Tom Lee has reaffirmed that Ethereum will play the central role as traditional finance and cryptocurrency converge into a single market.

According to a post published by Bitmine chairman Tom Lee on X, he believes the line separating traditional financial markets and digital assets will eventually disappear, with Ethereum positioned at the center of that transition.

In the last week of June, XRP printed its weakest price since late 2024, briefly touching $1.01 before stabilizing in the $1.05 to $1.13 range where it has traded through early July. The token is down more than 25% for the year and roughly 65% below the $3.65 cycle high it set in July 2025. On the same June days that the chart broke down, tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger crossed $3.5 billion, more than triple the level at which they started the year, spot XRP exchange-traded funds extended a net inflow streak that would reach eight consecutive weeks, and Ripple stood weeks away from full European authorization under MiCA.

That is the whole story in one paragraph, and it is genuinely strange. By any operational measure, the 12 months behind Ripple are the most productive in the company’s history: a settled SEC case, launched ETFs, a $1.25 billion prime brokerage acquisition, membership in the clearing infrastructure of American equities, a stablecoin with $18 billion in quarterly transfer volume, and regulatory licenses stacking up on three continents.

By the only measure most holders care about, the same 12 months are the worst since the 2022 bear market. The gap between what Ripple built and what XRP is worth has never been wider, and how that gap closes, upward through the price or downward through the narrative, is now the central question hanging over the fourth largest ecosystem in crypto.

This feature lays out both sides honestly: the case that the infrastructure eventually drags the token up, and the case that the token and the company have simply decoupled, with the price telling the truer story.

The year Ripple built: an inventory

It helps to see the accumulation in one place, because no single item explains the disconnect. The pattern does.

Legal closure came first. The SEC’s enforcement case against Ripple, filed in December 2020, formally concluded in 2025 with a financial settlement, ending the overhang that had defined the token’s American existence for half a decade and building on the 2023 court finding that programmatic exchange sales of XRP were not securities transactions.

Then distribution. Spot XRP ETFs launched in November 2025 across 5 providers and have accumulated roughly $1.49 billion in cumulative net inflows since. May 2026 was the strongest month of the year with $118 million, including a record $60.5 million week.

The streak ran 8 consecutive weeks into July, as crypto.news reported, before showing its first daily pauses, and assets under management sit near $1.05 billion, about 1.5% of the token’s market capitalization, led by Bitwise at $331 million, Canary at $265 million, and Franklin at $262 million.

Then market plumbing. Ripple closed its acquisition of prime broker Hidden Road in October 2025 and rebranded it Ripple Prime. On March 2, 2026, Ripple Prime joined the participant directory of the National Securities Clearing Corporation, placing an XRP-linked institution inside the DTCC complex that clears the bulk of American equity trading and safeguards roughly $100 trillion in assets. DTCC has since named Ripple Prime to the working group of more than 50 firms shaping its tokenization service for Russell 1000 stocks, ETFs, and Treasuries, scheduled for October 2026.

Sometime in the week of July 13, according to people briefed on the negotiations, Senate staff will release a unified draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, merging months of parallel work by the Banking and Agriculture Committees into a single text reportedly more than 70 pages longer than either predecessor. Floor action is targeted for the week of July 20. The Senate leaves for its August recess on the 7th, and a defense spending bill is competing for the floor time in between. Senator Cynthia Lummis, the chamber’s lead crypto legislator, has stated the stakes without decoration: this is likely the last chance to get real digital asset legislation on the books before 2030, and failure means another country writes the rules while America spends a decade catching up.

Strip away the drama and the CLARITY Act’s fate reduces to one number: seven. Republicans hold 53 seats, cloture requires 60, and every Republican vote is already assumed. Seven Democrats must cross, and as of this writing, zero have committed. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, the two Democrats who advanced the bill through the Banking Committee on May 14, have both said their committee votes do not guarantee floor support.

Galaxy Research has cut its odds of 2026 passage to 50%, down from 60% earlier in the month and 75% right after the committee markup, citing calendar compression more than substance. Stifel’s chief Washington strategist has written that if the Senate fails to act before recess, the bill’s prospects deteriorate materially.

This piece maps the actual arithmetic: what the bill does, what each unresolved dispute costs in votes, what the fallback looks like if it dies, and why both the optimists and the pessimists have a defensible case with 3 weeks on the clock.

What the bill actually does, in one section

The CLARITY Act would create the first federal statutory framework for digital asset markets. Its core mechanism is a three-bucket taxonomy. Digital commodities, assets that rely on a blockchain for their value and meet decentralization criteria, with Bitcoin the clearest case and Ether and Solana likely included, would fall under Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction for spot market oversight, an authority the agency has never held in statute. Assets that qualify as investment contracts, tokens sold to fund a centralized team, would remain with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Permitted payment stablecoins would sit with banking regulators under the GENIUS Act framework that Congress completed earlier, after its own bruising fight over state versus federal authority that crypto.news followed through the Senate.

Around that taxonomy, the bill builds a registration regime for digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers, applies the Bank Secrecy Act to them for anti-money-laundering purposes, codifies a clearer standard for when the Howey investment contract test applies to a token, and shields software developers from money transmitter liability when they do not custody customer assets, a provision drawn from the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. Lummis points to more than 16 illicit finance safeguards in the text and $150 million in dedicated enforcement funding, including new sanctions authority aimed at Iran and explicit powers for exchanges to freeze illicit funds.

The practical consequence, if it passes, is that exchanges would know which regulator they answer to, token issuers would know which test applies to them, DeFi builders would know they are not money transmitters, and institutional allocators who legally cannot touch unclassified assets, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds chief among them, would gain a defined category to buy. JPMorgan and Standard Chartered have each projected $4 to $8.4 billion in first-year spot XRP ETF inflows alone under passage, and Citi and Standard Chartered carry Bitcoin targets of $143,000 and $150,000 respectively that are contingent on the bill becoming law. The May 14 committee vote offered a small-scale preview: within an hour of the result, Bitcoin jumped to $81,449, and XRP gained 4.5%.

How the bill got here: a two-year procedural ledger

The distance already traveled is worth recording, because it explains why supporters treat this window as unrepeatable.

The House passed its version, H.R. 3633, on July 17, 2025, by 294 to 134, the strongest bipartisan congressional vote on crypto in history, with provisions from Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s Securities Clarity Act and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act folded into the text. The bill then entered the Senate, where jurisdiction split between two committees with overlapping turf. Banking handled the securities side; Agriculture, which oversees the CFTC, handled the commodities side. The two tracks proceeded separately for most of a year.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced its text on May 14, 2026, by 15 to 9, with all 13 Republicans joined by Gallego and Alsobrooks, both of whom attached explicit caveats that committee support did not commit them on the floor. Senator Lummis called it the most consequential Senate action on crypto regulation ever taken. The Agriculture Committee’s version cleared on strictly partisan lines, which is why the merged draft required months of member-level negotiation instead of a staff-level splice. The bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 423 on June 1, making it formally eligible for floor consideration at any moment leadership chooses.

Since then, the record is a sequence of missed markers. The White House floated July 4 as a signing target in May; the Senate left for its state work period on June 29 with the bill untouched. A tentative bipartisan ethics framework reached in May came apart in June when Republicans and White House officials withdrew from the state attorney general enforcement mechanism. Emergency leadership meetings were reported in late June to salvage the effort. More than 200 organizations, spanning exchanges, startups, and trade associations, sent coordinated letters urging a floor vote, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has pressed publicly for action. Galaxy Digital, in the most concrete expression of institutional conviction available, placed a $10 million prediction market position on 2026 passage back when its own research desk still quoted 60% odds. Polymarket has traded the question between 59-72% across the spring before drifting toward the coin-flip consensus.

Thailand’s central bank plans stricter checks on large cash deposits and high-value stablecoin transactions as part of a campaign against hidden capital flows. The Bank of Thailand will require customers depositing 5 million baht, about $150,000, or more in cash to explain and document where the money came from. Officials expect the rules to begin in the fourth quarter of 2026.

The central bank is also working with Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission to examine large USDT transactions. According to The Nation, officials found transaction patterns that may conceal beneficial owners or avoid domestic remittance channels. The review focuses on tracing who controls the funds and whether regulated platforms followed local rules.

Existing withdrawal controls expand to deposits

The planned deposit checks extend controls introduced in April for cash withdrawals of at least 5 million baht. Customers making those withdrawals must give banks a verified business reason and explain why they cannot use an electronic transfer or cheque. The Bank of Thailand said high-value cash withdrawals later fell by 35%.

Governor Vitai Ratanakorn said the authorities would keep several controls running together rather than rely on one temporary response. “The measures we are implementing are not short-term fixes,” he said, adding that they require “multiple parallel strategies.” Banks will now face matching checks on large deposits, closing a gap between cash entering and leaving accounts.

USDT remains approved for regulated trading

The USDT review does not amount to a ban on the stablecoin. Thailand’s SEC added USDT and USDC to its approved cryptocurrency list in March 2025. Licensed digital asset exchanges can use them as base trading pairs, while issuers and regulated service providers can accept them in specified transactions.

AS reported at the time that the approval expanded legal access to USDT on regulated Thai platforms. The current inquiry instead targets unusually large flows, unclear ownership, and possible efforts to move value outside official remittance routes. It places transaction monitoring beside Thailand’s existing rules for licensed crypto firms and customer checks.

Thailand has taken a mixed approach to digital assets. It has allowed approved crypto trading and tested controlled uses while keeping direct crypto payments restricted in many domestic settings. Crypto.news reported that the SEC was preparing rules for crypto exchange-traded funds, derivatives, and tokenized bonds during 2026.

The Bank of Thailand and SEC also supervised TouristDigiPay, a program that lets eligible foreign visitors convert crypto into baht before paying through the PromptPay QR network. Users must register with approved providers and complete identity checks. Crypto.news reported that the model keeps merchants inside the baht payment system while allowing regulated conversion from digital assets.

Wider controls cover gold and mule accounts

The wider campaign also covers bullion, banknotes, payment gateways, and mule accounts. Banks must report suspicious gold transactions, including rapid online purchases followed by same-day physical withdrawals. The Nation reported that monthly physical gold withdrawals fell from about 4,000 kilograms to roughly 700 kilograms after tighter oversight.

Officials are also studying large banknote exchanges and accounts linked to online gambling. The stablecoin review adds blockchain records to that work, but regulators have not announced penalties or named platforms in the latest report. The SEC will handle any formal enforcement based on the findings. Customers and exchanges now await guidance before the fourth-quarter cash-deposit rules take effect. Authorities have not provided a timetable for completing the USDT audit or publishing its transaction findings.

Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (PVARA) chairman Bilal bin Saqib has called for continued dialogue on the treatment of digital assets under Islamic law after meeting prominent scholar Mufti Taqi Usmani, who backed a ruling against purchases made with crypto.

In a Saturday post, Saqib said the discussion covered blockchain technology, digital assets, stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), as well as the need to protect Pakistanis from fraud, exploitation and financial harm.

Saqib said the different categories of digital assets merit “careful technical assessment alongside rigorous Shariah examination, rather than being viewed through a single lens.”

The exchange highlights tension between Pakistan’s push to build a regulated crypto market and religious objections that could shape public acceptance. Religious views could carry significant weight in Pakistan, where about 231.7 million people, or 96.35% of the population, identified as Muslim in the 2023 census. 

Pakistan’s crypto framework meets religious scrutiny

According to Pakistani newspaper Dawn, Usmani and five other scholars signed an Islamic legal ruling issued by Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi, a prominent Islamic seminary, on Friday. 

The ruling reportedly said purchases made with crypto, including stablecoins such as USDT, were not permitted because digital tokens did not qualify as recognized property or wealth under their interpretation of Islamic law.

Saqib did not directly challenge the claim. Instead, he called for scholars, regulators and industry participants to continue discussing distinctions among digital-asset categories. 

“I shared that blockchain, digital assets, stablecoins, and tokenized real-world assets represent a broad spectrum of technologies and use cases,” he said. 

Related: PUSD stablecoin deploys on ADI Chain, targeting $3T Islamic finance market

The discussion comes as Pakistan shifts from years of restrictions toward a licensed virtual-asset sector. On April 15, the State Bank of Pakistan allowed banks to open accounts for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) licensed by the PVARA, ending an eight-year restriction on regulated institutions dealing with crypto. 

The move followed the passage of Pakistan’s Virtual Assets Act 2026 in March, which established PVARA as the statutory body responsible for licensing and oversight of virtual asset activities. 

Magazine: Bitcoin nearing late stages of bear market: Jamie Coutts, Real Vision

Pakistan’s virtual-asset regulator is urging continued dialogue on how digital assets should be assessed under Islamic law, after a prominent scholar backed a religious ruling that certain crypto-based purchases are impermissible.

Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (PVARA) chairman Bilal bin Saqib met with Mufti Taqi Usmani, and in a post shared on Saturday he said the conversation covered blockchain technology, digital assets, stablecoins, and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), alongside the need to shield Pakistanis from fraud and financial harm.

Key takeaways

• PVARA chairman Bilal bin Saqib called for scholars and regulators to keep discussing how Islamic law should apply to different categories of digital assets.
• Mufti Taqi Usmani and other scholars reportedly issued a ruling declaring crypto-based purchases impermissible, including transactions involving stablecoins such as USDT.
• Saqib did not directly dispute the religious ruling; instead, he emphasized differentiated technical and Shariah review rather than one uniform approach.
• The episode underscores a broader challenge for Pakistan’s move toward a regulated crypto industry: maintaining compliance both legally and religiously.

Religious ruling vs. regulator’s call for category-by-category review

According to Pakistani outlet Dawn, Usmani and five other scholars signed an Islamic legal ruling issued by Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi on Friday. Dawn reports the ruling states that purchases made using cryptocurrency—including stablecoins such as USDT—are not permitted because, under their interpretation of Islamic law, digital tokens do not constitute recognized property or wealth.

Speaking after his meeting with Usmani, Saqib chose a different emphasis. He said the discussion highlighted that digital assets are not a single, uniform instrument and therefore should not be judged through one lens. Instead, he argued for “careful technical assessment alongside rigorous Shariah examination,” suggesting that separate asset types and use cases may warrant distinct evaluation.

Pakistan’s regulated crypto pivot intensifies the stakes

The exchanges come as Pakistan moves away from years of broad restrictions and toward licensed oversight for virtual assets. In April, the State Bank of Pakistan reportedly allowed banks to open accounts for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) that are licensed by PVARA, ending an eight-year restriction on regulated institutions dealing with crypto.

That banking adjustment followed the passage of Pakistan’s Virtual Assets Act 2026 in March, which established PVARA as the statutory body responsible for licensing and monitoring virtual-asset activities. With this framework in place, the PVARA chairman’s comments indicate the regulator sees public acceptance and compliance scrutiny as tightly linked.

The religious question may carry particular weight in Pakistan’s social and political context. The 2023 national census reported that about 231.7 million people—96.35% of the population—identified as Muslim.

Stablecoins and tokenized RWAs at the center of the debate

Within Saqib’s remarks, stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) featured prominently, reflecting how mainstream crypto utility increasingly extends beyond volatile tokens. Stablecoins are designed to track a reserve-based reference value, while tokenized RWAs aim to represent exposure to conventional assets through blockchain mechanisms.

At the same time, the religious ruling reported by Dawn specifically flagged crypto-based purchasing—including stablecoin payments—as impermissible under the scholars’ view of what counts as legitimate property or wealth. Saqib’s response did not concede or reject the legal reasoning; rather, he stressed that regulators and scholars should continue distinguishing among categories of digital assets and examine their practical functions in addition to their Shariah interpretation.

What investors and builders should watch next

For Pakistan’s licensed crypto sector, the immediate question is whether ongoing engagement between PVARA, religious scholars, and industry participants leads to a clearer framework for how different tokens are treated in real-world transactions. Saqib’s call for continued dialogue suggests the regulator may seek more granular alignment rather than a blanket approach—something that could influence how VASPs structure products, payment rails, and consumer-facing services.

Readers should watch for follow-up statements from PVARA, the State Bank of Pakistan, and religious authorities clarifying how guidance may evolve for stablecoin payments and other crypto-enabled commerce, especially as the country’s regulated market expands.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the company seriously considered closing after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued it in December 2020. He said he and co-founder Chris Larsen discussed distributing Ripple’s XRP holdings to shareholders on a pro rata basis and dissolving the business. Garlinghouse described that choice as the easier path against an agency with “infinite power and resources.”

The company rejected the shutdown plan because it would have ended hundreds of jobs. Garlinghouse said Ripple chose to defend itself even though the result remained uncertain. “I’m glad in retrospect, but that was not obvious at the time,” he said during a talk at the University of Kansas School of Business. He estimated that Ripple spent about $150 million on the legal fight. A Wu Blockchain post shared the remarks on July 12, bringing new attention to Ripple’s internal response during the lawsuit’s earliest months.

The case changed how Ripple could sell XRP

The SEC accused Ripple, Garlinghouse and Larsen of conducting unregistered securities sales through XRP. The agency said Ripple had raised more than $1.3 billion. The lawsuit placed pressure on the company’s U.S. business, partnerships and access to institutional clients. It also created years of uncertainty over how federal securities law applied to XRP transactions.

Garlinghouse also said he met SEC officials four times between 2017 and 2019 without a lawyer. He said officials never warned him that XRP could be treated as a security, which affected Ripple’s decision to challenge the case. Judge Analisa Torres issued a split ruling in July 2023. She found that Ripple’s programmatic XRP sales on public exchanges did not amount to securities transactions. However, she ruled that some direct sales to institutional buyers broke securities laws. The court later ordered Ripple to pay a $125 million civil penalty and barred it from repeating unregistered institutional sales.

Appeals ended, but the final judgment remained

Ripple and the SEC tried to settle the remaining dispute in 2025. Their proposal would have reduced the penalty to $50 million and removed the injunction. Judge Torres rejected the request because the court had already entered a final judgment. Both sides then dropped their appeals, and the Second Circuit closed the case on August 22, 2025.

A crypto.news review of the case said the end of the appeals did not erase the original judgment. Ripple still faced the $125 million penalty and the permanent injunction tied to future institutional XRP sales. Exchange-based XRP trading received clearer treatment under the 2023 ruling, but the decision did not create a single federal rule for every digital asset transaction.

Ripple expands while U.S. rules remain unfinished

Ripple continued to expand after the lawsuit. Recent crypto.news coverage reported that the company secured a full Markets in Crypto-Assets license in Luxembourg. The approval allows Ripple to offer regulated crypto services across the European Economic Area. That gives the company a clearer operating framework in Europe than it currently has in the United States. Crypto.news also reported that Ripple’s European approval arrived as U.S. legal clarity remained tied to federal legislation and the treatment of digital assets.

U.S. lawmakers continue to debate market structure rules that could define when digital assets fall under securities or commodities oversight. For Ripple, the near-shutdown disclosure shows how enforcement pressure shaped its strategy and spending for several years. The company survived the case, kept its workforce and expanded abroad, while some limits from the final judgment remain active.