What products will be impacted by the U.S. and Canadian tariffs?

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the lender’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by solvency concerns and more by political pressure tied to the Biden administration. In an inaugural Substack post published Tuesday, Lane argues that Silvergate could have continued operating after meeting large withdrawal demands in late 2022—contradicting the thrust of multiple regulator reviews that pointed to funding, governance, and compliance failures.

The dispute matters beyond Silvergate’s collapse because it sits at the center of a broader, ongoing debate: whether US regulators effectively squeezed crypto-focused banks through risk management scrutiny and supervisory actions, or whether the failures were primarily internal. Lane’s account adds a firsthand perspective to a record that includes Federal Reserve and SEC enforcement actions, as well as official reviews highlighting weaknesses in how the bank managed its concentrated deposit base and compliance obligations.

Key takeaways

• Alan Lane claims Silvergate remained solvent through periods of heavy withdrawals, citing liquid assets that could be sold or pledged.
• Lane attributes the 2023 liquidation decision to “political pressure,” while Federal Reserve-related reviews emphasize funding risks and governance and compliance shortcomings.
• A Federal Reserve Office of Inspector General review in 2023 linked Silvergate’s collapse to its dependence on crypto depositors and multilayered funding risks.
• The SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Lane, and former risk officer Kathleen Fraher in July 2024 over alleged deficiencies in AML-related monitoring and investor disclosures.
• Government agencies later withdrew early-2023 crypto-risk supervisory statements, but regulators’ enforcement actions continued to shape the post-mortem.

Lane argues Silvergate could withstand the withdrawal wave

Lane’s central claim is that Silvergate did not collapse because it lacked liquidity or capital to operate. He wrote that the bank had the capacity to keep running after it satisfied withdrawals equivalent to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022.

In the post, Lane argued that liquidation became the path of least resistance only after political pressure intensified. He described a “coordinated attack by the Biden Administration” as the reason Silvergate chose liquidation “in the face of political pressure.”

Lane also pointed to the bank’s reserves and balance sheet actions during the period. In a January 2023 business update, Silvergate reported that digital asset deposits declined 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter. The bank said it sold $5.2 billion in debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss, while reporting $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s post leans on this picture—liquid assets were available, and funding outflows did not automatically imply insolvency.

Even if Lane’s liquidity framing is accepted, regulators’ accounts differ sharply on what ultimately caused the wind-down. Lane presents a solvency-and-strategy argument; multiple supervisory findings emphasize risk concentration, rapid funding dynamics, and compliance and governance problems.

Regulators’ assessments focus on concentration, governance, and risk controls

A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General examined Silvergate’s failure, citing the bank’s heavy reliance on crypto depositors, rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks as key drivers behind the decision to liquidate. The review also highlighted weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and suggested examiners could have acted more aggressively and decisively.

Lane’s Substack post pushes back on the compliance narrative. He said no regulator had proven that Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed. That assertion sits in tension with the SEC’s later enforcement actions, which specifically targeted AML monitoring practices and related disclosures.

For investors, this difference is not just rhetorical. If regulators’ conclusions primarily reflect internal control failures, then industry access to banking may be constrained mainly by compliance performance. If, instead, supervisory pressure was the decisive factor, the risk lens for lenders and crypto businesses could shift toward how regulators manage institution-level risk tolerance rather than how firms execute monitoring and governance.

SEC enforcement and the AML-monitoring allegations

Lane’s account also intersects with the SEC’s July 2024 charges. According to the SEC’s press release from that time, the agency charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors regarding the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.

In the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system failed to monitor transactions worth more than $1 trillion, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers involving FTX entities.

Lane later settled the SEC case without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC reported that the settlement included a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar. Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies, according to a Federal Reserve enforcement press release dated July 1, 2024.

Taken together, these actions support the core of regulators’ post-mortem: even if deposit withdrawals accelerated stress, supervisory authorities argued the bank’s monitoring and governance posture contributed to its inability to stabilize.

Did the industry face supervisory “pressure”? The withdrawn statements

Lane also cited early-2023 interagency crypto-risk statements as evidence of pressure on the broader industry. The Federal Reserve’s regulatory materials described guidance urging banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. The Fed also stated that institutions were neither prohibited nor discouraged from serving specific customer classes based solely on that guidance.

However, that episode did not remain permanent. In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the earlier statements, according to a Federal Reserve press release about the withdrawal.

That timeline is important for readers trying to weigh Lane’s claims against the regulatory record. The supervisory stance of early 2023 may have influenced how banks managed crypto-related risk; the later withdrawal suggests agencies eventually reassessed how the guidance was framed. Still, the SEC and Federal Reserve actions tied to Silvergate’s own monitoring and risk controls remained part of the enforcement backdrop—suggesting that whatever broader pressure existed, regulators also found failures in how Silvergate operated.

What to watch next for the “regulation vs. solvency” question

Lane’s Substack post will likely intensify the split between those who view Silvergate’s liquidation as a response to external political and supervisory pressure and those who see it as the logical endpoint of internal risk concentration and control failures. The key question now is whether further filings or proceedings clarify which factors were decisive in the wind-down—and how regulators’ changing guidance will be interpreted going forward by crypto-focused lenders.

With lawmakers in the US Senate set to consider legislation pushed by many in the cryptocurrency industry for regulatory clarity, there’s a limited window for the bill to become law, potentially delaying it into the next session of Congress with different politics in play.

The US Senate is scheduled to return to session on Monday after more than a month in which lawmakers were on state work periods. Senator John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the chamber, has scheduled a cloture vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act for Tuesday, in which his compatriots will need support from a handful of Democrats to meet the 60-vote threshold and overcome a filibuster.

Should the bill fail to advance with a three-fifths supermajority, the Senate will have less than 36 days of business before 2027, when a new session of Congress is scheduled to be sworn in, one where Democrats could be in control, depending on the outcome of November’s midterm elections.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of CLARITY’s biggest supporters, warned on Sept. 6 that the “next real opportunity” for the bill to pass might not be until 2030 if lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement and send it to the president’s desk. She is also not running for reelection in 2026.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 in the Senate are up for grabs in the midterm elections . Event contracts on prediction market platforms currently give Democrats the odds on retaking a majority in the House, while the party’s chances in the Senate are basically a coin flip.

Related: Rushed CLARITY Act vote could set legislation back, Gallego warns

When Republicans took the Senate from Democrats following the 2024 elections, this left the party with a legislative trifecta — control of the Senate, House and the presidency — giving it exceptional influence over passing laws favorable to the crypto industry, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. A reversal of this party control could likewise leave Republicans approaching bills on Democrats’ terms beginning next year.

Crypto money potentially swaying voters in 2026

Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democratic lawmaker who previously chaired the Senate Banking committee, was voted out in 2024 in a race that saw cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake and many others pouring millions of dollars into ads supporting his opponent, Republican Bernie Moreno.

Now, Brown is back, running in a special election against Republican Jon Husted to complete the term won in 2022 by now-Vice President JD Vance.

A PAC like Fairshake, backed by crypto exchange Coinbase and Ripple Labs, is just one way the industry is pushing to get what it calls more “pro-crypto” lawmakers in Congress. Although many candidates, both Democrat and Republican, supported by Fairshake-backed ads, have gone on to win their 2026 primaries, the PAC hasn’t always been successful. 

In March, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Democratic primary for one of the state’s US Senate seats despite being the target of industry-funded attack ads. Many incumbents who have voted in favor of bills like GENIUS or CLARITY while in office have found support from crypto PACs, while challengers or those critical of digital assets are sometimes named in negative ads.

“Rep. Auchincloss voted for the CLARITY ACT, which explains why the crypto industry is heavily supportive of his reelection,” said Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate who ran against Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss in the primary for the state’s 4th congressional district. A Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent about $189,000 on ads supporting Auchincloss. Poulos added:

“The influx of outside crypto industry cash means that these oligarchs have an outsized influence on our representation and federal policies. It is why we need to get big money out of politics […]”

Presidency, regulators unlikely to change before 2029

Whether Democrats retake both chambers of Congress in November, neither, or just one, the result will not change Republican control of the White House until January 2029 and maintaining the power to veto legislation. For example, if the president chooses to veto a Democrat-backed crypto bill, both the House and the Senate would need a two-thirds supermajority vote to override his actions.

In addition, the heads of two of the major financial agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), are unlikely to change while Trump remains in office. The president nominated Paul Atkins to chair the SEC and Michael Selig the CFTC, both of whom have signaled plans to proceed with digital asset regulation if Congress fails to advance CLARITY this year.

Magazine: Is Bitcoin too volatile to risk your retirement on?

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Kalshi filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to launch two new perpetual futures contracts. The prediction market plans to list GOLDPERP and SILVERPERP on September 9. Both contracts settle in cash and carry no expiration date.

Gold Perpetual Futures Enter Kalshi’s Lineup

Kalshi submitted its filing under CFTC Regulation 40.2(a). This self-certification path lets exchanges list products without prior agency approval, so Kalshi confirmed compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act directly. No separate review step was required before the listing date.

The gold perpetual contract tracks the spot price of one troy ounce. Traders hold a single position instead of rolling between dated contracts, and Kalshi set the reference price through Pyth Network. Settlement stays entirely in cash, with no physical metal changing hands.

A periodic funding payment keeps the contract price near the spot rate. Kalshi said the structure can cut roll costs and basis risk for hedgers. Fabricators, bullion desks and producers may benefit most from that continuous exposure.

Silver Perpetual Futures Add New Options

The exchange also plans to list a silver perpetual contract on the same day. SILVERPERP tracks the spot price of silver in U.S. dollars, and settlement remains fully in cash. No physical delivery applies to this contract either.

Kalshi cited consecutive annual supply deficits in silver dating back to 2021. It also noted tightness in the market during late 2025 and early 2026. Cash settlement removes any risk of delivery pressure tied to those shortages.

The contract trades continuously, without daily or weekend closures. Kalshi set the schedule wider than its earlier proposal from July, which had suggested a five-day trading week. The final structure instead runs seven days a week, around the clock.

Kalshi Builds on Earlier Crypto Perps Success

Kalshi first launched a Bitcoin perpetual contract in May this year. The CFTC approved it as the first such product in the country. The exchange then expanded to eighteen crypto assets, including Ethereum and XRP.

The company also added contracts tied to Hyperliquid, BNB and Cardano. Kalshi separately sought approval for metals, copper and equity-index products. Gold and silver perps mark the next step in that broader plan.

CME Group has sued the CFTC over how it classifies Kalshi’s Bitcoin perps. The dispute centers on whether the product counts as a future or a swap. Kalshi’s existing gold and silver event contracts remain separate, short-dated products with fixed expiries.

Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty has urged undecided and opposing senators to hear from an estimated 67 million American crypto holders before the CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote procedural test on Sep. 15.

Alderoty asks senators to meet crypto holders

Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty said in a post that he had contacted the offices of senators who either oppose the CLARITY Act or have not decided how they will vote.

With the procedural vote approaching, Alderoty asked those lawmakers to meet “real people with digital assets” and hear how federal crypto rules could affect them. He argued that senators should listen to individual holders rather than limit their discussions to lobbyists, industry executives, and trade groups.

The Ripple executive based his appeal on research from the National Cryptocurrency Association, which estimates that about 67 million people in the United States own cryptocurrency. According to the association’s 2026 survey, around one in four American adults holds some form of digital asset.

Alderoty said the size of the holder population gives individuals a direct stake in legislation that could change how tokens, trading platforms, and other crypto services operate in the United States. His request also adds a retail-focused argument to a lobbying campaign that has largely centered on companies, banks, and Washington policy groups.

Reuters reported on Sep. 9 that Stand With Crypto supporters called or emailed members of Congress nearly 50,000 times during August. The advocacy group also arranged meetings and placed opinion articles in local newspapers as senators spent their recess working from their home states.

Banking organizations have run their own campaign. According to Reuters, the Independent Community Bankers of America has asked local bankers to contact senators over provisions that the group believes could let digital tokens compete with bank deposits and reduce funds available for lending.

CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to open debate

The Senate’s Sep. 15 action will not decide whether the CLARITY Act becomes law. Senators are expected to vote at about 2:15 p.m. ET on cloture for the motion to proceed, a step that would allow the chamber to begin formal debate on the legislation.

Cloture requires support from 60 senators. Republicans hold 53 seats, meaning the bill needs votes from at least seven Democrats or independents, even if every Republican supports moving forward.

Full Republican support is not assured, however. As crypto.news reported on Sep. 8, some members of the party have raised concerns about presidential ethics rules, stablecoin rewards, and the treatment of decentralized finance. Republican defections would increase the number of opposition-party votes needed to cross the threshold.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed before the August recess, according to a recent bill breakdown. The filing placed the vote one day after senators are scheduled to return to Washington, leaving limited time for negotiations before the chamber acts.

If cloture succeeds, senators could debate the bill, propose amendments, and later hold a separate vote on passage. Failure to secure 60 votes would prevent the chamber from taking up the measure under the scheduled process.

The legislation would create a federal market structure for digital assets and divide oversight duties between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Its rules would also help determine when a digital asset falls under securities law and when it should be treated as a commodity.

After passing the House by 294 votes to 134 in July 2025, the measure advanced from the Senate Banking Committee in May 2026 by a 15–9 vote. Only two Democrats supported it at the committee stage, according to the earlier report, leaving Senate leaders with a more difficult calculation for the floor vote.

Ethics dispute threatens bipartisan support

Presidential ethics provisions remain one of the main obstacles in the Senate negotiations. Democrats have sought tighter restrictions on digital-asset activities involving the president, senior government officials and their families.

Their concerns have included crypto businesses connected to President Donald Trump and his relatives, including World Liberty Financial and the Official Trump meme coin. Democratic senators have argued that the pending language does not provide enough protection against conflicts of interest, illicit finance, and possible influence over federal policy.

Republican lawmakers have offered competing views on whether enough compromise has already been made. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, one of the bill’s main supporters, has blamed Democratic demands for putting the legislation at risk while maintaining that the remaining differences can still be resolved.

Sen. Mike Rounds gave a more cautious assessment, saying the bill’s prospects “don’t look good right now.” Sen. Thom Tillis also warned that the measure would fail if lawmakers and the White House showed no interest in closing the gap over ethics provisions.

Stablecoin rewards have created another dispute. Community banks contend that rewards offered on stablecoin balances could draw deposits away from insured banks, while crypto companies oppose restrictions that would prevent third parties from offering such payments.

Lawmakers have also debated legal protections for decentralized finance software developers. Some senators want stronger safeguards for developers who do not control customer assets, while others have sought rules intended to address money laundering and other illicit financial activity.

US holders face rules shaped by the SEC and CFTC

For American token holders, the bill’s division of authority between the SEC and CFTC could affect how trading platforms list assets and which federal rules apply to their transactions. The legislation would also set requirements for intermediaries operating in the U.S. digital-asset market.

Supporters say a statutory framework would replace part of the uncertainty created when agencies apply existing securities and commodities laws to crypto products. Critics, including several Senate Democrats, have said any framework must include stronger consumer, financial-crime, and ethics protections.

Ripple executives have repeatedly supported congressional action on crypto market structure. Earlier in September, CEO Brad Garlinghouse called for lawmakers to finish the country’s regulatory framework while saying that making the United States a global center for crypto remained “within reach.”

Even if senators approve the motion to proceed and later pass the bill, the legislative process would not be complete. Any Senate text that differs from the House-approved version would need to be reconciled between the two chambers before it could go to the president.

The House is scheduled to have only four legislative days in session after Sep. 15 before another recess, giving lawmakers little time to review and approve any changes adopted by the Senate.