Bitcoin has fallen more than 50% from its $125,000 cycle peak, but Grayscale’s Zach Pandl has argued that the cryptocurrency may have already reached its bottom if the Federal Reserve stops raising interest rates.

Grayscale Research has presented two competing views of when the current Bitcoin bear market could end, with one based on the asset’s four-year cycle and the other tied to economic growth, real interest rates and Fed policy.

Pandl, Grayscale’s head of research, favors the second explanation because Bitcoin has increasingly behaved like a mature asset affected by the same macroeconomic forces that influence other major markets. Under that view, stable growth and an end to rate hikes could allow Bitcoin’s latest low to hold.

Two securities transfer groups have urged the SEC to prioritize issuer-backed tokenized stocks and ETFs while limiting unaffiliated versions that may not provide shareholders with direct ownership rights.

Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company outlined its position in a letter to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, supporting rules for tokenized securities while calling for tougher treatment of products created without an issuer’s approval.

The registered transfer agent backed a similar proposal from the Securities Transfer Association, an industry group representing companies that maintain shareholder records and process ownership changes. Both groups asked the SEC to draw a clear line between securities tokenized by an issuer and tokens created by an unrelated platform.

Under their proposed distinction, an issuer-sponsored token represents a security that the company has authorized for blockchain-based issuance or trading. The transfer agent can therefore record its holder as a shareholder and apply the same ownership controls used for conventional securities.

An unaffiliated token may instead track a stock’s price or represent an indirect interest in shares held by another party. According to the STA, those arrangements do not necessarily create a legal relationship between the token buyer and the company whose stock provides the reference value.

“We support innovation in the securities markets, but believe any tokenization framework must preserve investor protection, issuer authorization, accurate shareholder records, transfer controls, and market integrity,” CSTT wrote in its letter.

Issuer-backed tokens preserve shareholder rights

CSTT warned that investors could mistake third-party tokens for direct shares even when the products provide different legal and economic rights. According to the firm, unclear ownership structures may also leave buyers without adequate disclosures about custody, voting rights, dividends or claims during insolvency.

For public companies, CSTT argued that unaffiliated products could disrupt shareholder records and make it difficult to identify the owners of an issuer’s securities. Missing or unreliable information could then affect voting, dividend payments, tender offers, stock splits and other corporate actions.

The STA identified additional concerns involving insider trading, market manipulation, sanctions screening and transfer restrictions. Its letter also cited possible reputational damage when a company’s shares are used in a tokenized product without its knowledge or consent.

Based on those risks, CSTT asked the SEC to modernize registration documents in a way that gives priority to tokenization programs approved by issuers. The company also opposed granting unaffiliated stock and ETF tokens relief through an innovation exemption unless the SEC first imposes investor safeguards.

The distinction echoes an earlier warning from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, who stated in July 2025 that blockchain technology does not alter the legal nature of an investment product.

“As powerful as blockchain technology is, it does not have magical abilities to transform the nature of the underlying asset. Tokenized securities are still securities,” Peirce wrote in a statement reported by Reuters.

Peirce also distinguished between securities tokenized by issuers and products created by unrelated third parties. According to the commissioner, investors in third-party versions may face risks that do not exist when they purchase shares directly from an issuer or through conventional market infrastructure.

Regulated platforms are advancing tokenized trading

Demand for blockchain-based access to traditional assets has continued as crypto exchanges add stocks, ETFs and derivatives to their product lines. Coinbase, Kraken and Binance have each announced services connecting digital-asset users with traditional market products, although their structures and availability differ by jurisdiction.

Traditional market operators are pursuing tokenization through regulated infrastructure as well. In March, the New York Stock Exchange announced a partnership with Securitize to develop a platform for tokenized securities, with Securitize serving as a digital transfer agent for participating corporate and ETF issuers.

Under that arrangement, NYSE and Securitize plan to establish operating and regulatory standards for digital transfer agents. NYSE President Lynn Martin said that new tokenization systems must retain the trust, transparency and investor protections expected in established capital markets.

The SEC had also approved a Nasdaq proposal allowing certain stocks to trade and settle in tokenized form. That model keeps the tokenized shares within an exchange system governed by existing securities rules.

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation has separately tested tokenization using assets linked to Microsoft, Circle, the Invesco QQQ Trust, State Street’s SPDR S&P 500 ETF and BlackRock’s iShares 0–3 Month Treasury Bond ETF. The trial includes stocks, index funds and short-term government debt products.

Unlike synthetic tokens produced without issuer involvement, these regulated projects use transfer agents, exchanges or established clearing infrastructure to maintain ownership records. CSTT and the STA have asked the SEC to preserve that connection as the agency develops rules governing tokenized stocks and ETFs.

XRP price has climbed nearly 4% to a two-week high of $1.1574 as Bitcoin’s return above $65,000, whale accumulation and fresh ETF inflows have supported its latest recovery.

According to data from crypto.news, XRP (XRP) price was trading near $1.14 at the time of writing, up about 2% over the past seven days, with its market value standing above $71 billion. The token had eased from its session high after sellers returned around $1.16, but prices remained above a recently broken daily resistance line.

Alongside the improvement in crypto sentiment, activity tied to artificial intelligence has supplied a network-level catalyst. XRP Ledger has processed more than 1 million agentic transactions, according to RippleX engineering head J. Ayo Akinyele, as developers test autonomous payments for data, application programming interfaces and computing services.

Agentic payments allow AI-powered software to complete transactions based on programmed instructions without requiring a person to approve each transfer. XRP Ledger can settle these payments in three to five seconds while offering predictable transaction costs, Akinyele told FinanceFeeds.

Commenting on the milestone, Akinyele projected that the transaction count could rise considerably as developers improve the tools available to autonomous agents.

“I think we’ll blast through 10 million and may even get to 100 million within the next couple of years.”

The forecast remains a projection rather than a measure of future XRP demand. Investors would still need to assess whether developers continue building agent-based services, whether those applications attract regular users and how much XRP or Ripple USD they use for settlement.

Whale buying and ETF inflows support the recovery

Santiment data showed that wallets holding between 100,000 and 100 million XRP increased their combined balances by 2.8% during the past five weeks. Over the same period, balances held by wallets containing less than 0.1 XRP fell by 5.2%.

According to Santiment, the opposing trends indicate that whale and shark wallets accumulated tokens while very small holders reduced their exposure. The analytics firm linked the change in holdings to XRP’s rebound toward $1.16, although its data does not establish that large-wallet buying alone caused the price increase.

Demand has also continued through U.S.-listed spot XRP exchange-traded funds. SoSoValue data showed the products attracted $5.66 million in net inflows on July 21, lifting their cumulative intake to about $1.49 billion.

Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ accounted for the entire daily addition, while the other listed products reported no net movement. Trading value across the funds reached $19.16 million during the session, and their combined net assets stood at approximately $1.06 billion, equal to about 1.48% of XRP’s market capitalization.

Among individual products, Bitwise managed the largest pool of assets at $333.50 million, according to the same dataset. The figures show that regulated funds continued receiving capital during XRP’s recovery, but daily flows can vary and do not guarantee sustained price gains.

Daily breakout keeps $1.20 within reach

On the daily chart, XRP has broken above the upper boundary of a symmetrical triangle that formed after its June decline. Price also moved through the descending trendline connecting the June and July swing highs before reaching $1.1574.

Daily momentum has improved with the breakout. The chart’s relative strength index stood at 55.77, above its moving average of 47.38 and below the overbought threshold of 70. Its moving average convergence divergence histogram had turned positive at 0.0077, while the MACD line was rising toward a possible move above the signal line.

The 4-hour chart, however, showed momentum cooling after XRP’s rejection from $1.1574. The latest candle traded near $1.1385, placing the token just above the Murrey Math trading-range ceiling at $1.1353 and the major support and resistance pivot at $1.123.

A recovery above the 4-hour strong pivot at $1.1475 would give buyers another chance to challenge $1.1597. The supplied chart places the following resistance levels at $1.1719 and $1.1841, with $1.1963 sitting just below the psychological $1.20 barrier.

4-hour MACD readings remained positive, although the shrinking histogram showed that upward momentum had slowed after the latest advance. This setup leaves buyers needing to defend the breakout instead of relying solely on the earlier impulse.

If XRP closes back below $1.123, the 4-hour chart identifies $1.1106 and $1.0986 as the next support levels. A deeper decline could expose $1.0864 and the ultimate support line at $1.0742, weakening the daily triangle breakout despite continued whale accumulation and ETF demand.

Grayscale’s new SEC filing for a Worldcoin ETF reveals that just 100 wallets hold approximately 90% of all circulating WLD — a concerning level of centralization for co-founder Sam Altman’s “coin for the world.”

These numbers contrast with the token’s whitepaper, which outlined a simple goal tied to eyeball-scanning orbs and token giveaways around the globe: “The majority of WLD tokens will be claimed by individuals simply for being verified unique humans.”

It would be bad enough if that were Worldcoin’s only decentralization failure.

Unfortunately, the filing also acknowledges the project’s dependence on a centralized sequencer, upgrade functionaries, bridge operators, and governance that rarely uses its own so-called governance token. 

One of the aforementioned WLD wallets is 0x470458C91978D2d929704489Ad730DC3E3001113, the bridge between Ethereum and World Chain, and likely represents multiple users.

Grayscale discloses Worldcoin’s actual tokenomics

The admissions come not from critics but from Grayscale, a sponsor that wants to bundle up WLD tokens into a Nasdaq-listed ETF and sell shares to retail investors.

Grayscale filed its S-1 application for its ETF on July 20, proposing to list on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol GWLD.

Its risk factors state plainly, “As of the date of this filing, the largest 100 WLD wallets held approximately 90% of the WLD in circulation.”

Worldcoin and OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman posted in October 2021 that Worldcoin “will be distributed fairly to as many people as possible.”

The project’s whitepaper forecasted, “The majority of humans alive today will claim WLD tokens, which may result in WLD becoming the most widely distributed digital currency.”

The word “may” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Grayscale’s lawyers had to tally actual, rater than aspirational, numbers. Their disclaimers warn that it’s “possible, and in fact, reasonably likely, that a small group of early WLD adopters may hold a significant proportion of the WLD that’s been released to date.”

That sums it up. Altman’s coin overwhelmingly went to the 1%.

Senate Republicans have released the full proposed text for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a wide-ranging bill intended to establish a clearer US regulatory framework for digital assets. The 616-page document, published Wednesday, includes a particularly forceful ethics section that would bar US federal officials from issuing, sponsoring, or otherwise promoting digital assets.

According to the bill’s text—posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis—public officials, their spouses, and federal employees would be prohibited from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. In parallel, the legislation would prevent crypto platforms from listing assets that are issued or sponsored by covered federal officials. Lummis described the ethics package as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history,” language that the White House also highlighted around the proposal.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Act’s ethics rules would restrict covered federal officials (and their spouses) from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
• Crypto platforms would face a related prohibition on listing assets that are issued or sponsored by those federal officials.
• The ethics ban would be temporary, ending on Jan. 20, 2029, coinciding with the end of a second presidential term.
• Enforcement would largely fall to the US Department of Justice rather than state regulators, elevating the role of federal prosecutors.
• Passage still appears uncertain because Democrats must support the bill to reach a 60-vote Senate threshold.

Ethics provisions at the center of the debate

The ethics section is the headline-grabbing part of CLARITY, largely because it attempts to directly tie conflict-of-interest rules to digital asset activity by senior federal actors. Under the proposed language, a broad group of federal officials, their spouses, and public employees would be barred from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.

The bill goes further by addressing market access: crypto platforms would be blocked from listing assets issued or sponsored by those same federal officials. That structure matters because it doesn’t just restrict official conduct—it also attempts to constrain the flow of capital and attention toward assets that would otherwise benefit from federal ties.

Senator Lummis, a key advocate for the bill, said the provisions would apply to President Donald Trump, who has faced criticism from lawmakers over the scope of his crypto-related financial interests while in office. In earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, lawmakers have pointed to reporting that Trump earned more than $1.4 billion in 2025 from his crypto ventures. Lummis framed CLARITY as applying a uniform ethics standard to everyone, including the President.

At the same time, the temporary nature of the prohibition stands out. The ban would expire on Jan. 20, 2029—described in the bill context as the day a second presidential term ends. That design could influence how both supporters and skeptics assess the bill: for supporters, it offers a near-term deterrent backed by enforcement; for opponents, it may raise questions about what happens after the expiration date.

Department of Justice enforcement and the confirmation question

Another crucial aspect of the ethics language is where enforcement would sit. The bill assigns primary responsibility to the US Attorney General and the federal Justice Department rather than leaving implementation primarily to states. As of Wednesday, reporting in the crypto space indicated that Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney and the acting Attorney General—was awaiting a Senate confirmation vote to lead the Justice Department.

That federal enforcement focus appears to be one of the reasons the bill’s ethics provisions are drawing intense scrutiny. In comments reported by Politico, Senator Angela Alsobrooks said she would not support the bill if the ethics language did not include the Justice Department behind enforcement, adding that Democrats would continue working from the Senate floor to reach an agreement that holds everyone accountable.

Lummis, speaking on behalf of the Senate Banking Committee’s digital assets subcommittee, emphasized that the proposal is not merely symbolic. She said the bill would be “backed up with real enforcement, real penalties, and a Department of Justice mandate to act.”

What’s missing—or at least not included—in the text

While the ethics rules are extensive, the bill’s boundaries are also being parsed by observers. Notably, the ethics provisions described in coverage of the proposal do not appear to include children of public officials in the temporary ban.

That omission is politically meaningful given that two of Trump’s sons are described as co-founders of a family business tied to the crypto sector. The article coverage also referenced that three of Trump’s sons are co-founders of World Liberty Financial, and that two launched a Bitcoin mining company, American Bitcoin. For Democrats who have demanded strict ethics language, the lack of coverage for children could become a focal point during negotiations—especially if lawmakers argue that indirect conflicts should be treated the same as direct ones.

Meanwhile, even supporters who back the bill’s overall ethics thrust still face a broader question: will the final package be strong enough, and structured enough, to satisfy lawmakers who have said they will not vote for any version lacking meaningful ethics reforms addressing “crypto corruption.”

Senate math and the path to a vote

CLARITY is not expected to move quickly through Congress without bargaining. The bill still requires Democratic support to achieve the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Coverage has noted that many Democrats have explicitly tied their willingness to vote to the strength of the ethics language, suggesting that negotiations—particularly around enforcement details and who exactly is covered—could determine whether CLARITY can reach the level needed for passage.

There is also a procedural clock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly plans to put CLARITY up for a vote on the Senate floor sometime next week, according to coverage of the proposal. The Senate’s calendar is tight: the chamber has only a few weeks to hold votes before breaking for state work periods.

Political and policy observers are also framing CLARITY as more than an ethics bill. According to Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, the Senate version adds not only ethics and enforcement language but also a broader set of provisions, including a full disclosure regime, expanded illicit finance measures, and improved spot market regulation. That view suggests the core argument for moving forward is not limited to the ethics section—it is also about whether the overall market-structure framework can become durable, bipartisan legislation.

Whether CLARITY ultimately lands on President Trump’s desk will likely hinge on negotiations over the ethics boundaries, the enforcement mechanism, and what Democrats consider sufficient to address conflict-of-interest concerns in the digital asset industry.

For now, readers should watch the next procedural steps in the Senate—especially whether enough Democrats commit their votes before the chamber’s schedule constrains further bargaining—and closely monitor whether any amendments emerge that expand (or narrow) who is covered by the ethics restrictions and how strictly the Justice Department would be expected to enforce them.