receives 10% of net protocol revenue produced by companies building on the network. He also credits the arrival of Robinhood Chain with “materially” shifting Arbitrum’s economics. The comparison Kendrick makes is straightforward: at the current run rate, Arbitrum is expected to generate $5 million in revenue in September, which he says is more than five times its level prior to Robinhood Chain’s launch in July.

That framing matters for investors because it positions Arbitrum’s upside as more than speculative usage growth; it’s anchored to a revenue-share structure that could scale as new onchain products are deployed on its infrastructure.

Robinhood Chain as an early test case for the revenue model

Kendrick describes Robinhood Chain as the first major example of how traditional finance activity could influence Arbitrum’s economics. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted Robinhood’s launch of an Ethereum layer-2 testnet aimed at tokenized assets.

Standard Chartered’s assessment suggests that the market may be underestimating the direct financial linkage between deployments on Arbitrum and the network’s protocol revenue intake. If the bank’s projections hold, that linkage could strengthen the case for ARB not just as a governance token, but as a proxy for the economics of Arbitrum’s expanding developer and enterprise footprint.

From revenue growth to ARB price targets—what’s bullish, what’s conditional

Building on the revenue outlook, Kendrick expects Arbitrum’s economics to support a steady rise in ARB over the coming years. Standard Chartered’s projection reaches as high as $10 by 2030. From current levels, Kendrick frames that outcome as roughly a 70-fold increase.

The bank also contrasts that trajectory with its projected returns for Bitcoin and Ether over the same period, suggesting that Arbitrum—under this scenario—could outperform major benchmark assets in risk-adjusted terms. Still, Kendrick’s note is explicit about uncertainties.

He flags two main risks to the ARB projection: a slower-than-expected pace of asset tokenization and increased competition from alternative blockchain networks. Those concerns are important because they go directly to the assumptions behind Arbitrum’s revenue expansion—namely, whether tokenization demand grows quickly enough and whether enterprises choose competing ecosystems for their layer-2 or tokenized-asset infrastructure.

Tokenized asset growth is the bigger bet

Standard Chartered’s thesis leans heavily on the broader market trend of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). According to RWA.xyz data, the cumulative value of tokenized real-world assets is nearly $39 billion.

In its note, Kendrick reiterates the bank’s forecast that tokenized assets could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028 as banks and asset managers bring more assets onchain. Under that pathway, Arbitrum is positioned as a potential beneficiary because it enables companies to build their own layer-2 networks while collecting a share of net protocol revenue generated by deployments.

Standard Chartered has previously connected tokenization expectations to other parts of the crypto ecosystem, citing the growth of tokenized RWAs as supportive of its bullish outlook for Chainlink and for the wider decentralized finance sector.

For readers, the next signals to watch are whether tokenization adoption accelerates faster than anticipated—and whether Arbitrum keeps attracting major deployments without losing share to rival ecosystems. Kendrick’s projections hinge on that pace, and any divergence could materially change the implied path from protocol revenue growth to ARB performance.

Binance has rolled out a new “Binance Earn” wealth management service that lets users access 11 U.S.-listed exchange-traded funds tied to short-term U.S. Treasurys and investment-grade bonds.

The offering is positioned as a way for crypto platform users to manage traditional portfolio exposure without leaving the Binance interface, with the ETFs grouped by different time horizons—from under six months to more than a year—covering what Binance describes as cash management, steady income, and yield-enhancement strategies.

Key takeaways

• Binance Earn now provides access to 11 U.S.-listed ETFs focused on short-term Treasurys and investment-grade bonds.
• The ETFs are organized by investment horizon, ranging from less than six months to more than a year.
• Users buy actual ETF shares via Binance Earn—unlike tokenized stock or ETF products where exposure is packaged differently.
• Binance says the economic benefits of the ETF shares, including price movement and cash distributions, pass through to investors.
• Orders are processed through Binance’s stock trading infrastructure and routed to a brokerage execution setup involving Nest Trading and Alpaca Securities.

How Binance Earn packages ETF exposure

Binance says investors can browse the ETF lineup within Binance Earn and place orders directly through the platform. Purchases are processed through Binance’s stock trading service, with Binance stating that users receive the economic benefits of the ETF shares, including both price changes and cash distributions.

A notable distinction in Binance’s structure is that users are not buying tokenized representations of equities or ETFs. Instead, they purchase real ETF shares through the service, with Binance providing the user-facing interface.

The TradFi plumbing behind the interface

Under the hood, Binance’s ETF access relies on conventional brokerage infrastructure. The arrangement routes orders through Nest Trading to Alpaca Securities, which executes trades and holds the securities.

For traders and investors, this matters because the service is designed to function like a bridge between two worlds: the familiar Binance user experience on one side, and established market plumbing for settlement and custody on the other. The objective is less about reinventing how ETF ownership works and more about expanding where investors can find it.

Binance expands its TradFi footprint

This ETF launch is presented as part of Binance’s broader expansion into traditional finance (“TradFi”). Earlier in the month, the exchange added physically settled options on more than 1,000 U.S. stocks and ETFs, building on an existing equities offering that includes over 7,000 U.S. stocks and ETFs.

Taken together, the ETF suite suggests Binance is broadening beyond spot trading and toward a wider set of portfolio tools—effectively moving from single-asset trading experiences toward longer-duration investment products that many users associate with brokerage platforms.

What investors should watch next

Binance is betting that crypto-native distribution can lower friction for accessing traditional investment instruments—especially in areas like short-duration rates exposure. A PwC survey cited by the company’s broader ETF discussion indicates that many industry participants expect tokenization to increase ETF reach and improve 24/7 accessibility over the next three years, though Binance Earn in this case is explicitly based on buying actual ETF shares rather than tokenized products.

For users, the key open questions are likely to be practical: how Binance Earn’s ETF lineup evolves, how investors should think about liquidity and execution quality within the integrated stock trading flow, and whether Binance will expand beyond fixed income-focused products as it continues building out its TradFi catalog.

As the service scales, readers should keep an eye on whether Binance Earn adds more ETF strategies beyond short-term Treasurys and investment-grade bonds, and how the platform’s TradFi integrations develop—particularly around product breadth, order routing, and the user experience for managing traditional holdings alongside crypto.