Crypto World
Fed Seeks Public Feedback on Proposal to End Operation Chokepoint 2.0
The Federal Reserve is moving to enshrine a rule that would remove reputational risk as a driver of banking supervision, a shift crypto advocates say could blunt a pattern of debanking in recent years. The central bank began codifying the change last June, directing its supervisors to stop pressuring banks to sever client ties over reputation concerns and instead assess banking relationships primarily through financial risk management. Now, in a formal rulemaking proposal published on Monday, the Fed is inviting public comment on turning that approach into law, with a 60-day window to hear from stakeholders. The initiative arrives amid ongoing debates about the boundaries of political and ideological considerations in financial services and bears directly on how crypto firms access banking pathways that were once routine.
The Fed’s upward move comes with explicit acknowledgment of the concerns raised by lawmakers and industry observers about how reputation risk has been wielded in ways that affect crypto and other disfavored sectors. In the accompanying release, vice chair for supervision Michelle Bowman framed the issue in stark terms: “We have heard troubling cases of debanking — where supervisors use concerns about reputation risk to pressure financial institutions to debank customers because of their political views, religious beliefs, or involvement in disfavored but lawful businesses.” She stressed that discrimination on these bases runs counter to federal policy and has no place in the Fed’s supervisory framework. The push to formalize this standard reflects a desire to shield legitimate business activity from ad hoc revocation of banking access under the guise of reputation risk.
As the digital asset ecosystem pushes for clearer rules and a more stable banking landscape, political observers weighed in as well. In a post on X, Senator Cynthia Lummis lauded the Fed’s move, arguing that it should not be the regulator’s role to adjudicate who can participate in the crypto economy. She framed the reform as a breaking point that could help “permanently remove ‘reputation risk’ from Fed policy and put Operation Chokepoint 2.0 to rest so America can become the digital asset capital of the world.” The sentiment was echoed by Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, Alex Thorn, who lauded the development as part of the industry’s ongoing push to roll back what supporters call choke points in traditional finance. Thorn signaled via X that the rollback continues, underscoring the ongoing tension between crypto firms seeking direct access to banking services and legacy financial institutions wary of reputational exposure.
Operation Chokepoint 2.0 is a label used within crypto circles to describe what some perceived as a coordinated effort by the Biden administration and the banking sector to restrict crypto firms’ access to essential banking services. The discourse around this concept has included references to previous policy debates and actions that crypto insiders argued were designed to curb the industry’s growth by pressuring banks to sever ties. The Fed’s latest move—aimed at removing reputation-based triggers from supervisory decisions—has been positioned by supporters as a corrective step toward neutral, risk-based decisions that prioritize financial metrics over political or ideological considerations. The discourse surrounding debanking isn’t new: disclosures and investigations have connected the policy debate to broader questions about regulatory overreach, financial privacy, and the U.S.’s stance toward crypto innovation.
The policy questions extend beyond banking practices into the political discourse around regulation. The administration has signaled an intent to curb debanking in the United States, with discussions touching on how regulators should approach crypto-related clients. The public record features a mix of official statements and industry commentary about the proper balance between safeguarding the financial system and enabling a vibrant digital asset sector. The thread linking this initiative to broader regulatory reform remains a focal point for crypto firms seeking greater clarity and predictability in how banks evaluate risk and structure services for digital assets.
In parallel, proponents of the reform have pointed to links between reputational considerations and broader regulatory strategies aimed at safeguarding consumers while not constraining legitimate innovation. The Fed’s invitation for public comment signals a willingness to test the proposed framework against diverse viewpoints before any final rule is enshrined. If adopted, the rule could set a precedent for how U.S. supervisory agencies weigh risk and approach non-financial considerations in decisions that affect access to fundamental banking services for crypto businesses and other sectors that have faced similar pressures.
Beyond the policy debate, the legal and practical implications loom large. Some observers have highlighted how banks may recalibrate due to the clarity this rule would provide or because it reduces discretionary leverage tied to reputational risk. Others warn that a formalized standard would still require careful definition to avoid unintended consequences, such as banks underreacting to financial risk signals or inadvertently channeling risk through opaque channels. In the end, the rule’s success hinges on how well the Fed can translate a principle into a measurable framework that stands up to scrutiny and serves as a reliable reference for bankers, crypto firms, and regulators alike. The Fed’s consultation period will be a key barometer of how broad support is for codifying this approach and what refinements may be necessary to address edge cases and evolving digital-asset landscapes.
The evolving narrative around debanking and regulatory clarity has also intersected with political dimensions, including ongoing disputes over how bank accounts are treated during periods of political or ideological contention. While the Fed’s move is framed as a technical adjustment to supervisory practice, the broader implications touch on the dynamics of financial inclusion, national competitiveness in the crypto space, and the boundaries of regulatory intervention in private-sector decisions. As negotiators and policymakers weigh the future of digital asset markets, this rulemaking could become a touchstone for how the United States balances the need to manage risk with the desire to foster innovation and maintain the country’s pull in the global crypto economy. The public comment period will determine not only the technical shape of the rule but also the degree to which the policy resonates across industry, advocacy groups, and financial institutions that must implement it in the months ahead.
Key takeaways
- The Fed is seeking to codify the removal of reputation risk as a factor in banking supervision, a move crypto advocates view as reducing punitive pressure on banks over political or ideological considerations.
- A 60-day public-comment window accompanies the proposal, signaling an invitation for industry, lawmakers, and the public to weigh in on the formal rule.
- The initiative follows a June policy shift in which the Fed directed supervisors to base decisions on financial risk management rather than reputational concerns.
- Supporters, including lawmakers and industry figures, frame the reform as a step toward restoring access to banking for crypto firms and ending what critics call “Chokepoint 2.0.”
- Opponents may push for careful definitions of “reputation risk” to avoid unintended loopholes or gaps in enforcement that could leave some customers exposed to informal criteria.
Market context: The policy sits within a broader regulatory environment where liquidity, risk sentiment, and clarity around digital assets influence the willingness of traditional banks to service crypto clients. As policymakers push for explicit standards, market participants look for predictable frameworks that reduce opacity in a space historically marked by sudden access changes and reputational triggers.
Why it matters
For crypto companies, the Fed’s potential rule offers a clearer path to banking access that is less contingent on perceived reputational concerns. In a sector where financial infrastructure—payments, settlement, and treasury services—can determine a project’s viability, a formal standard buffers firms against abrupt disconnections from banking rails. The change could also incentivize banks to adopt uniform risk-based criteria, improving consistency across institutions and reducing the likelihood that decisions are swayed by external factors unrelated to financial health.
From a policy perspective, the move indicates an intent to articulate a more transparent governance framework for supervisory actions. If successfully enacted, the rule could help normalize the treatment of crypto firms within mainstream financial services and strengthen the U.S. position as a hub for digital asset innovation. Support from lawmakers who view debanking as a civil-rights or anti-competitive concern further underscores the political resonance of the issue, elevating the debate beyond technocratic risk management into a broader discussion about access to finance and national competitiveness.
Nevertheless, the discussion remains nuanced. Advocates stress the need for precise definitions to avoid softening risk controls or eroding the ability of regulators to intervene when broader financial crime or consumer protection concerns arise. The rule will likely require ongoing refinement to address newly emergent business models and evolving threats, including opaque financial arrangements or non-traditional counterparties that still carry risk. The Fed’s engagement with industry stakeholders, as evidenced by the 60-day comment period, will be a critical litmus test for how quickly and effectively a clearer, more stable regime can take shape.
What to watch next
- Public comments: The 60-day window opens with the formal proposal and should yield a spectrum of views from banks, crypto firms, consumer groups, and policymakers.
- Final rule release: The Fed will publish the final text, outlining definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and transition timelines for banks to align with the new standard.
- Banking industry response: Expect filings, memos, and industry white papers detailing how lenders foresee applying the rule in practice and where they foresee friction or ambiguities.
- Regulatory coordination: Observers will look for alignment with other regulators’ approaches to reputational risk and how the rule interacts with anti-money-laundering and sanctions regimes.
Sources & verification
- Federal Reserve press release: June 23, 2025, announcing changes to supervision focused away from reputation risk
- Federal Reserve press release: February 23, 2026, inviting public comment on turning the approach into law
- Senator Cynthia Lummis (X) post praising the move: https://x.com/senlummis/status/2026060712305365065
- Galaxy Digital Alex Thorn (X) post commenting on the rollback: https://x.com/intangiblecoins/status/2026069012124164150
- Cointelegraph article: Operation Chokepoint crypto banking restrictions
Market reaction and key details
The Fed’s initiative to codify reputation-risk exclusion from supervisory judgment underscores a broader shift toward risk-based banking decisions that foreground financial metrics over reputational considerations. The formal rulemaking process, including a 60-day comment window, invites a wide spectrum of perspectives, ensuring that the final framework balances financial stability with the industry’s push for more straightforward access to banking services. Industry observers note that the policy’s success will hinge on how clearly the Fed defines “reputation risk” and how it handles edge cases where reputational concerns intersect with legitimate risk signals. The conversation also weaves in the historical debate around “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” a label used by crypto insiders to describe perceived regulatory and banking pressures on crypto firms, which the current proposals seek to reverse or at least diminish in influence over supervisory outcomes. The official narrative aligns with a broader push to position the United States as a competitive, innovation-friendly environment for digital assets while maintaining guardrails that deter illicit activity.
The momentum behind the policy has drawn attention from lawmakers and industry figures who argue it could restore a more predictable banking environment for crypto companies. The ongoing public debate touches on questions of how much regulatory discretion should be exercised based on non-financial considerations and how transparent the decision-making process should be for banks that service digital-asset businesses. With the 60-day window now open, observers will be watching not only for the rule’s final form but also for the evidence of consensus around where the balance should lie between risk control and access to essential banking services.
Ultimately, the Fed’s proposed rule is part of a larger narrative about how the United States intends to steward innovation in the digital asset space while preserving the integrity of the financial system. If the rule stands up to scrutiny and gains broad support, it could reduce the volatility that arises when firms lose access to banking for reasons tied more to reputation than to tangible financial risk. For participants across the industry—from fintech startups to established crypto exchanges—the development represents a potential turning point in the governance of banking relationships and the speed at which the U.S. can keep pace with global peers in the digital economy.
Washington, DC — The regulatory landscape for digital assets continues to evolve as policymakers explore a regulatory runway intended to unlock capital for crypto ventures while preserving investor protections. In remarks at a crypto lobby event, SEC Chair Paul Atkins laid out a concrete concept: a safe harbor framework built around three pillars designed to give crypto issuers a bespoke path through the U.S. regulatory maze. The agenda arrives as the agency and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission simultaneously issued interpretive guidance aimed at clarifying when crypto assets are securities and how non-security tokens could fall under securities laws. The moment underscores a shift from diagnostic debates to concrete regulatory mechanisms that could shape how projects fund themselves in the near term.
Our interpretation on crypto assets—grounded in existing law and informed by extensive public input—acknowledges what the former administration refused to recognize…
Most crypto assets are not themselves securities.
— Paul Atkins (@SECPaulSAtkins) March 17, 2026
Key takeaways
- The core proposal centers on a “safe harbor” that comprises a startup exemption, a fundraising exemption, and an investment contract safe harbor, aiming to provide a tailored regulatory runway for crypto projects to mature without surrendering investor protections.
- A startup exemption would permit crypto firms to raise a defined amount or operate for a set period, granting regulatory latitude to reach maturity while maintaining guardrails.
- The fundraising exemption would allow investment contracts involving crypto to raise capital up to a defined threshold within a 12-month window while remaining exempt from certain registration requirements under securities laws.
- The investment contract safe harbor would offer issuers and buyers clarity about when a given asset falls under securities laws, with conditions tied to the issuer’s ongoing commitments and the asset’s lifecycle.
- The idea relies on a trigger related to “permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts” behind an asset, signaling when protections and securities obligations would apply or end.
Market context: The discussion comes amid broader regulatory debates about how to harmonize investor protection with crypto innovation, all while lawmakers weigh market-structure legislation. As talks on a comprehensive framework progress, the industry watches how these proposed exemptions could interact with enforcement policies and evolving guidance on token classifications.
Why it matters
The proposal signals a potential shift toward regulatory clarity that could reduce ambiguity for issuers and investors alike. By outlining concrete exemptions, the plan aims to supply a predictable pathway for raising capital in the United States, which could encourage domestic projects to scale without provoking unintended securities-law exposure. For crypto builders, a defined startup timeline or a capped fundraising window could translate into more confident planning and strategic fundraising rounds, potentially accelerating product development and deployment.
However, the approach also raises questions about what constitutes sufficient “managerial effort” and how the safeguards would be enforced as projects evolve. Critics may worry that a patchwork of exemptions could create inconsistent standards across token types or trigger uneven treatment for similar offerings. The balance hinges on careful calibration of thresholds and sunset provisions that preserve investor protections while preventing regulatory uncertainty from stifling innovation.
From a broader perspective, the move illustrates regulators’ intent to move beyond abstract classification toward actionable scaffolding. The adoption of a safe harbor framework could influence how other jurisdictions view crypto fundraising, potentially shaping international comparability and cross-border fundraising strategies. As the public comment process unfolds, market participants will be watching for details on eligibility, disclosure requirements, and how the exemptions would interface with existing exemptions or exemptions under state law.
What to watch next
- Proposed rules for the exemptions are expected to be released for public comment in the coming weeks, providing a concrete blueprint to assess implementation challenges.
- Congress continues negotiations around market-structure legislation; observers will monitor whether the Clarity Act or related bills advance, given the current stall in the Senate.
- Regulators may issue additional guidance clarifying the boundaries between securities and non-securities in practice, potentially refining the scope of the safe harbor framework as real-world applications emerge.
- Industry groups and lawmakers will assess how the safe harbor interacts with enforcement actions, investor protections, and international regulatory developments that could affect competitiveness and innovation.
Sources & verification
- Paul Atkins, remarks at a Washington, DC crypto lobby event and the proposed three-part safe harbor framework: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-regulation-crypto-assets-031726
- Joint SEC-CFTC interpretation on crypto assets not securities: https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-interpretation-crypto-assets-not-securities
- Clarity Act and related legislative context referenced by industry coverage: https://cointelegraph.com/news/clarity-act-crypto-united-states-congress-galaxy-digital
- Industry context on evolving crypto regulation and 2025 changes: https://magazine.cointelegraph.com/how-crypto-laws-changed-2025-further-2026/
- Public stance and timing noted in the accompanying tweet: https://twitter.com/SECPaulSAtkins/status/2034012012460556526?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Regulatory safe harbors and the path forward for crypto exemptions
The conversations surrounding a safe harbor framework crystallize a broader theme in U.S. regulatory policy: the desire to foster a constructive environment where startups can raise capital without facing indefinite regulatory ambiguity, while ensuring that investors are adequately protected from risk. Atkins framed the proposed exemptions as a way to tailor regulation to the realities of crypto markets, acknowledging the need for bespoke pathways in an industry with unique funding dynamics and rapid product lifecycles.
The startup exemption envisions a defined early phase during which projects can attract capital or operate with a clear regulatory runway, offering a predictable timeline as teams build products, recruit communities, and develop governance mechanisms. The fundraising exemption would target investment contracts that involve crypto—allowing issuers to raise up to a specified amount within a year without triggering full securities registration. The investment contract safe harbor, meanwhile, would articulate a threshold beyond which token issuers and buyers would be subject to securities laws, potentially offering certainty about when protections apply as the asset matures or as project commitments change.
Crucially, Atkins emphasized that the safe harbor would be triggered by a specific condition: when an issuer has “permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts” promised for the asset. This condition is intended to prevent perpetual ambiguity around the status of a token and to provide a clear point at which securities obligations become applicable. The approach seeks to balance entrepreneurial flexibility with the safeguards designed to protect investors in complex, evolving markets.
In parallel, regulators clarified that most crypto assets are not themselves securities, while still outlining circumstances under which securities rules may apply to non-security assets. The interpretive action reflects an attempt to harmonize traditional securities law with the realities of a diverse digital-asset landscape, where token models range from payments rails to governance tokens and beyond. Industry observers note that the framework could affect fundraising strategies, disclosure practices, and how projects structure token distributions. The designation of a safe harbor would be a practical step toward reducing regulatory friction for compliant offerings, even as broader questions about market structure, transparency, and enforcement persist.
As the public comment period looms, the crypto sector will be watching for precise definitions, numerical thresholds, and procedural steps that will determine how readily these exemptions can be deployed. While the regulatory impulse is to create a more navigable route for compliant issuances, the ultimate success of such a framework will hinge on its ability to scale with innovation, deter fraud or misrepresentation, and mesh with international standards. The interplay between this proposed framework and ongoing legislative efforts—such as the stalled Clarity Act—will matter for how quickly and comprehensively the U.S. market can align with evolving global norms.
Opinion by: Leo Fan, founder of Cysic
Decentralized compute has failed. Not because it can’t find you a cheap GPU; it’s actually quite good at that. The problem is that every major network today still forces you to trust the node operator with your data and results.
We have replaced Amazon’s login page with a wallet connection and called it Web3.
A staggering $2 billion to $3 billion was poured into “decentralized cloud” tokens from 2023 to 2025. Yet none of the top players can give a smart contract mathematical certainty that the work was done correctly. Zero-knowledge rollups, onchain AI agents and fully trustless apps remain impossible at scale.
The entire sector has decentralized supply and payments. Trust is still centralized. Until verification is cryptographic, “decentralized compute” is just Airbnb for GPUs.
The marketplace mirage
Current leaders are sophisticated spot markets, nothing more. Akash pulled in about $11 million in Q3 2025 revenue. Render managed about $18 million. Impressive for coordination layers, sure, but trivial next to AWS’s $100 billion-plus annual run rate.
These networks solved the easy part, idle GPU discovery and crypto payments, and declared victory. Their proof-of-work done? Usually, just “the node streamed the result plus some reputation score.”
That’s not verification. That’s a pinky promise with extra steps.
Real-world failures are already happening. In 2025, bad actors returned corrupted Blender renders through Render’s network. No onchain way to detect it. Io.net caught a Sybil cluster gaming reputation scores in May and further failures in November with aPriori’s mysterious Sybil cluster that claimed 60% of the airdrop across 14,000 wallets. Gensyn’s own whitepaper admits their “learning game” tolerates less than 49% malicious tolerance in practice.
These are the predictable outcomes when you replace mathematical proofs with social enforcement.
Think about what this means for actual use cases. A Layer 2 rollup outsourcing STARK proofs to any current decloud still needs a trusted multisig or single honest prover. The centralization risk remains unchanged. An autonomous agent doing inference on io.net? The on-chain contract can’t tell if the LLM output was correct or backdoored. We’ve recreated the oracle problem with more steps.
Breaking Web3’s core promise
Bitcoin never asked you to trust miners. Ethereum doesn’t require faith in validators. They gave you ways to verify. Today’s compute networks do the opposite:
“Here’s your result. Trust me, bro, and we’ll slash if someone complains.”
This philosophical mismatch kills the entire value proposition. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for “decentralized GPU” gets capped at rendering and basic training because nobody will run sensitive workloads on networks where nodes see your plaintext data, such as DeFi bots, medical inference, and proprietary models.
Vitalik nailed it at Devcon 2024:
“If your scaling solution reintroduces trusted parties, you haven’t scaled. You’ve just outsourced.”
That’s exactly what we’ve done. We outsourced AWS to a thousand smaller AWS nodes and patted ourselves on the back.
The market size illusion becomes clear when you do the math. Without verifiable execution, you can’t serve. Financial institutions need provable compliance. Healthcare systems require an auditable inference. Rollups demand trustless proof generation. AI agents must execute high-value transactions.
Related: Institutions must stake Ether on decentralized infrastructure
You’re left competing for Stable Diffusion hobbyists and Blender farms. Good luck building a trillion-dollar market on that.
The only path forward
Real decentralized compute requires cryptographic proof accompanying every result, including zkSNARKs, STARKs or optimistic fraud proofs, that are verifiable in under a second by any smart contract.
This isn’t theoretical anymore. Hardware-accelerated proving stacks using FPGAs and custom ASICs make this economically viable at GPU-scale bandwidth. The 2024-2025 ZPrize winners showed STARKs over cycle-accurate circuits running in under eight seconds on the latest FPGA clusters, heading toward sub-second on next-gen silicon.
When this verification layer exists, everything changes. A $10,000 DeFi agent can run private AlphaTensor-level reasoning onchain. Rollups can outsource proofs to 10,000 untrusted nodes with zero risk. Inference becomes as trustless as checking an Ethereum balance.
Open, permissionless networks of specialized provers will compete on latency and cost. But the key difference is that dishonesty becomes mathematically impossible, not just expensive. No reputation systems. No slashing games. Just math.
The real revolution
We didn’t decentralize compute by turning GPUs into an open market. That’s like saying we decentralized money by letting people trade dollars on DEXs.
We’ll deserve the name when computational results become as unforgeable as Bitcoin transactions are unspendable without the private key. It’s impossible to fake, trivial to check.
The breakthrough Web3 needs isn’t another 5% cheaper GPU hour. It’s the first network that can attach an unbreakable proof of correctness to every teraflop. That’s the infrastructure we were promised. Everything else is just a centralized cloud with extra steps.
Opinion by: Leo Fan, founder of Cysic
This opinion article presents the author’s expert view, and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance. Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
Five Vietnamese companies are reportedly competing to launch the country’s first licensed crypto exchanges as authorities move to bring trading onshore and ban overseas platforms.
Five companies have passed an initial qualification round, Reuters reported on Tuesday, citing a March 12 finance ministry document. The group reportedly includes affiliates of private banks Techcombank, VPBank and LPBank, alongside stockbroker VIX Securities and conglomerate Sun Group. VPBank and Sun Group reportedly confirmed their licence applications to Reuters.
Vietnam opened applications for licenses to operate crypto exchanges in January. The move came after new procedures issued by the finance ministry and a law that, for the first time, defines crypto assets as property while still banning their use as legal tender or for payments.
Vietnam has emerged as a major hub for crypto trading, ranking fourth globally in Chainalysis’ latest Global Crypto Adoption Index with $200 billion in estimated transactions over the 12 months to June. However, despite the significant activity, most traders still rely on offshore exchanges such as Binance, OKX and Bybit to access the market.
Related: Crypto’s real boom is happening in Argentina, Nigeria, and the Philippines
Vietnam to ban overseas crypto platforms
Authorities are also reportedly drafting rules that could prohibit Vietnamese nationals from using overseas platforms. According to Reuters, officials have raised concerns about the growing use of crypto and stablecoins, particularly in relation to capital moving out of the country.
In September 2025, Vietnam launched a five-year crypto pilot with strict rules requiring all transactions to be conducted in Vietnamese dong and limiting issuance to locally registered companies. The framework also bans fiat-backed assets like stablecoins, allowing only crypto backed by real, non-financial assets.
As a result of the strict entry conditions, including high capital requirements of around $379 million, the country’s Ministry of Finance said no companies had applied for its digital asset trading pilot by October.
Cointelegraph reached out to Techcombank, VPBank and LPBank, VIX Securities and Sun Group for comment, but had not received a response by publication.
Related: Vietnam central bank expects credit growth amid rapid crypto adoption
Vietnam to tax crypto similar to stocks
In February, Vietnam drafted a tax framework for crypto transactions that would treat digital assets similarly to securities trading. Under the proposal, individuals would pay a 0.1% tax on each crypto transaction processed through licensed providers, while such transfers would remain exempt from value-added tax.
For companies, the rules would differ, with institutional investors facing a 20% corporate income tax on profits from crypto trading after costs and expenses.
Magazine: Bitcoin may take 7 years to upgrade to post-quantum — BIP-360 co-author
Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) were built on an ideological premise that is now running up against the realities of running a business, where decentralization collides with the need for legal ownership and control.
On March 11, DAO Across Protocol made a controversial proposal to transition to a private company through a token-to-equity exchange buyout. Risk Labs, the team behind Across (ACX), said that the token and DAO structure “materially” impacted its ability to close deals with enterprises and institutions.
The industry reaction has been split. Decentralized finance (DeFi) researcher Ignas called it a “huge failure of crypto.”
“It feels like a betrayal of the crypto spirit: investment access for everyone, anywhere, globally,” Ignas said on X. “I hope other DAOs don’t follow them.”
The DAO structure is holding back Across’ stablecoin business
Crosschain Bridge Across Protocol currently operates under a token and DAO structure, with Risk Labs overseeing development through a foundation model.
Risk Labs’ proposal outlines a transition to a newly formed US C-corporation that would take over protocol development and commercialization. ACX holders could exchange their tokens for equity in the new entity or opt into a buyout.
“[DAOs] were supposed to replace the archaic organizational infrastructure that is marked by greed and a lack of trust,” Matthew Pinnock, founder of DeFi project Altura, told Cointelegraph.
“However, as the industry increasingly moves toward real-world assets and institutional capital, protocols are running into structural limitations. Institutions typically need a clear legal counterparty that can sign contracts and undergo due diligence, something a decentralized collective cannot easily provide,” Pinnock added.
Related: Perp DEXs become the latest battleground for blockchains
Across co-founder Hart Lambur said that in Across’ case, having a token “generally hurts more than it helps.”
“We launched the Across token very early, at a very low valuation, and with a very broad airdrop. We picked this strategy so that we could build value in public with our community,” Lambur said on X. “Today, the macro environment has changed. Tokens are undervalued and underappreciated.”
Across is positioned around stablecoin infrastructure, which partly explains its transition. The goal is to enable fund movements across stablecoins at parity, with fees absorbed by issuers or partners rather than end users. Lambur said that securing related agreements requires contracts and offchain payment arrangements that are not well suited to DAO structures.
ShapeShift dissolved its corporate entity to become a DAO
As protocols rethink DAO structures, ShapeShift offers a counterpoint. The crypto trading platform transitioned into a DAO in 2021, dissolving its corporate entity in favor of tokenholder governance.
Tim Black, product lead at ShapeShift DAO, said many teams adopted DAO structures during the last cycle as part of a broader narrative, without fully accounting for the operational complexity involved.
Related: Banks will run RWAs on two blockchain rails, says RedStone co-founder
“What Across is proposing is essentially admitting that. They’re saying the DAO experiment helped bootstrap the network, but a company structure is better suited to the next phase,” Black told Cointelegraph.
“Many teams quietly operate like companies already,” he added. “Shapeshift was innovative in using workstreams, mirroring departments, but they still create more friction than collaboration over time.”
Social media debates shifted toward tokenized equity as the way to go over the traditional corporate structure, with Ignas claiming that it would be progress for the industry. But Black thinks that says more about token designs than the concept, as many governance tokens already function as pseudo equity.
“The original idea behind governance tokens was coordination, not ownership… If they just become equity substitutes, then the experiment has basically collapsed back into the corporate model it was supposed to challenge,” he said.
Across’ corporate structure isn’t finalized
If transitions like Across’ become more common, the outcome may not be a single direction for DeFi, but a split in how protocols are structured and operated.
“One side becomes corporate crypto, protocols run like fintech companies with tokens functioning more like shares. The other side stays genuinely decentralized and accepts the operational friction that comes with that,” said Black.
That shift is already being shaped by the influx of institutional capital and RWAs, which impose requirements that DAO structures often struggle to meet.
“That is why we are seeing DAOs taking the regulatory black pill and dropping the D that made them decentralized autonomous organisations,” Pinnock said.
As protocols adapt, some are moving toward clearer legal frameworks and centralized execution layers, while others continue to prioritize open participation and community governance.
Though Across is eyeing a corporate structure, it still operates as a DAO today. It framed its proposal as a “temperature check” to signal that no final decision has been made. It still needs to pass a governance vote and get the blessing of its token holders.
Magazine: Metaplanet’s Japan Bitcoin bet, Bithumb ordered suspension: Asia Express
Key takeaways
-
Bitcoin’s price reflects short-term marginal buying and selling, while adoption reflects long-term structural shifts. Ownership expansion, institutional integration and merchant growth can accelerate even when the market price remains flat or declines.
-
In 2025, Bitcoin expanded significantly across institutions, banks, corporations, merchants and sovereign entities. These shifts represent deeper entrenchment within global financial systems, even as headline price performance appeared underwhelming.
-
Institutions accumulated substantial amounts of Bitcoin, but much of this demand was offset by distribution from long-term holders. As supply changes hands between cohorts, price may consolidate instead of surge.
-
Merchant adoption and Lightning Network expansion improve Bitcoin’s real-world functionality. However, widespread instant conversion to fiat limits sustained net buying pressure unless merchants retain the Bitcoin they receive.
The contrast between Bitcoin’s (BTC) market price and its network adoption has never been more stark. While the price chart has spent much of the past year well below its peak, the underlying data reveals a different reality. In 2025, Bitcoin witnessed a massive, quiet expansion across banks, corporations and sovereign states.
This paradox exists because short-term marginal price formation is often driven by speculative noise, whereas structural adoption is driven by long-term institutional entrenchment. Bitcoin’s fundamentals are compounding at record speed even when the ticker remains stagnant.
This article explores why Bitcoin’s structural adoption across institutions, advisors, corporations and merchants has accelerated even as price action underperforms. It explains how ownership transfer, small allocation sizes and macro liquidity can delay adoption’s impact on short-term price movements.
Bitcoin adoption and price track fundamentally distinct phenomena
When people refer to Bitcoin adoption, they are typically describing gradual, long-term structural shifts:
-
Who is accumulating and holding Bitcoin?
-
Which companies or platforms are launching Bitcoin-related products and services?
-
Who is beginning to accept it as payment?
-
Which institutions, corporations or even governments are incorporating it into their balance sheets or reserves?
These underlying changes evolve slowly, building incrementally over many months or years.
Price, by contrast, is determined at the margin in real time. It responds primarily to:
-
Immediate buyers and sellers in the market
-
Current liquidity dynamics
-
Leverage, futures and derivatives positioning
-
Broader macroeconomic sentiment and risk appetite
-
Supply being released or withheld by long-term holders
Strong adoption can steadily broaden the ownership base without necessarily driving prices higher. It can even coincide with flat or declining prices if distribution from seasoned holders matches incoming demand from newcomers. Ownership can shift between cohorts without triggering sharp repricing.
Did you know? As of March 15, 2026, more than 20 million Bitcoin had been mined out of a maximum total supply of 21 million, representing more than 95% of all BTC that will ever exist. The final Bitcoin is not expected to be mined until around 2140.
How expansion dynamics seem to be unfolding
While Bitcoin’s price action had been relatively weak as of March 2, 2026, adoption trends continued to show strength:
Institutions are accumulating at scale
In 2025, institutions reportedly accumulated roughly 829,000 Bitcoin across businesses, governments, funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This was not a marginal change but a meaningful shift in ownership structure.
Importantly, institutional exposure represents millions of underlying individuals gaining access through brokerage accounts, retirement plans, sovereign wealth funds and corporate balance sheets.
Much of this demand was absorbed by distribution from long-term holders and early adopters. When early whales sell into deeper liquidity, the price does not necessarily surge. Instead, supply shifts from one cohort to another.
Investment advisors have been net buyers for eight consecutive quarters
Registered investment advisors (RIAs) oversee roughly $146 trillion in client assets globally. Since Bitcoin ETFs launched, RIAs have steadily allocated capital, reportedly around $1.5 billion per quarter, without a single net-selling quarter.
That consistency matters.
However, average allocations remain extremely small. Many advisors hold Bitcoin at just basis-point levels in diversified portfolios. Until allocations move from fractions of a percent toward 1% to 2% model weights, the price impact may remain gradual.
In other words, the pipeline is open, but the flow rate is still increasing.
Banks are once again developing Bitcoin-related products
A growing share of major US banks are actively developing Bitcoin custody, trading, advisory and related services. Improved regulatory clarity compared with previous years has reduced institutional reluctance and opened the door to broader participation.
This growing involvement from traditional banks marks a key step toward normalization. Bitcoin is evolving from a speculative, peripheral asset into one that is increasingly embedded within mainstream financial systems and infrastructure.
That said, building products is not the same as achieving widespread availability. Initial launches often target ultra-high-net-worth individuals, institutional clients or remain in limited pilot phases. Rolling out full retail access requires significant time, compliance and operational scaling.
Ultimately, this infrastructure serves as a foundational enabler of future adoption rather than an immediate trigger for rapid market shifts.
Corporate Bitcoin adoption and the weight it brings
Corporate accumulation of Bitcoin can influence the market in several ways:
-
It steadily removes Bitcoin from liquid, circulating supply.
-
It demonstrates high-conviction, treasury-level endorsement from established businesses.
-
It fosters peer benchmarking, encouraging more companies to follow suit.
However, a large portion of these purchases occurs over-the-counter (OTC) or through carefully structured, gradual accumulation programs designed to avoid disrupting spot markets. This measured approach means corporate buying often reshapes long-term ownership patterns far more than it drives short-term explosive price action.
In short, corporate buying may influence long-term ownership patterns more than short-term price action.
Did you know? Bitcoin mining now consumes less energy than many traditional industries, including gold mining and the global banking system, according to several comparative energy studies.
Surge in merchant adoption of Bitcoin
Merchant acceptance of Bitcoin expanded rapidly in 2025. In November 2025, the Bitcoin Lightning Network reached a record $1.17 billion in volume. This suggests that the network is no longer used only for experimental “coffee” payments, but has also become a layer for high-value institutional settlements.
For merchants, Bitcoin offers clear operational advantages, including:
-
Drastically lower processing fees compared with traditional card networks
-
Elimination or near-elimination of chargeback risk
-
Smoother, cheaper cross-border settlements
A large majority of merchants still opt for instant conversion of received Bitcoin payments into fiat currency through payment processors. As a result, incoming transaction volume does not reliably translate into sustained net buying pressure on Bitcoin itself.
Payments adoption meaningfully enhances Bitcoin’s real-world utility. However, utility alone does not generate lasting scarcity or upward price pressure unless merchants choose to hold the BTC they receive.
Bitcoin adoption by countries continues to grow
Throughout 2025, Bitcoin’s role as a strategic reserve asset expanded significantly as five more countries added it to their reserves. This wave of adoption spanned diverse regions and financial structures, including sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia and Luxembourg, the Czech Republic’s central bank and direct acquisitions by Taiwan and Brazil.
Government involvement in Bitcoin adoption carries significance for several reasons. Countries operate on multidecade time horizons rather than quarterly earnings cycles. They typically adopt strategic, long-term holding policies rather than short-term trading. Adoption by sovereign entities confers powerful legitimacy on any asset class, signaling to markets, institutions and the public that Bitcoin is becoming part of mainstream financial frameworks.
Did you know? Lost Bitcoin is estimated to total several million coins, permanently reducing the effective circulating supply and increasing long-term scarcity.
Bitcoin’s volatility continues to decline
One of the most underappreciated indicators of maturing adoption is Bitcoin’s steadily declining volatility. Over the past decade, Bitcoin’s annualized volatility has fallen. Successive market cycles have produced progressively narrower percentage drawdowns and rallies compared with the extreme swings seen in earlier bull and bear phases.
This structural decline in volatility reflects several reinforcing developments:
-
Markedly deeper and more resilient market liquidity
-
More diversified distribution of ownership across holder cohorts
-
Growing institutional and professional participation
-
More sophisticated, liquid derivatives markets (futures, options and perpetuals) that help absorb shocks
Bitcoin’s volatility profile now increasingly resembles that of established asset classes such as stocks, commodities and foreign exchange. This aligns with the preferences of conservative capital allocators, including pension funds, endowments and risk-averse institutions.
Why hasn’t Bitcoin price reacted more aggressively?
While institutional and sovereign adoption increased in 2025, the market’s immediate price action remained muted. This quiet accumulation phase suggests that the true impact of large capital inflows was masked by macroeconomic headwinds.
-
Ownership transfer absorbs demand: When long-term Bitcoin holders distribute into institutional demand, the market can absorb large volumes without sharp upward price moves. Supply simply changes hands as adoption grows and price consolidates.
-
Adoption widens the base, not the margin: Marginal buyers and sellers play a key role in setting the price of cryptocurrencies. Structural adoption broadens the ownership base but does not always shift the aggressive marginal bid right away. Until fresh demand exceeds available supply, price can remain range-bound.
-
Allocation sizes remain small: Many institutions and advisors now allocate to Bitcoin, but at very modest weights. If that changes, marginal demand could increase.
-
Macro liquidity matters: Bitcoin exists within a broader macro environment. Factors shaping capital flows include liquidity conditions, interest rate expectations and global risk appetite. Greater Bitcoin adoption does not mean it is insulated from macro cycles.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Bitcoin mining firm Cango Inc. reported a net loss of $285 million in the fourth quarter of 2025, as impairment charges, fair-value losses and higher mining costs outweighed revenue from its expanding Bitcoin mining business.
In its earnings report published Monday, Cango said fourth-quarter revenue reached $179.5 million, including $172.4 million from Bitcoin mining, while total operating costs and expenses rose to $456.0 million.
The losses were driven in part by an $81.4 million impairment on mining machines and a $171.4 million loss tied to changes in the fair value of Bitcoin (BTC)-collateralized receivables. The company also reported higher production costs, with all-in mining expenses rising to $106,251 per BTC in the quarter.
The results show how revenue growth from mining was offset by impairment charges, mark-to-market adjustments and higher production costs as the company scaled the business.
Google Finance data shows that Cango’s shares fell from around $4.50 on Oct. 1 to about $1.50 by Dec. 31. At the time of writing, it trades at $0.68, marking a decline of more than 84% over the past six months.
Cango posted a net loss of $452.8 million for full-year 2025
For the full year, Cango reported total revenue of $688.1 million, including $675.5 million from Bitcoin mining. The company mined 6,594.6 Bitcoin in 2025, or about 18.07 Bitcoin per day, in its first full year operating at scale in the sector.
Cango reported total operating costs and expenses of $1.1 billion for 2025, including $338.3 million in impairment losses on mining machines and $96.5 million in fair-value losses on Bitcoin-collateralized receivables, highlighting the cost pressures associated with scaling its mining operations.
Related: Bitcoin miners saw the AI power crunch coming — and the nuclear revival
In total, Cango posted a net loss of $452.8 million for the year. Chief financial officer Michael Zhang said the loss was driven largely by non-recurring transformation costs and market-driven fair-value adjustments.
Cango’s Bitcoin mining pivot
Cango’s results come amid a broader strategic shift that has reshaped the company’s business over the past year.
In April 2025, Cango agreed to sell its legacy China auto financing operations for $352 million to Ursalpha Digital Limited, an entity linked to Bitmain.
The deal also included the transfer of 32 exahashes per second (EH/s) of mining capacity to the company, effectively repositioning Cango as a publicly traded Bitcoin mining firm.
In February, Cango raised $75.5 million in equity financing after selling 4,451 Bitcoin for about $305 million to reduce leverage.
The company said this supports its pivot toward artificial intelligence infrastructure, with plans to repurpose its mining operations into distributed compute capacity for AI workloads.
Magazine: All 21 million Bitcoin is at risk from quantum computers
Author of The Bitcoin Standard, Saifedean Ammous, believes that fiat is the central problem plaguing society. “The 20th century is just an enormous amount of wealth being taken away from people who produced it and being sent to the meat grinder of war. And this is what fiat does,” he told Cointelegraph.
“If you take that away, we get a lot less murder and death, and then we get a lot more prosperity, productivity and a lot more wealth.”
In his latest book, The Gold Standard, he explores this very concept. What if the civil, political and social upheavals of World War One never happened? What if a new, decentralized form of money took hold, soon after the war began in 1915?
In our timeline, the four-year war destroyed Europe, exacting a death toll that exceeded 40 million across 30 participant countries. The war sparked revolutions across Europe. By the time the dust settled, the imperial houses of Habsburg, Romanov and Hohenzollern ruled no more. The Ottoman Empire descended into a civil war.
The English class system was challenged, and women in the UK gained the vote. New, independent nations like Finland, Poland, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia emerged. Novel political movements like communism and fascism gained popularity amid the catastrophic economic fallout.
The central thesis of The Gold Standard is that these outcomes of the war were ultimately a result of the fiat banking system. Ammous imagined a world in 1915, just after the Great War broke out, where a decentralized, immutable system of value transfer with gold was invented.
How could it change the course of human history for the better?
Gold, planes and central banking
The Gold Standard begins by setting the political chessboard at the end of the Belle Epoque, the extended period of prosperous but armed peace in Europe from 1871 to 1915.
Ammous describes the political boundaries within Europe and the rise of central banks. Chiefly, he describes how the solidity of the traditional gold standard “had a major problem that prevented it from functioning optimally in its ideal form: the incessant extension of bank credit without corresponding savings.”
In Ammous’ account, a combination of imperial ambitions, poor decision making from politicians, and irresponsible monetary policies allowed the powers of Europe to sleepwalk into the First World War.
In 1915, the alternate history starts with a real-life hero: French aviator Louis Blériot. In The Gold Standard, Blériot realizes the pernicious power that central banks pose to the world, and partners with the American Wright brothers to found the Blériot Transport Corporation (BTC).
They create a fleet of ingenious planes that, piloted by early aviation pioneers of the time, deliver gold from point to point.
“The automobile and aviation industries traded with one another across international borders without having to resort to central banks. As the war raged on and more restrictions were imposed on withdrawing gold, demand steadily increased. Old money became anxious about the banking system. They increasingly demanded that gold be kept on hand and wished to rely on BTC for trade. Most important, perhaps, was that BTC had freed people from having to turn in all their gold to the banks in response to their governments’ pleas.”
This eventually leads to a capital flight which, combined with other circumstances, emptied the belligerent countries’ central bank vaults of all their gold reserves. With countries increasingly unable to finance the war, generals begin to pull back their troops. By early 1915, the guns are silent, the trenches are empty, and peace breaks out in Europe.
The end of the war is codified in the “Treaty of Geneva” and the establishment of the International Committee for Self-Determination (ICSD).
The enduring peace, enabled by a worldwide, immutable gold standard, then leads to unprecedented prosperity in the 20th century. This leads to a massive appreciation in gold value, or “hypergoldenization.”
The form of a governance-for-hire corporate government emerges:
“The tribal considerations of nationality, ethnicity, and religion became increasingly separated from government, and people pragmatically chose to live under the governments that provided them security and services at the lowest cost.”
Without central banks to finance them, and with a conflict resolution framework in the form of the ICSD, wars are far more difficult and expensive to wage.
The prosperity of the gold standard has also eliminated some historical events, economic and natural phenomena that we take for granted, including the rise of socialism, World War II, depressions, climate change, “fiat food” and unemployment.
The book concludes with an accounting of an average day in the life of the Smith family in London in this brave new world.
“Comfort is taken for granted, and prosperity is ordinary. Technology shortens chores, meat is plentiful and affordable, travel is fast, and energy is so abundant that they barely think about it.”
From gold bug to Bitcoin to the trenches
Ammous first became immersed in Austrian economics in 2007, “and by 2008 I would have pretty much called myself an Austrian,” he told Cointelegraph.
Initially, he was a gold bug. “I already had a good grasp of the problems of inflation, the problems of fiat. And I was hanging out on the parts of the internet where Austrian economics nerds discuss these things. At that point, it was a lot smaller than what it is now.”
It was here that he first came across Bitcoin in the context of “sound money” or “hard money.” He wasn’t sold on the concept until 2014, after reading about Bitcoin mining. Soon after, he wrote the best-selling book The Bitcoin Standard.
The Gold Standard, his latest, departs from his usual format by depicting a twist on modern history’s most pivotal event.
“I’ve always been so fascinated by World War I. It’s always been the most fascinating historical thing for me,” Saifedean Ammous said. “If you think about World War One, you’ll see World War Two is essentially just the continuation of the same war. But really, the turning point was World War One.”
The central thesis of the book is that the evils of the war, along with the concomitant social and political changes, were ultimately a result of the fiat banking system. Once rendered ineffective by “BTC,” the course of human history changes.
But creating a credible alternative history isn’t really easy. Ammous said he wanted to make it “so that it isn’t just a pink unicorn” where “world peace breaks out.” He wanted it to be “tenable, believable, credible” that allows the reader to “think in an accurate way about the implications […] in a useful way and a more robust way.”
Creating this new form of monetary transfers was necessary because “the world isn’t going to really change much. Not if there was no war. Then we’re going to continue in the same way.”
Alternative histories are tricky
Despite the clear depth of research that went into the book, some of the historical turns strain credulity.
In the book, Blériot and the Wright brothers’ 1911 airplane prototype, the Lightning, was capable of reaching speeds of 280 km/h with a range of 1,400. This is an over threefold increase in airspeed from Blériot’s record-breaking crossing of the English Channel just two years prior, where he averaged around 80 km/h.
The speed and range of the planes that comprise “BTC’s” fleet far outstrip anything that would be made until the mid-to-late 1930s, making them something of a Deus Ex Machina for the new monetary system.
In chapter 10, as the “BTC”-induced capital flight drains resources from governments to pay their armies, the trenches simply empty as soldiers peacefully desert and go home. History before WWI is riddled with examples of armies going without pay, but they are frequently accompanied by mutiny, looting, pillaging, and, in the more dramatic cases, the sacking of entire cities.
As the generals empty the trenches, Ammous removes some of the belligerent leaders of the war from office. In the cases of Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II, this happens through murder. Nicholas II is shot by his cousin Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich and replaced by his brother Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich. The Kaiser is stabbed in the back by his son, the Crown Prince Wilhelm.
Both of these resolve without so much as a word of protest. World history is absolutely littered with wars of succession after the murder or death of a monarch. It is difficult to imagine the lack of one here, on a continent just recently at war, with a mass of soldiers missing their pay.
Furthermore, the extrapolations into the future are necessarily uncertain, as no one has a crystal ball. Still, some of them, like the idea that climate change would not happen, or that we would all eat more beef, seem fairly heterodox.
Ultimately, the book is “a different way of imparting the fundamental lessons of my three other books,” per Ammous. He said that some people prefer to think in terms of “fiction, in terms of thought experiments, in terms of hypotheticals,” which was a different approach than his first two books.
WWI also provided a unique example, “because we need to know how the world went off the rails” and envision what could have been.
“If that money is kept, then people will save it, they will accumulate capital. Then the world becomes more capital abundant. We have more capital. Capital becomes cheaper. People are able to invest more. They’re able to save more. They’re able to grow more. And so you put all of these things together and then you have an amazing world and it’s just a very different world,” Ammous told Cointelegraph.
Magazine: All 21 million Bitcoin is at risk from quantum computers
Payments giant PayPal is expanding access to its US-dollar stablecoin, PayPal USD, adding 68 more markets globally in its latest stablecoin push.
PayPal USD (PYUSD) will be made available to customers in 70 countries worldwide in March, allowing them to receive, hold and send the stablecoin, the company announced Tuesday.
With the expansion, PYUSD is now available to users with PayPal accounts across multiple regions, including the Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America and North America. Previously, only customers in the United States and the United Kingdom could hold the stablecoin.
“Enabling PYUSD in users’ accounts across 70 markets gives people faster access to their funds, lower-cost ways to send money across borders, and a more direct path to participating in the global economy,” PayPal head of crypto May Zabaneh said.
Expansion unlocks “balance-type concept” with rewards
Alongside enabling PYUSD transactions, users in newly supported markets can earn rewards on their stablecoin holdings. The expansion supports transactions to third-party digital wallets, the announcement states.
Currently, PayPal users in select countries such as Peru can only withdraw money from their accounts in their country’s native currency, which carries cross-border fees. After the update, users will be able to send, receive and keep funds in US dollars and reduce transfer fees, Zabaneh told Fortune in an interview.
Related: US ban on stablecoin yield could see others fill the void: Ledger exec
Some countries, such as Malawi, don’t allow users to keep transfers in their PayPal wallets, essentially forcing all funds to be immediately sent to the recipient’s bank account. With PYUSD access, users will be able to keep that money in their PayPal wallets.
“It unlocks a balance-type concept in these accounts and an earnings concept,” Zabaneh said.
PYUSD is issued by Paxos, PayPal distributes
The expansion comes nearly three years after PayPal launched its PYUSD stablecoin in collaboration with the issuer Paxos Trust in August 2023.
The stablecoin has emerged as one of the largest USD-pegged stablecoins worldwide, ranking as the seventh-largest with a market capitalization of around $4.1 billion, according to CoinGecko.
PYUSD saw significant growth in 2025, with its market cap rising 600% from around $500 million in early 2025 to $3.6 billion by the end of the year.
Cointelegraph contacted PayPal for comment about the expansion, but had not received a response by publication.
Magazine: CLARITY Act risks repeat of Europe’s mistakes, crypto lawyer warns
US Securities and Exchange Commission chair Paul Atkins says the agency should consider a “safe harbor proposal” to give crypto companies and some tokens a regulatory carveout.
Atkins said in remarks at a crypto lobby event in Washington, DC, on Tuesday that his safe harbor proposal was made up of a “startup exemption,” a “fundraising exemption,” and an “investment contract safe harbor.”
“It is past time for us to stop diagnosing the problem and start delivering the solution,” he said. “Such a safe harbor would provide crypto innovators bespoke pathways to raise capital in the US, while providing appropriate investor protections.”
The SEC, along with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on Tuesday also issued an interpretation that clarified what types of cryptocurrencies are securities and how “non-security crypto assets” could fall under securities laws.
Our interpretation on crypto assets—grounded in existing law and informed by extensive public input—acknowledges what the former administration refused to recognize…
Most crypto assets are not themselves securities.pic.twitter.com/fbHan0vmmb
— Paul Atkins (@SECPaulSAtkins) March 17, 2026
Atkins outlines idea for crypto exemptions
In his remarks, Atkins said the SEC should consider a “startup exemption” to allow crypto companies to raise a defined amount of money or operate for a few years with enough “regulatory runway” to make it to maturity.
He also floated a “fundraising exemption” to allow investment contracts involving crypto to raise up to a particular amount in any 12-month period while being exempted from registering under securities laws.
Atkins said his idea for an “investment contract safe harbor” would give crypto asset issuers and buyers certainty about when assets are subject to securities laws.
The safe harbor could apply once an issuer has “permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts” that it promised for the asset, Atkins said.
Related: DeFi lobby drops airdrop lawsuit against SEC, citing crypto shift
Atkins added that he expects the SEC to release proposed rules for the exemptions for public comment in the coming weeks.
He added, however, that “only Congress can ensure that regulation in this area is future-proofed through comprehensive market structure legislation.”
A bill to outline the SEC’s crypto remit is currently stalled in the Senate as negotiations over its provisions are ongoing.
Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026
Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton is poised to become the next Senator from the state after winning the Democratic primary Tuesday night, defeating Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi.
Krishnamoorthi had received north of $8 million in backing from crypto super-political action committee (PAC) Fairshake, among other entities, while Stratton was backed by Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Illinois’ senate seat is rated a “Solid Democratic” seat by Cook Political Report, meaning the winner of Tuesday’s primary will most likely win the general election this November and represent the Prairie State in the Senate in 2027.
Fairshake’s ads largely attacked Stratton, rather than supporting Krishnamoorthi directly, a strategy it also employed in the 2024 election. The PAC typically supports candidates in primaries for races they’re likely to win, letting it boast that the vast majority of its backed candidates won elections in 2024.
Stand With Crypto, a Coinbase-backed group that assigns rates to lawmakers based on how crypto-friendly they are, gave Stratton an “F” ranking based on a single statement she made about her primary opponent receiving backing from “MAGA-backed crypto bros.” The rating notes that she has not voted on any crypto bills or otherwise made statements about crypto generally.
Krishnamoorthi received an “A” rating based on his voting record and his responses to a questionnaire sent out by the group.
Another candidate Fairshake opposed, La Shawn Ford, won his primary race as well, according to the Associated Press. Fairshake spent nearly $2 million opposing Ford’s race for the House of Representatives. Ford’s team sent the PAC a cease-and-desist alleging Fairshake’s ads were “defamatory,” according to the Forest Park Review.
A spokesperson for Fairshake did not immediately return a request for comment on either race, or on Ford’s allegations.
CBS Evening News ratings drop below 4M for first time with Tony Dokoupil in the anchor chair after Bari Weiss overhaul
AMG TimesSquare Small Cap Growth Fund Q4 2025 Commentary
King of Illinois: Pritzker swings Senate race as he targets Trump
-
Tech7 days agoA 1,300-Pound NASA Spacecraft To Re-Enter Earth’s Atmosphere
-
Crypto World4 days agoHYPE Token Enters Net Deflation as HyperCore Buybacks Outpace Staking Rewards
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Addict Lip Glow
-
Tech2 days agoYour Legally Registered ‘Motorcycle’ Might Not Count Under Proposed US Law
-
Sports4 days ago
Why Duke and Michigan Are Dead Even Entering Selection Sunday
-
NewsBeat6 days agoResidents reaction as Shildon murder probe enters second day
-
Business2 days agoSearch for Savannah Guthrie’s Mother Enters Seventh Week with No Arrests
-
Business7 days agoSearch Enters Sixth Week With New Leads in Tucson Abduction Case
-
Sports6 days agoPWHL, Senators discussing plan to keep Charge in Ottawa
-
Business4 days agoUS Airports Launch Donation Drives for Unpaid TSA Workers as Partial Government Shutdown Enters Fifth Week
-
Tech11 hours agoAre Split Spacebars the Next Big Gaming Keyboard Trend?
-
Crypto World3 days ago
Coinbase and Bybit in Investment Talks: Could Bybit Finally Enter the US Crypto Market?
-
NewsBeat7 days agoI Entered The Manosphere. Nothing Could Prepare Me For What I Found.
-
Business4 days agoCountry star Brantley Gilbert enters growing non-alcoholic beer market
-
Business2 days agoAustralian shares drop as Iran war enters third week
-
Crypto World2 days agoCrypto Lender BlockFills Enters Chapter 11 with Up to $500M in Liabilities
-
Sports4 days agoCollege Basketball Best Bets: Conference Tournament Semifinal Picks
-
Politics7 days agoTrump Says Middle East Is ‘Very Lucky’ That He’s President
-
Crypto World6 days agoThree Binance Charts May Be Hinting at Bitcoin’s Next Move
-
Business5 days agoTrump demands Powell cut rates as Iran conflict raises energy prices
You must be logged in to post a comment Login