Iran is reportedly considering a plan to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz through an “insurance-based model,” with some speculating, based on an unverified website, that it could be paid in Bitcoin. 

On Saturday, Fars News Agency, an Iranian news outlet closely affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that the Iranian Ministry of Economic Affairs plans to manage the Strait of Hormuz through insurance, citing a state document it obtained. 

However, other reports say Iran is looking to take payments for the “insurance” in Bitcoin through a website called “Hormuz Safe,” with a widely circulated screenshot of the purported site selling “Secure Digital Insurance for Maritime Cargo.”

Source: Dennis Porter

Control over the Strait of Hormuz has been the leading issue in the US-Iran war. The shipping lane handles about one-fifth of the global oil trade. Many ships have been prevented from transiting the strait after the US started launching airstrikes in Iran in late February. 

Media reports state that Iran collected its first revenue from tolls imposed on ships transiting the Strait last month. Prior to the US-Iran war, no such measures were in place.

Fars News said the insurance platform seeks to distinguish between transit vessels from different countries. 

“Under the Economy Ministry’s plan, managing the Strait through an insurance framework would enable the issuance of various marine insurance policies as well as certificates of financial responsibility,” Fars News said, adding it could generate over $10 billion in revenue for the country.

There is no guarantee that Iran will go ahead with the insurance proposal, and the website purporting to offer “Iranian Digital Insurance” could be fake. The website was down at the time of writing. 

Scammers have previously defrauded shipping companies operating in the Strait of Hormuz by demanding payment in cryptocurrency for safe passage. 

Description of Hormuz Safe seeking to accept shipper tolls in Bitcoin. Source: Google

US authorities recently seized Iranian USDT

Demanding insurance payments in Bitcoin could make sense, given that US authorities froze $344 million worth of USDT tied to Iran last month.

Earlier reports said Iran had been accepting oil tolls in US dollar-denominated stablecoins such as Tether USDt (USDT), as well as Bitcoin and fiat currencies such as the Chinese yuan, with USDT reportedly the preferred cryptocurrency. 

Related: UAE investors buy AI dip, keep crypto exposure despite conflict 

Industry leaders have touted Bitcoin as a more appropriate cryptocurrency for sanctioned countries because it is sufficiently decentralized and has no issuer capable of freezing funds. 

In early April, a spokesperson for Iran’s Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union said certain ships would be able to pass through the strait provided that they pay a tariff of $1 per barrel of oil in Bitcoin.

“Once the email arrives and Iran completes its assessment, vessels are given a few seconds to pay in Bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions,” they said at the time.

Magazine: Adam Back says current demand is ‘almost’ enough to send Bitcoin to $1M

Rising oil prices since the US-Israeli war have been a consistent weight on the price of Ether for the last three months, according to Fundstrat co-founder Tom Lee. 

“If one is wondering why Ethereum has been under selling pressure … to me, rising oil prices is the biggest headwind,” Lee said on X on Monday.

Lee said the inverse correlation between Ether prices and oil is at a record high. Crude oil prices have surged 66% from $65 to more than $100 per barrel since the US-Israeli war began on Feb. 28. 

They spiked again on Monday, with WTI hitting $108 and Brent crude tapping $111, after US President Donald Trump said on Sunday on Truth Social, “the clock is ticking” for Iran to make a deal on opening the Strait of Hormuz. 

A prolonged war between the US and Iran could weigh further on Ether, which has mostly traded sideways during the period of conflict. The sell-off accelerated over the past week, with the asset declining nearly 10% and falling back to $2,100 Monday, down 57% from its all-time high. 

Ether and oil inverse correlation at a record high. Source: Fundstrat 

Fall in oil prices will spell ETH recovery 

Lee said a reversal in oil prices would result in ETH prices recovering, describing the current situation as “short-term tactical noise.”

He said the bigger drivers for Ether are tokenization and agentic AI. “These structural drivers are in place. Thus, we expect ETH prices to be stronger as we move through 2026.”

Related: Ethereum Foundation hits ‘Glamsterdam’ milestones, names new protocol leads

Ethereum has been the dominant network for real-world asset tokenization, with more than 60% market share when layer-2 networks are included. Meanwhile, major financial institutions such as BlackRock and JPMorgan recently launched tokenized funds on Ethereum. 

The agentic AI narrative stems from the prediction that AI payment agents cannot access bank accounts, so they will use crypto tokens such as ETH or stablecoins for payments. 

Ether prices are facing multi-factor pressure 

However, Ether is also under pressure from other macroeconomic headwinds, as its correlation with risk assets means it gets hit harder during sell-offs. 

Andri Fauzan Adziima, research lead at the Bitrue Research Institute, told Cointelegraph on Monday that oil prices were not the only factor impacting Ether, and there was “multi-factor pressure.”

“They’re one key macro headwind, but ETH selling pressure is also driven by ETF outflows, rising exchange reserves/whale selling, broader risk-off sentiment, and ETH’s underperformance vs Bitcoin,” he said.

Related: ETH stalls at $2.4K five times, SOL to rally to $120: Market Moves

The US Senate’s crypto market structure bill remains uncertain as lawmakers navigate a congested calendar and a polarized chamber. With a July target repeatedly cited but not guaranteed, political dynamics—and the timing of midterm elections—could determine whether the measure reaches the president’s desk this year or slips into a post-election session.

In a Friday note, Greg Cipolaro, head of research at NYDIG, cautioned that while July 4 has been floated as a milestone, the practical window for passage may run from June through early August. If the bill misses that window, the path to enactment could extend into a post‑election lame-duck session, or fade entirely depending on which party controls the Senate after November.

Key takeaways

• The crypto market structure bill cleared a long-delayed markup in the Senate Banking Committee and moves to the floor, but it requires 60 votes to pass, highlighting persistent partisan headwinds.
• Republicans hold a 53-seat Senate majority and would need cooperation from at least seven Democrats to fast-track passage; some Democrats remain concerned the measure doesn’t sufficiently curb crime or sanctions evasion.
• Passage would bring notable regulatory clarity, including treating Bitcoin as a commodity under the CFTC, which could unlock institutional participation by reducing legal uncertainty.
• Failure to advance could leave crypto markets operating under ongoing regulatory ambiguity, with the potential for a post-election lame-duck session depending on election outcomes and scheduling priorities.

Legislative momentum and the timing puzzle

The bill’s journey reflects the broader frictions in shaping US crypto regulation this year. After delays shaped by debates over stablecoins, DeFi enforcement, and the ethics framework for government officials’ use of crypto, the measure finally cleared the Senate Banking Committee in a largely party-line vote. It now awaits a floor vote, where it would need broad cross‑bench support to reach the 60-vote threshold required to avoid protracted debate.

If the Senate cannot align sufficient support before the August recess, lawmakers face a tightening calendar ahead of the midterms. Cipolaro described the timing as an aspirational benchmark rather than a fixed deadline, noting that the practical window could shrink to a June-to-August stretch. A protracted delay would raise the odds of a post‑election lame‑duck session, particularly if Republicans retain control of the chamber and Majority Leader John Thune prioritizes other legislative business, such as government funding.

These timing questions are embedded in a broader political context. Current polling portrays a tight race for Senate control, with forecasts split on which party will command the chamber. The outcome of those races could shape not only this bill’s fate but the broader regulatory environment for digital assets in the next Congress. If Democrats gain control, the fate of the current Republican‑backed framework could become uncertain as negotiations reset in January.

“Congressional negotiators face a tradeoff between accepting an imperfect bipartisan framework in 2026 versus risking a substantially different legislative environment after the midterms.”

What passage would mean for markets and regulation

Supporters argue that final passage would provide critical regulatory clarity at a time when traditional financial institutions have shown renewed interest in crypto. By clarifying the treatment of Bitcoin as a commodity under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the bill would close what one analyst described as the last major regulatory overhang for Bitcoin as an institutional asset class. In practical terms, regulated clarity can reduce compliance risk for asset managers, exchanges, and custodians looking to participate in crypto markets.

Beyond Bitcoin, the bill’s broader framework aims to define how US watchdogs regulate crypto activity, with attention to market structure, stablecoins, and the interaction between traditional securities laws and digital assets. Yet even as it advances, questions linger about provisions related to ethics, enforcement in decentralized finance, and other guardrails that some lawmakers fear may not be robust enough to deter crime or sanctions evasion.

Analysts warn that even with regulatory clarity, the path forward is not guaranteed. A narrowly tailored framework that fails to gain bipartisan buy-in could keep the industry navigating “permanent jurisdictional ambiguity,” as Cipolaro put it. In that scenario, investors and builders would face ongoing uncertainty about how specific activities—ranging from stablecoin issuance to DeFi protocols—will be treated under law, complicating long‑term planning and capital deployment.

Contextual backdrop: regulatory appetite and election dynamics

The current political environment amplifies the stakes. With midterm elections looming, both chambers and leaderships are recalibrating priorities, and any highly technical bill faces sharper scrutiny under the pressure of time. The likelihood of a fast, clean passage depends not only on the technical merit of the provisions but also on how aggressively lawmakers are willing to address concerns around crime prevention, sanctions compliance, and the governance of decentralized platforms.

Industry watchers are watching closely how the regulatory narrative evolves in the near term. If pre‑midterm progress stalls, attention will shift to the post‑election timetable and the possibility that a new Congress could reshape or even overturn portions of the current framework. That fork in the road—between timely clarity and potential overhaul—has practical implications for who participates in crypto markets and on what terms.

As coverage around this evolving policy space continues, readers should also weigh related analyses and commentary on the debates surrounding the act, including perspectives on how a final framework would interact with existing securities and commodities rules. For context, expert commentary and prior reporting have highlighted the challenging balance lawmakers face between fostering innovation and ensuring robust safeguards.

In the broader industry conversation, the question remains: what regulatory architecture will most effectively enable legitimate participation while resisting exploitation? If the bill advances, investors and institutions could gain confidence from a clearer, more predictable path forward. If it stalls, the market may endure another cycle of uncertainty as actors await the next regulatory signal.

Related coverage in the crypto policy space has underscored the debates around the bill’s scope and enforcement. For readers seeking deeper dives, cross‑referenced analyses and coverage frame the ongoing negotiations, including discussions about how the act intersects with prior work on crypto clarity and DeFi governance.

What remains most uncertain is not only whether the bill will pass in this Congress, but also how the eventual shape of any final law will influence institutional participation, innovation, and the broader perception of crypto regulation in the United States.

Readers should watch the upcoming floor vote timing, any last‑minute amendments, and the election results that could redefine the political calculus. These factors will determine whether the bill becomes a milestone for regulatory clarity or a symbol of continued regulatory ambiguity in the US crypto markets.

Iran has reportedly explored an insurance-based system for ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz, while unverified claims about Bitcoin-linked payments have added fresh uncertainty around how the wartime transit regime could operate.

According to Iran’s state-linked Fars News Agency, the Iranian Ministry of Economic Affairs has proposed managing traffic through the Strait using a formal insurance framework tied to marine transit and financial responsibility certificates. Fars, which said it obtained a state document outlining the proposal, reported that the system could generate more than $10 billion in revenue for Tehran.

Set against the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict, the proposal comes as commercial shipping through the Strait remains heavily disrupted. Roughly one-fifth of global oil trade normally passes through the narrow waterway, though multiple reports have stated that ship movement has slowed since U.S. airstrikes on Iran began in late February.

At the center of the latest speculation is a website called “Hormuz Safe,” which circulated online through screenshots advertising “Secure Digital Insurance for Maritime Cargo.” Several crypto-focused reports claimed the platform was linked to an Iranian effort to collect insurance payments in Bitcoin, although the site was inaccessible at the time of writing, and no official confirmation has emerged from Iranian authorities.

Iran denies active crypto toll collection

Last month, Fars News had separately rejected reports claiming Tehran was already collecting Strait of Hormuz transit tolls in cryptocurrency. In an Apr. 23 report, the outlet said allegations about Iran accepting Bitcoin or stablecoins from passing vessels were “inaccurate.”

At nearly the same time, the Financial Times reported that Iran had been considering a system under which oil tankers would pay transit fees in cryptocurrency, with negotiations allegedly starting near $1 per barrel of crude. Bloomberg later reported that an intermediary linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had discussed similar pricing during talks involving maritime operators.

Risk advisory firm MARISKS also warned that scammers were exploiting the uncertainty. According to the company, shipowners stranded west of the Strait received fraudulent messages from unknown actors pretending to represent Iranian authorities and demanding payment in Bitcoin or Tether for “clearance” and safe passage.

MARISKS said the messages were fake and warned that they did not originate from official Iranian channels. The firm added that at least one vessel may have come under fire while attempting to leave the area after engaging with the fraudulent communications.

Meanwhile, previous media reports have suggested Iran already collected its first revenue from wartime shipping tolls last month, although those claims remain disputed. Before the current conflict, no such toll system had existed for vessels crossing the Strait.

Bitcoin speculation grows after USDT seizures

Attention around possible Bitcoin payments intensified after U.S. authorities froze $344 million in Tether USDt tied to Iran last month. Earlier reports had claimed that Iranian-linked operators preferred USDT and the Chinese yuan for energy-related settlements, while also accepting Bitcoin in some cases.

Chainalysis noted in previous analysis that Iran has historically relied on dollar-backed stablecoins, particularly USDT on the Tron blockchain, to move funds outside traditional financial rails. The blockchain analytics firm said any future crypto-linked toll structure in Hormuz could create new compliance risks for virtual asset service providers interacting with sanctioned entities.

Industry figures have also argued that Bitcoin may appeal more to sanctioned states because it operates without a centralized issuer capable of freezing balances. Earlier in April, a spokesperson for Iran’s Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union reportedly told media outlets that certain ships could continue passing through the Strait if they paid a tariff of $1 per barrel in Bitcoin.

Vessels would reportedly receive payment instructions only after Iranian authorities completed internal reviews, with transactions expected to be settled within seconds to avoid tracing or confiscation under sanctions enforcement.

The US Senate’s high-profile crypto market structure bill remains on a tight timetable, with insiders warning that passage could slip into August or even miss the midterm window entirely if lawmakers cannot align before November. Greg Cipolaro, head of research at NYDIG, cautioned that the realistic negotiating window may extend from June to early August, while an earlier target floated by White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt pointed to July 4 for a Senate markup and floor votes. The reality, said Cipolaro, is likely less rigid: “This may represent an aspirational benchmark rather than a fixed legislative deadline.”

The draft legislation is designed to establish a comprehensive framework for how US regulators would oversee crypto markets, a centerpiece among this year’s most consequential crypto policy measures. Yet progress has been slowed by contentious negotiations over stablecoins, enforcement approaches to decentralized finance, and the extent of government officials’ use of crypto, among other sticking points.

According to Cointelegraph, the bill cleared a long-delayed markup in the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, advancing to the Senate floor where it would require 60 votes to proceed and avoid a protracted debate. The committee vote was largely along party lines, underscoring the partisan dynamics that could shape the bill’s fate as lawmakers return from recess.

Key takeaways

• The Senate Banking Committee moved the crypto market structure bill toward a full floor vote, setting up a 60-vote threshold to pass and avert extended debate.
• With the Senate’s current 53-seat Republican majority, securing at least seven Democratic votes would be needed for swift passage; several Democrats have expressed concerns that the proposal does not go far enough to curb crime or sanctions evasion.
• The timing remains uncertain: the realistic passage window spans June through early August, but a July–September recess and the looming midterms could complicate scheduling; a post-election lame-duck session remains a potential alternative path.
• Beyond timing, passage would deliver regulatory clarity that could boost institutional participation in crypto markets. In particular, the bill would classify Bitcoin as a commodity under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and reduce remaining regulatory overhang for Bitcoin as an institutional asset.
• Even if enacted, the bill’s fate is contingent on broader political dynamics. A Democratic gain in the Senate could derail the current Republican-backed framework in the next Congress, given the different legislative environment after the midterms.

Legislative trajectory and timing

The core purpose of the bill is to prescribe how US watchdogs would regulate crypto markets, seeking to harmonize oversight across agencies and provide a clearer pathway for institutions operating in the space. Its resonance within the policy landscape is tied to the ongoing debate over stablecoins, anti-crime provisions, and how to integrate crypto activity within traditional financial law. The latest committee action marks a critical milestone, but substantial hurdles remain before a floor vote and eventual enactment.

Regulatory implications and market impact

Proponents argue that a formal framework would reduce legal uncertainty and enable more robust participation by banks and other large investors, which have frequently cited the lack of regulatory clarity as a constraint on capital deployment in crypto markets. A central feature described in policy discussions is the potential classification of Bitcoin as a commodity for CFTC oversight, addressing a longstanding question about its regulatory status and eliminating a major bit of ambiguity for market participants.

For exchanges, asset managers, and crypto firms, the bill’s passage would set a baseline of compliance expectations—particularly around disclosures, registration requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. In parallel, the proposed framework intersects with broader regulatory structures under consideration in other jurisdictions, and policymakers frequently reference cross-border alignment as a goal to facilitate legitimate global activity while deterring illicit finance.

Political dynamics, risk, and enforcement considerations

Political dynamics loom large. Republicans hold a 53-seat Senate majority, meaning cross-party support is essential for a timely enactment. Achieving consensus would require at least seven Democrats to back the measure for a rapid path to passage. Yet several Democrats have voiced concerns that the bill does not sufficiently deter crime or address sanctions evasion, raising questions about the balance between bipartisan cooperation and stringent safeguards.

As Cipolaro summarized in his briefing, congressional negotiators face a tradeoff: “Congressional negotiators face a tradeoff between accepting an imperfect bipartisan framework in 2026 versus risking a substantially different legislative environment after the midterms.” The statement underscores the high stakes of timing; a change in control after the midterms could reshape the legislative approach to crypto regulation, potentially altering or delaying the policy roadmap.

Beyond timing, there are substantive policy questions that could influence the bill’s durability after passage. Provisions related to decentralized finance, ethics rules, and enforcement authorities remain focal points of negotiation, and even if the bill advances, regulatory interpretation and practical implementation will require close coordination across agencies and in-depth compliance programs by market participants.

From a compliance perspective, the potential clarity offered by a enacted framework could align with existing AML/KYC expectations and licensing regimes, while also prompting banks and broker-dealers to reassess their crypto exposure, risk controls, and reporting obligations. The interplay with other regulatory initiatives—such as the broader financial services rulebook and cross-border policy efforts—will be critical to ensure coherence and avoid regulatory arbitrage.

Closing the loop on enforcement considerations, a finalized framework would still need to address how to supervise rapidly evolving technologies and products within the crypto ecosystem, particularly when it comes to DeFi platforms and new token structures. Market participants would benefit from well-defined standards, but the evolving nature of the asset class means that oversight will require ongoing monitoring and possible updates to policy to address emerging risks.

What happens next remains highly dependent on calendar and coalition-building. Analysts and compliance teams should monitor committee schedules, potential amendments targeting stablecoins, and the broader electoral context, as these factors will shape both the likelihood of passage and the regulatory architecture that would follow.

If enacted, the law would mark a significant milestone in US crypto policy, providing a clearer authorization framework for institutional participation and enabling regulators to articulate specific standards for market integrity and consumer protection. For now, market observers are balancing optimism about regulatory clarity with caution about political wagering and the complexity of crafting durable, cross-agency oversight that can withstand changing administrations and election outcomes.

Source note: Coverage reflects developments reported in contemporary policy and market briefs, with attribution to Cointelegraph where cited.

Looking ahead, stakeholders will want to watch for the final passage dynamics, the specific text of any amendments, and the timing of a floor vote. The course of the bill will illuminate how Congress intends to frame crypto in the regulated financial system and what that means for the trajectory of crypto markets, institutional adoption, and cross-border regulatory alignment.

The U.S. Senate’s crypto market structure bill has entered a narrow legislative window that could close by August if lawmakers fail to move the measure before the midterm election cycle intensifies, according to research firm NYDIG.

In a market note published Friday, NYDIG head of research Greg Cipolaro said the most realistic timeframe for the bill to clear Congress runs from June through early August, despite recent comments from White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt, who said earlier this month that the administration was targeting a July 4 passage timeline.

Witt had stated that enough time remained for a Senate markup, a floor vote, and final House approval. Cipolaro, however, described the July target as more of an “aspirational benchmark” than a firm deadline.

Thursday’s Senate Banking Committee vote moved the legislation one step closer to the Senate floor after months of delays tied to negotiations over stablecoin rules, ethics provisions, and the treatment of government officials involved with digital assets. The committee advanced the bill largely along party lines.

With Republicans holding 53 seats in the Senate, at least seven Democrats would likely need to support the measure to secure the 60 votes required to avoid prolonged debate and pass the chamber quickly. Several Democratic lawmakers have argued that the current draft does not adequately address concerns tied to illicit finance and sanctions evasion.

Election calendar could complicate crypto bill timeline

As Cipolaro noted in the NYDIG report, Congress is scheduled to recess from late July through early September before lawmakers return to a politically sensitive period leading into the November midterms.

Under that timeline, Senate leadership may avoid scheduling a contentious vote requiring bipartisan support once campaigning accelerates. Cipolaro wrote that if lawmakers fail to advance the bill before the recess period, the next viable opportunity could come during a post-election lame-duck session.

Even then, NYDIG said the path would depend heavily on Republicans retaining Senate control and Majority Leader John Thune deciding to prioritize crypto legislation alongside government funding negotiations.

Current election forecasts continue to show a closely contested Senate race. While some projections give Republicans a slight edge, other models classify several battleground seats as tossups that could hand Democrats control of the chamber next year.

According to Cipolaro, a Democratic-controlled Senate in the next Congress would likely reduce the chances of the current Republican-backed market structure proposal advancing after January.

Within the same note, NYDIG said lawmakers are effectively weighing whether to approve an imperfect bipartisan framework this year or risk reopening negotiations under a different political balance after the elections.

Regulatory clarity seen as key institutional catalyst

Cipolaro added that passage of the legislation could materially improve institutional confidence in crypto markets by establishing clearer oversight rules for digital assets in the U.S.

Among the bill’s most significant provisions, NYDIG said Bitcoin would formally fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a commodity, removing what the firm described as one of the last major regulatory uncertainties surrounding Bitcoin’s role as an institutional asset.

Failure to pass the legislation, however, could leave the crypto industry operating under continued jurisdictional uncertainty. NYDIG said unresolved disputes over decentralized finance enforcement provisions, ethics language, or procedural delays could still derail negotiations before the current congressional window closes.