Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Latest crypto news: CLARITY Act Senate fight

Published

on

FDIC pays $188k, pledges policy shift in Coinbase FOIA crypto case

The latest crypto news US CLARITY Act Senate 2026 bitcoin regulation battle has reached a pivotal moment: the bill that would define US crypto law for a generation is deadlocked between four factions in the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Bernie Moreno has warned plainly that missing the May window risks pushing comprehensive crypto legislation off the calendar until after the 2026 midterms — and potentially beyond.

Summary

  • The CLARITY Act faces a four-way standoff among crypto firms, banks, the SEC, and structural critics over whether stablecoin platforms can pay yield to users; Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks reached a compromise in principle on March 20 banning passive yield but permitting activity-based rewards, though key industry players including Coinbase and Stripe have still not fully accepted the text
  • The Senate Banking Committee markup is targeted for the second half of April after Easter recess ends April 13; the bill then faces five sequential hurdles before reaching the president’s desk, leaving almost no margin for further delay
  • Polymarket places 2026 signing odds at 63 to 66%; Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has said 80 to 90%, though he recently pushed his expected passage timeline from April to May; JPMorgan analysts called passage by midyear a “positive catalyst for digital assets”

The latest crypto news US CLARITY Act Senate 2026 bitcoin regulation standoff is less about what the bill says and increasingly about whether the political calendar will allow it to move at all. As crypto.news reported, the core stablecoin yield dispute — the fight that paralyzed the January markup and dominated the past three months — has a framework in place: the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise from March 20 bans passive yield on stablecoin balances while permitting activity-based rewards tied to payments and platform use. Senators Lummis and Alsobrooks have described the deal as 99% resolved.

The obstacle now is not the bill’s content. It is the five-step process that remains: a Senate Banking Committee markup, a full Senate floor vote requiring 60 votes, reconciliation with the Agriculture Committee version, reconciliation with the House-passed version from July 2025, and a presidential signature. Senator Bernie Moreno stated explicitly: “If the bill does not reach the full Senate floor by May, digital asset legislation may not receive serious consideration again for years.”

Advertisement

The four factions each have veto power over different parts of the bill. Crypto firms, led publicly by Coinbase, want the flexibility to offer yield-bearing stablecoins and clear DeFi protections. Banks, led by the American Bankers Association, are opposed to any stablecoin economics that could pull deposits away from the insured banking system — Standard Chartered estimated an open-ended yield provision could redirect up to $500 billion in deposits. Democratic senators are pushing for ethics language barring government officials and their families from personally profiting from crypto — language directed explicitly at Trump family holdings. And structural critics within both parties want stronger anti-fraud and DeFi oversight provisions the current draft does not contain.

What Passes or Fails Means for Bitcoin

As crypto.news noted, the CLARITY Act’s outcome is a critical variable for the entire institutional crypto pipeline. If it passes, the SEC/CFTC jurisdictional line becomes federal law rather than a reversible guidance document — giving large asset managers a permanent legal rationale for Bitcoin commodity custody and product approval. If it stalls past May, regulatory guidance from the current administration could be reversed after the midterms, putting institutional capital currently on the sidelines back into waiting mode.

Peter Van Valkenburgh, executive director of Coin Center, framed the bill’s purpose precisely: the aim of passing the CLARITY Act is not to trust the current administration, but to “bind the next one.”

Advertisement

The Senate returns from Easter recess on April 13. The Banking Committee markup window is the second half of April. That window is the entire ballgame.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Covenant AI Leaves Bittensor Amid Decentralization Concerns, TAO Drops 18%

Published

on

Covenant AI Leaves Bittensor Amid Decentralization Concerns, TAO Drops 18%

Bittensor subnet developer Covenant AI said Friday that it is leaving the decentralized artificial intelligence network, accusing Bittensor of operating under a concentrated governance structure that undermines its decentralization claims.

In a Friday post on X, Covenant AI founder Sam Dare said the team could no longer build on or raise for Bittensor because its governance was not meaningfully distributed.

“It is decentralization theatre,” Dare said. “Jacob Steeves maintains effective control over the triumvirate, resists any meaningful transfer of authority, and deploys changes unilaterally whenever he chooses, without process and without consensus.”

The dispute cuts to the core of Bittensor’s decentralization pitch. Covenant AI alleged that founder Jacob Steeves, known as Const, exerts outsized influence over governance and network operations, an accusation Steeves denied.

Advertisement

Bittensor’s governance documents describe a transitional system in which a “Triumvirate” of Opentensor Foundation employees holds root permissions alongside a senate, rather than a fully open governance model.

Source: Covenant AI

Covenant AI claims subnet emissions were suspended, Bittensor founder denies allegations

Covenant AI said Steeves had taken several actions against the project in recent weeks, including suspending emissions to its subnet, restricting moderation powers in community channels and applying “direct economic pressure” through visible token sales during the dispute.

Steeves rejected the allegations, claiming that he cannot suspend subnet emissions and that he does not hold “any privilege beyond what normal TAO holders have.”

In a Friday X response, Steeves said he sold some of his “alpha holdings on his three subnets because they were not running and were on near 100% burn code,” which changed the emissions the same way “all buys and sells on Bittensor do.”

Source: Const

Steeves also denied stripping Covenant AI of its moderation rights, saying he only temporarily removed the team’s ability to delete posts before restoring it. He added that large token sales would have been visible onchain.

“Less than 1% of what i had invested in his teams. Visibility is impossible to avoid in my position. I reserve my right to buy and sell tokens which is what underpins the entire system of dTao,” he added.

Advertisement

Bittensor previously garnered mainstream attention after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang praised the decentralized training run on Bittensor Subnet 3, calling Covenant’s milestone of pre-training the largest decentralized LLM a “remarkable technical achievement,” during the All-In Podcast on March 19.

Related: Bittensor’s TAO price may plunge 40% within five weeks: Fractal data

TAO’s sales volume skyrockets ahead of Covenant AI’s departure announcement

The governance dispute also weighed on Bittensor’s (TAO) token, which was down around 18% over the previous 24 hours as of Friday morning, according to market data.

TAO/USD, 1-week chart. Source: CoinMarketCap

However, sell volume on TAO rose to its highest level since December 2024, about 24 hours before Covenant AI announced its departure. “If you think that’s a coincidence, you don’t understand the game you’re playing. This was a calculated exit and execution,” wrote crypto analyst Ardi in a Friday X post.

Cointelegraph reached out to Covenant AI and Bittensor for comment but had not received a response by publication.

Advertisement
Source: Ardi

The dispute raises wider concerns for projects striving for decentralization, according to David and Daniil Liberman, co-creators of the decentralized layer-1 blockchain Gonka protocol.

“Decentralized networks that want serious builders have to answer one question: can the infrastructure you build on be used against you? If the answer is yes, the decentralization is cosmetic,” they told Cointelegraph.

Magazine: Michael Heinrich loves AI coins Goat, Turbo & Aethir… but not TAO