Bitcoin price trades at $76,600, surprisingly gain 1.1% on the day, a bounce that masks a brutal prediction based on regulatory optimism. The bigger question isn’t the daily candle. It’s whether BTC can hold this range as Washington and the Fed both deliver bad news in the same 48 hours.

The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act failed a critical cloture vote in the Senate on September 15, coming in at 50-49, a few votes short of the 60 needed to advance. Reuters flagged a more than 5% intraday drop in Bitcoin as the vote outcome became clear, the sharpest single-day move since June.

A day later, the Federal Reserve hiked rates 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00%, its first increase in three years. But, instead of dropping Bitcoin run.

Two headwinds, one week. Rate hikes historically punish non-yielding assets like Bitcoin, and a stalled regulatory framework removes a catalyst that traders had been quietly pricing in since the summer.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Bitcoin Price Prediction: Can BTC Hit $80,000 This Week?

BTC is changing hands near $76,600, with 24-hour volume running around $30.5 billion across major venues. That’s healthy turnover for a market absorbing two macro shocks in 48 hours, suggesting sellers haven’t fully capitulated.

The low-$70,000s remain the level to watch. That’s where the CLARITY Act sell-off found buyers, and a break below would confirm the bearish thesis. Resistance sits in the upper-$70,000s to $80,000, a zone where prior rallies have stalled repeatedly this cycle.

Bitcoin (BTC)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Bull case: a revived CLARITY Act push or dovish Fed commentary triggers a reclaim of $80,000. Base case: continued chop between $72,000 and $78,000 as the market waits for clarity on both fronts. Bear case: a break below $72,000 opens room toward the mid-$60,000s. Fed commentary in coming weeks will likely decide which path plays out.

Trade Bitcoin on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Key Levels

A choppy BTC range with regulatory delay hanging overhead isn’t exactly a green light for chasing spot at these levels. Anyone who bought the July rally is underwater on sentiment, even if the chart hasn’t fully broken. That’s pushing capital toward earlier-stage plays where the entry price hasn’t already priced in a decade of institutional adoption.

Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself as the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with full SVM integration, smart contract execution built for speed that reportedly outpaces Solana itself while settling back to Bitcoin’s base layer.

The presale has raised $33 million at a current token price of $0.0136863, with staking rewards live at launch. Core features include a decentralized canonical bridge for BTC transfers and low-latency transaction processing aimed at solving Bitcoin’s long-standing programmability gap.

Traders looking for asymmetric upside outside the BTC chop can research Bitcoin Hyper directly.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: What’s Next After CLARITY Act Delay and Rate Hike? appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Carlos Domingo, chief executive officer of Securitize Inc., speaks during the Messari Mainnet summit in New York, US, on Thursday, Sept. 21, 2023. Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Securitize surged Thursday after federal regulators greenlit the issuing of tokenized stocks on some trading platforms in the U.S. 

Advertisement

The tokenization name was last up 14%. At its peak, it was up 24%.

The Securities and Exchange Commission earlier in the day announced a temporary path for the limited trading of tokenized publicly traded U.S. stocks. The order, though not a formal regulation change, will remain in force for five years.

SECZ 5-day chart

Advertisement

“The Innovation Exemption is designed to resolve challenges that have prevented responsible innovation from taking root in the United States while providing investor protections and market integrity standards,” SEC Chair Paul Atkins said in a statement.

Tokenization refers to the process of registering ownership rights for real-world assets like bonds and stocks on a digital decentralized ledger. The technology makes it possible to trade financial assets around the close, giving tokenized securities an edge over their traditional counterparts. 

Securitize became the first major tokenization firm to go public in the U.S. in early July. It holds roughly 9% of the tokenized market by assets under management, priming it to reap the rewards of a boom in real-world asset tokenization, according to Needham Securities.

The combined market value of tokenized assets has soared to $38.51 billion as of Thursday afternoon, up more than 70% over the past year, according to data provider RWA.xyz.

Advertisement

“We believe the long-term leaders will be those platforms that can secure the broadest base of inst. customers. SECZ has done this having launched two funds with BlackRock, Apollo, KKR, and others and has infra. partnerships with Computershare and NYSE,” Needham analyst John Todaro wrote last week.

He initiated coverage of the stock with a buy rating.

Choose CNBC as your preferred source on Google and never miss a moment from the most trusted name in business news.

Source link

Bitcoin’s share of addresses sitting at a loss has dropped sharply, and on-chain analyst Crypto Dan says moves of that size have historically ended bear markets rather than just producing a short bounce.

The call went out following two macro jolts that hit crypto: a Fed rate hike and a stalled Senate vote on the CLARITY Act.

Why the On-Chain Picture Looks Different

Crypto Dan’s argument centers on UTXOs, the individual chunks of BTC in wallets, and how many currently sit below what their holders paid for them.

That share has fallen by a wide margin, and the analyst pointed to past cycles where drops of a similar size didn’t just produce a brief bounce; they closed out the bear phase entirely.

“Looking at previous market cycles, declines of this scale have represented more than just short-term rebounds,” he wrote. “They have shown enough momentum to bring bearish phases to an end and transition the market into a bullish cycle.”

He flagged the rate hike and the CLARITY Act’s failure as near-term risks, but argued that neither had been enough to undo the shift already underway.

Darkfost’s read on the chain data lines up with that. Bitcoin is holding above $71,300, a cost basis that only counts units actively moving through the market, and Darkfost noted this level got tested twice near the end of the 2023 bear market before the next cycle took off.

On the other side sits $79,800, the break-even point for invested capital, where BTC keeps getting rejected, a pattern the market watcher also traced back to that same 2023 stretch. That leaves Bitcoin stuck between the two levels.

At the time of writing, BTC was trading above $76,000, up about 1% on the day but down nearly 3% for the week. If you zoom out, the picture flips, with the OG cryptocurrency up 19% in the past month even after sliding almost 35% over the last year, to put it about 39% below its all-time high from last October.

Volume has cooled too, and was down close to 24% in a day to about $29.5 billion.

The Week’s Two Macro Jolts Barely Moved the Market

The two events Crypto Dan flagged already happened. The Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on September 15, falling short of the 60 votes needed. Bitcoin dropped on the news, then the Fed raised rates by 25 basis points the next day, its first hike in three years, and the asset climbed above $76,000.

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan said the rally has little to do with regulation, noting that BTC rose about 38% between July and mid-September even as betting markets cut CLARITY Act odds from 39% to 18%.

Meanwhile, trader Matthew Hyland mocked predictions that the failed vote and rate hike would send Bitcoin to $50,000, when it held near $76,000, with longtime BTC advocate David Bailey calling the muted reaction the strongest sign yet that the bear market is over, saying traders are in a “bad news doesn’t matter phase.”

The post From Bear to Bull: Analyst Says Bitcoin UTXO Data Points to a Cycle Shift appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Ethereum price is trading at $2,435, up 1.5% on the day, as a fresh wave of exchange deposits raises questions and a bearish prediction about whether holders are gearing up to sell. The number underneath that move is the real story, and it’s one that traders watching the order books have been flagging all week.

Inflows of ETH to Binance have climbed to their highest level since last June, according to on-chain data cited by Cryptoquant. That kind of spike typically precedes either profit-taking into strength or a liquidity build ahead of derivatives positioning.

The timing, with ETH fresh off a bounce from sub-$2,300 lows, makes the read genuinely ambiguous. Analysts tracking the move have pointed to it as an early signal worth watching rather than a confirmed bearish signal.

The backdrop matters. ETH has spent weeks consolidating in a rising structure many technicians call a continuation pattern, not a completed top, and the broader market is still digesting how Fed policy and macro data bleed into risk assets like crypto more generally.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Ethereum Price Prediction: Will ETH Hit $2,800 This Week?

ETH’s current print of $2,435 sits almost exactly on the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement level at $2,438.85. A level Binance’s own analysis flagged as the pivotal support zone for the current structure. Hold above it, and the path toward $2,550 resistance stays open. Lose it convincingly, and $2,360 becomes the next test, with $2,173 the deeper downside target if that Fibonacci floor cracks.

Ethereum (ETH)

24h7d30d1yAll time

• Bull case: A clean break above $2,550–$2,600 resistance opens the door to $2,800, and possibly $3,000+ in an extended flag breakout scenario.
• Base case: continued range-bound chop between $2,360 and $2,550 while the market awaits macro clarity.
• Bear case: a decisive Binance-inflow-driven sell-off pushes ETH through $2,360 support, exposing the $2,212–$2,161 zone near the 200-day EMA.

Volume around the current resistance band will likely determine which scenario plays out first.

Trade Ethereum on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

LiquidChain Targets Early Mover Upside as Ethereum Tests Key Levels

ETH holders sitting on gains since the summer lows have a legitimate case for staying put; the higher-high structure is real. But at a $290B+ market cap, doubling from here requires an enormous amount of fresh capital. That math is exactly why some traders are rotating a slice of profits into earlier-stage infrastructure plays before the next cycle narrative sets in.

Enter LiquidChain ($LIQUID), an L3 project fusing Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana liquidity into a single execution environment. The presale has raised $960K at a current token price of $0.014956.

Its core pitch: a Unified Liquidity Layer and Deploy-Once Architecture that lets developers build once and tap into all three ecosystems’ liquidity simultaneously, with Single-Step Execution and Verifiable Settlement rounding out the stack.

Research LiquidChain directly before the round progresses further.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Ethereum Price Prediction: Binance Inflows Hit June Record High appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Source link

New York, USA, September 17th, 2026, Chainwire. Edel announced an expanded institutional push for its tokenized equity and commodity markets on Canton, led by board member Brad Klaas, a securities lending and prime brokerage veteran whose career spans BlackRock’s predecessor firms and Franklin Templeton. The push comes as Wall Street’s largest institutions move assets onchain and confront a harder question: what those assets can do once they arrive, and whether the answer gives institutions a compelling reason to change.

As part of that effort, Edel has joined the DTC Digital Assets Solutions Industry Working Group, convened to provide feedback on the creation of the DTCC Tokenization Service. 

Edel will help shape this work alongside more than 100 other members, including institutions at the core of US capital markets such as NYSE, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citadel Securities. The DTCC Tokenization Service is expected to launch in Q4 2026.

For most of the past decade, the question hanging over blockchain and capital markets was whether the two belonged in the same sentence. That question has largely been settled. BlackRock has tokenized funds. JPMorgan has built blockchain settlement rails.

Franklin Templeton has moved investment products onchain. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the post-trade utility beneath much of the US securities market, is developing tokenization infrastructure of its own.

Yet as the novelty of issuance fades, a less comfortable reality is setting in. Putting an asset on a blockchain does not automatically make it useful inside the machinery of global finance. The markets around it still have to work.

For Klaas, those requirements are familiar. The questions now confronting onchain finance increasingly resemble the ones he has spent decades working through.

Beyond the Token

The first era of real-world asset tokenization was dominated by questions of issuance. How does a fund issue shares using blockchain infrastructure? That question still matters, but the value of a financial asset has never come solely from the ledger it sits on. It comes from everything that can happen around it.

In traditional markets, assets are rarely static. Stocks are lent. Treasuries are pledged as collateral. Positions are financed, margined, cleared and moved between institutions. Dealers borrow securities to make markets, hedge funds borrow them to express short positions, and large asset owners lend portfolios that would otherwise sit idle. This plumbing rarely makes headlines. It is also where much of modern finance actually lives.

That creates a genuine risk for the tokenization movement. If a tokenized security trades in an isolated liquidity pool, cannot be used efficiently as collateral and cannot interact with the systems institutions already rely on, tokenization can simply create another silo. The bigger prize is making the asset programmable without making the market around it worse.

That means addressing liquidity, privacy, settlement and credit. It also means understanding why the existing arrangements work as they do.

What Wall Street Already Learned

Early in his career, Klaas ran global securities-lending operations at Wells Fargo Investment Advisors, the business that became Barclays Global Investors and was later acquired by BlackRock. He says he scaled those operations from just over $1 billion to nearly $40 billion before leaving in 1998, during a period when the firm’s assets under management grew from roughly $400 billion to $1.2 trillion.

He went on to build businesses in prime brokerage and electronic trading, and later spent more than four years at Franklin Templeton working on institutional tokenized collateral products and partnerships. His experience spans both the machinery that puts institutional portfolios to work and the effort to bring those functions onchain.

That career arc matters because the two markets are starting to collide. Securities lending turns a passive portfolio into productive capital, but the infrastructure underneath it is demanding. Counterparty exposure has to be managed. Collateral moves, margin changes and securities need to be recalled. Corporate actions have to be accounted for, and settlement needs to happen reliably.

Decades of financial infrastructure exist to make that process look boring. Blockchain changes some of the mechanics, but it does not eliminate those obligations.

Klaas sees an opportunity in how those functions connect. Discussing traditional securities finance with Andrés Soltermann, CEO and co-founder of Edel, he describes “very old systems all lined up in a particular way.” Changing what an asset can do often means working through arrangements that were not designed to adapt together. By contrast, his interest in blockchain rests on composability: the ability to build financial functions that can work with one another and accommodate new uses.

That flexibility helps explain Klaas’s interest in Edel. Asked what competitive advantage a token could give the business, he points to the possibility of using it across several activities rather than confining it to one application. As the infrastructure develops, those uses could open up different sources of income and activity – what he describes as “creating that flywheel around income.” For someone who has spent decades building businesses around the productive use of assets, the attraction is a token whose economic role could expand alongside the markets being built around it.

As a board member, Klaas’s remit spans institutional strategy, senior industry relationships and shaping how Edel’s markets for tokenized equities and commodities on Canton serve institutional participants. He brings the team into conversations with decision-makers across traditional finance, while helping translate their commercial and operating requirements into the markets Edel is building.

Canton gives that discussion a practical dimension: qualifying applications can earn Canton Coin rewards for the economic activity they bring to the network. Edel reported in August that it was generating “tens of thousands in revenue every day,” which the company attributes to those rewards. That offers a concrete example of the broader opportunity Klaas describes: earning from participation in the infrastructure, alongside the business built on top of it.

What matters is the overlap between what he spent decades building and the problem now emerging onchain. His experience connects the technology to the business decisions that determine whether institutions will use it.

The Profit Formula

Klaas is clear-eyed about institutional change. Large firms have established revenues, internal obligations and investors whose agreement may be needed before they can adopt a different approach. Their willingness to move, he argues, is affected by “their own profit formula.”

That observation cuts both ways. An institution has little reason to replace a working system merely because a newer technology exists. It has a more compelling reason to consider one that could lower funding costs, improve collateral availability or allow it to do more business with the assets it already holds.

This is where collateral mobility becomes interesting. If assets take hours or days to move between systems, institutions may need additional liquidity to meet obligations while they wait. If an eligible security can be deployed more efficiently as collateral, some of that funding burden could fall. An existing portfolio could support financial activity that would otherwise require a separate pool of cash.

Those improvements have to justify the cost of integration and satisfy the institution’s risk requirements. But they speak directly to the economics Klaas describes. The same concern for profitability that makes a firm reluctant to change can give it a reason to adopt a system that demonstrably improves how it uses capital.

Tokenized Assets Need Something to Do

Edel is exploring one application of that idea: whether securities tokenized by DTC could be recognized directly as margin within Edel Markets.

Its immediate focus is perpetual futures on Canton. The broader ambition is to build capital-markets infrastructure that makes tokenized assets more productive, improving how they move, support positions, and serve the institutions holding them.

If the necessary arrangements can be established, an institution might be able to post an eligible security rather than sell it or raise separate cash to fund margin. The potential benefit would come from reducing the friction between holding an asset and putting it to work.

Recognition as margin, however, requires more than a token that can move. The receiving market has to accept the asset, value it appropriately, and establish what happens if the position deteriorates or the counterparty defaults. Custody, permissions and enforceable rights remain part of the transaction.

These are the kinds of questions that connect the proposed application to Klaas’s experience. A crypto developer can explain what the technology permits. An institution needs to understand how the arrangement fits its financing, risk, and operating requirements. His contribution lies in helping those conversations meet.

The post Edel Expands Institutional Push as Wall Street Tokenization Matures appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

XRP trades near $1.29 after a sharp correction pushed its two-week Relative Strength Index to the lowest level in the token’s 13-year trading history.

That extreme reading has sparked fresh debate over whether XRP has finally found its cycle bottom.

What This Record-Low RSI Reading Actually Means

Analyst Cryptollica highlighted the milestone in a widely shared post, noting the current two-week RSI near 33.5 has now dropped below the lows seen during the 2018 bear market, the 2020 COVID crash, and the 2022 crypto winter.

The accompanying chart shows XRP still sitting inside a long-term rising channel that has guided the asset through multiple cycles. Price currently rests near that structure’s lower boundary, an area that has historically provided strong support.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.

The analyst argued the market may be misreading the moment entirely. Sentiment has collapsed, and short-term price action looks broken, yet the higher-timeframe trendline has not failed. The analyst wrote that almost nobody wants XRP when its chart looks this damaged, even though such extremes have often preceded major rallies.

EGRAG Crypto added supporting evidence, noting that XRP’s two-month RSI has re-entered a historical zone associated with prior bottoming processes, arguing that cycle behavior matters more than the exact number.

Is Every Analyst Convinced XRP Has Bottomed?

Not everyone agrees a bottom is confirmed. Technical analyst ChartNerd noted XRP remains compressed between the 20-week EMA near $1.29 and the 50-week EMA resistance around $1.52.

A sustained weekly close below $1.29, ChartNerd warned, could open a path toward the $1.00 psychological level. Lower highs and lower lows still appear on intermediate timeframes, suggesting continued consolidation rather than a confirmed reversal.

“Similar to failed closes above the 50 week EMA since the rise to $1.70, If $XRP witnesses daily/weekly closes below $1.29, the next support is back at $1.00. That’s how important the 20 week EMA retest that we just printed is. It has to hold or we dive,” ChartNerd said on X.

CrediBULL Crypto offered a more constructive view, pointing to a related bottom-zone setup in which relative strength has already begun to improve from recent lows.

XRP now sits at a genuine technical inflection point. The record-low RSI, an intact multi-year structure, and heavy negative sentiment together create one of the more debated risk-reward setups in the current market.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.

Whether this reading marks a true cycle low or just another stage in a longer bottoming process depends on price action ahead. Holding the long-term structure would strengthen the bottom case, while a decisive break below $1.29 would shift focus to deeper support.

The post This XRP Chart Signal Hasn't Happened in 13 Years appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink may be the sentiment of the crypto industry, lobbyists and lawmakers who’ve spent the last year trying to get the CLARITY Act over the line.

No shortage of negotiations, amendments or political wrangling; yet not enough to get the bill moving through the Senate.

The CLARITY Act may have rammed into a Senate-shaped hurdle this week, but it isn’t dead on arrival yet — let’s go with walking wounded.

There’s still a chance for the digital asset market structure bill to scramble together the 60 votes it needs to clear the Senate.

Advertisement

When Republican Senator Thom Tillis switched his vote from yes to no at the last minute, he did so on procedural grounds. It may have looked like a swing against CLARITY, but it was really a parliamentary maneuver, allowing him to file a motion to reconsider and preserve a route back to the Senate floor.

The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI)’s director of US federal affairs, Ryan Eagan, tells Magazine:

“Senator Tillis’s motion to reconsider would provide an opportunity to revisit CLARITY’s cloture vote at any point this session. Specific timing regarding next steps is not clear, but that desire to preserve that opportunity is in part due to the progress made over the past week.”

But the Senate is running out of time; both Democrats and Republicans remain divided over ethics provisions involving President Donald Trump, and even supporters of the bill say a more bipartisan negotiating process may now be necessary.

So can CLARITY still be resuscitated, and if it can, how much of the bill will need serious CPR to get there?

Advertisement

CLARITY isn’t dead, but the clock is running down

The failed cloture vote, a procedural vote to end debate on a bill and move it toward a final vote, doesn’t end CLARITY’s journey through Congress just yet. It requires 60 votes in the Senate, and CLARITY fell 49-50 on Tuesday.

Tillis’ motion to reconsider means the vote can be revisited during the current session, but that route is running into a much more practical problem: a ticking clock.

Related: Coinbase faces greater fallout from CLARITY Act setback: Saxo

The Senate is scheduled to leave for recess on October 2 before returning after the midterm elections, and the House of Representatives has already recessed for the election period, complicating any attempt to move legislation through both chambers before the end of the year.

Advertisement

Congressman Shri Thanedar, a Democrat who supported CLARITY when it passed through the House in July 2025, tells Magazine that timeline presents a “major barrier” to reaching an agreement:

“There are only 20 legislative days left in this Congress, all of them after the midterms, making odds of a 2026 compromise, unfortunately, very low.”

Very low doesn’t mean impossible, and the crypto industry has a precedent in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation in US Stablecoins (GENIUS) bill, which failed cloture 48-49 in May 2025 before clearing a second cloture vote 66-32 just 11 days later. It passed the Senate the following month. However, Kyle Chassé, founder of crypto investment firm MV Global, tells Magazine:

“GENIUS came back from a failed cloture in 11 days. But GENIUS had a deal. This one has a calendar and no votes. Miss Jan. 3, and it restarts from zero in 2027 with a House that is probably Democratic.”

While a lame-duck session after the November elections could give CLARITY another shot, that’s not the same as having a ready-made deal waiting to go.

The 60-vote problem is a negotiating problem

Of the 49 votes for CLARITY, not a single one came from the Democratic camp. Chassé says:

Advertisement

“Every one of the 49 was a Republican. Zero Democrats voted to even open debate.”

While that’s clearly less than ideal, it doesn’t necessarily mean the Democrats have abandoned the bill entirely.

On Wednesday, seven Democratic senators — all of whom had voted a day earlier against advancing the bill — said they “remain committed” to enacting the legislation. Among them was Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, who backed moving the bill out of the Banking Committee in May before voting no on cloture. She said it’s “clear that now is the time to regulate digital assets” and that she’s willing to negotiate over the ethics provisions, adding:

“We were ready to strike a deal today and in discussions right up until the vote. Republican leadership shut it down at the very last minute after it became clear that we were on a path to a successful vote.”

Tillis said Wednesday he now wants to “convince the Democrats to get on board,” and “put pressure on them to own it,” and his procedural vote switch was designed to keep that possibility alive. “I feel very strongly that this is an unregulated marketplace and that we need some guardrails on,” he added.

Related: Bernstein expects ‘aggressive’ rulemaking from SEC, CFTC, following CLARITY Act failure

Advertisement

The divide isn’t over whether Congress should establish rules for crypto anymore, but whether the current package goes far enough to secure bipartisan support.

Seven Democratic senators “remain committed” to enacting the legislation. Source: Kirsten Gillibrand, Senate

While Congressman Thanedar says he supports the bill in its current form, he acknowledges that Tuesday’s result shows the need for both parties to work together further on the draft:

“I do believe that the failed CLARITY vote on Tuesday demonstrates that a more bipartisan drafting process would lead to a higher likelihood of creating the bipartisan, supermajority coalition that passing this legislation into law would require.”

If saving CLARITY means rewriting it, what survives?

Chassé says the problem has moved beyond the technical drafting of crypto policy and is now centered on President Trump’s crypto interests and the ethics provisions around them:

“This stopped being a drafting problem. It’s a referendum on the President’s crypto holdings six weeks before an election, and the text as written can’t survive that.”

Republicans had already made 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats ahead of Tuesday’s vote, including tighter restrictions on public officials profiting from crypto ventures, and giving state attorneys general a role in enforcing some of the ethics provisions.

Advertisement

Alsobrooks votes no on CLARITY. Source: Angela Alsobrooks, Senate.

Despite the concessions, Thanedar says the Democrats want more restrictions “on the President’s ability to use his office for personal gain.” He says the at least $1.4 billion in crypto earnings Trump reported for 2025 in his annual financial disclosure shows that “guardrails are necessary to both hold the President accountable and protect the long-term health of the digital asset market.”

Ethics is not the only potential fault line, though, and Chassé says the industry “should stop dying on that hill.” He points instead to stablecoin rewards, saying “some kind of cap or circuit breaker on yield” would likely be “the price of the bank-side senators and a chunk of Democrats,” along with “tighter illicit finance and state enforcement language.”

He says self-custody and developer protections are areas the crypto industry should be reluctant to trade away. Those protections have been bitterly defended throughout the negotiations, with lawmakers and industry groups debating how far the bill should go in shielding non-custodial developers from financial and anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements.

Congress may stall, crypto regulation doesn’t have to

Even if CLARITY remains stuck in Congress, US crypto regulation is not standing still. Eagan says the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have “demonstrated commitment to reduce uncertainty” through guidance, rulemaking, no-action relief and exemptions.

Advertisement

“CCI expects that agencies’ crypto agenda will proceed in robust fashion regardless of the CLARITY Act,” he says, adding that the GENIUS Act implementation continues at Treasury and the banking regulators.

Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor also pointed out that the SEC, CFTC and Treasury could continue to advance rules under existing laws:

“Progress need not wait for Congress.”

That may be true, but agency action is not the same as getting CLARITY over the finish line. Regulatory guidance can be swept out with administrations, but legislation is harder to unwind.

CLARITY may still have a way to limp back to the Senate, but whether lawmakers can find 60 votes without changing the bill beyond recognition is another matter.

Advertisement

Magazine: Revolut ID thefts highlight KYC’s dangers: Here’s how to fix it

Cointelegraph publishes long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Some articles contain affiliate links, from which Cointelegraph may earn a commission. These relationships do not influence which products we review or our editorial conclusions. Content published in here does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence.

Source link

Copyright ©2026 Investor’s Business Daily, LLC. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Source link

In Trump crypto news today, the crypto industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns over the past two years to secure a stronger position at the legislative table.

With Donald Trump in the White House, the industry appeared to have an opportunity to advance its highest-priority legislation. Instead, the president’s own involvement in crypto became central to the measure’s collapse.

Senate Democrats blocked the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Tuesday after a dozen Democrats who had contributed significant input to its drafting voted against it.

Their objections focused heavily on Trump’s personal crypto interests and on ethics provisions they viewed as inadequate. The outcome left the bill’s prospects in doubt and turned a push for digital-asset legislation into a dispute over presidential conflicts of interest.

Why Did the Trump Crypto Industry’s Big Bill Collapse?

The vote was notable because the opposition did not come simply from lawmakers hostile to the crypto industry. A dozen Democrats helped shape the CLARITY Act and supported a narrower, industry-focused bill the previous year.

But they ultimately voted against the broader package, with several pointing to unresolved concerns about the president’s ability to profit from digital assets while his administration shaped policy affecting the sector.

The CLARITY Act would have given the crypto industry a more favorable regulatory and legal footing after industry participants faced dozens of lawsuits during the Biden administration over compliance with corporate-transparency laws.

Republicans included a presidential ethics provision to win Democratic support. Yet the proposed enforcement structure left oversight with the U.S. Attorney General, meaning the Trump administration would police itself.

That structure became a focal point in negotiations. The bill also faced a separate challenge from the banking industry, which opposed a provision allowing digital-asset service providers to pay rewards to certain stablecoin holders.

Banks warned that the arrangement could draw deposits away from traditional savings accounts, and several Republicans highlighted those concerns.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

The Conflict at the Center of the CLARITY Act

Democrats cited Trump’s crypto activities as a key reason for their opposition to a proposed bill. Sen. Adam Schiff highlighted the administration’s refusal to accept a deal that would end the president’s profiteering from digital assets, framing the issue as an ethics dispute.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin noted that while significant progress had been made on law enforcement and national security concerns, the unresolved conflict of interest kept her from supporting it. Similarly, Sen. Mark Warner argued that Congress couldn’t enact major crypto legislation while the president profited from it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a leading opponent of the bill, pointed to the administration’s approval of a bank charter for a Trump-linked entity as evidence of the unacceptable intertwining of the president’s business interests and administration actions.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Republicans’ Case: Anti-Trump Politics Sank the Bill

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, a lead author of the CLARITY Act and a prominent crypto advocate in the Senate, offered a different explanation for the vote.

In comments to HuffPost, she said Democratic opposition stemmed mainly from antipathy toward Trump rather than a principled objection to the legislation.

Lummis also characterized the Democratic Party as increasingly hostile to business, free enterprise and the profit motive. She said that opposition was directed particularly at Trump, while also portraying it as part of a broader ideological disagreement over business and markets.

Her argument sits alongside the record of Democratic participation in the bill’s development. The dozen Democrats who voted no had helped provide input on the CLARITY Act and had backed a narrower crypto bill the year before.

Their stated objections focused on Trump’s personal crypto profits and on Republicans’ refusal, in their view, to impose sufficiently strong limits on that conduct.

Lummis had previously expressed concerns about Trump’s crypto involvement. In 2024, before Trump was elected, she told HuffPost that his embrace of crypto made her somewhat uncomfortable and that he should place his assets in a blind trust.

That earlier position underscores how the question of presidential holdings remained relevant even among supporters of crypto legislation.

Make Your Prediction Count With $25 For Free on Kalshi

The post Trump Crypto Ethics Dispute Derails Senate Crypto Bill: Is The Whitehouse Still Good for Crypto? appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link