Source link

New York, USA, September 17th, 2026, Chainwire. Edel announced an expanded institutional push for its tokenized equity and commodity markets on Canton, led by board member Brad Klaas, a securities lending and prime brokerage veteran whose career spans BlackRock’s predecessor firms and Franklin Templeton. The push comes as Wall Street’s largest institutions move assets onchain and confront a harder question: what those assets can do once they arrive, and whether the answer gives institutions a compelling reason to change.

As part of that effort, Edel has joined the DTC Digital Assets Solutions Industry Working Group, convened to provide feedback on the creation of the DTCC Tokenization Service. 

Edel will help shape this work alongside more than 100 other members, including institutions at the core of US capital markets such as NYSE, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Citadel Securities. The DTCC Tokenization Service is expected to launch in Q4 2026.

For most of the past decade, the question hanging over blockchain and capital markets was whether the two belonged in the same sentence. That question has largely been settled. BlackRock has tokenized funds. JPMorgan has built blockchain settlement rails.

Franklin Templeton has moved investment products onchain. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the post-trade utility beneath much of the US securities market, is developing tokenization infrastructure of its own.

Yet as the novelty of issuance fades, a less comfortable reality is setting in. Putting an asset on a blockchain does not automatically make it useful inside the machinery of global finance. The markets around it still have to work.

For Klaas, those requirements are familiar. The questions now confronting onchain finance increasingly resemble the ones he has spent decades working through.

Beyond the Token

The first era of real-world asset tokenization was dominated by questions of issuance. How does a fund issue shares using blockchain infrastructure? That question still matters, but the value of a financial asset has never come solely from the ledger it sits on. It comes from everything that can happen around it.

In traditional markets, assets are rarely static. Stocks are lent. Treasuries are pledged as collateral. Positions are financed, margined, cleared and moved between institutions. Dealers borrow securities to make markets, hedge funds borrow them to express short positions, and large asset owners lend portfolios that would otherwise sit idle. This plumbing rarely makes headlines. It is also where much of modern finance actually lives.

That creates a genuine risk for the tokenization movement. If a tokenized security trades in an isolated liquidity pool, cannot be used efficiently as collateral and cannot interact with the systems institutions already rely on, tokenization can simply create another silo. The bigger prize is making the asset programmable without making the market around it worse.

That means addressing liquidity, privacy, settlement and credit. It also means understanding why the existing arrangements work as they do.

What Wall Street Already Learned

Early in his career, Klaas ran global securities-lending operations at Wells Fargo Investment Advisors, the business that became Barclays Global Investors and was later acquired by BlackRock. He says he scaled those operations from just over $1 billion to nearly $40 billion before leaving in 1998, during a period when the firm’s assets under management grew from roughly $400 billion to $1.2 trillion.

He went on to build businesses in prime brokerage and electronic trading, and later spent more than four years at Franklin Templeton working on institutional tokenized collateral products and partnerships. His experience spans both the machinery that puts institutional portfolios to work and the effort to bring those functions onchain.

That career arc matters because the two markets are starting to collide. Securities lending turns a passive portfolio into productive capital, but the infrastructure underneath it is demanding. Counterparty exposure has to be managed. Collateral moves, margin changes and securities need to be recalled. Corporate actions have to be accounted for, and settlement needs to happen reliably.

Decades of financial infrastructure exist to make that process look boring. Blockchain changes some of the mechanics, but it does not eliminate those obligations.

Klaas sees an opportunity in how those functions connect. Discussing traditional securities finance with Andrés Soltermann, CEO and co-founder of Edel, he describes “very old systems all lined up in a particular way.” Changing what an asset can do often means working through arrangements that were not designed to adapt together. By contrast, his interest in blockchain rests on composability: the ability to build financial functions that can work with one another and accommodate new uses.

That flexibility helps explain Klaas’s interest in Edel. Asked what competitive advantage a token could give the business, he points to the possibility of using it across several activities rather than confining it to one application. As the infrastructure develops, those uses could open up different sources of income and activity – what he describes as “creating that flywheel around income.” For someone who has spent decades building businesses around the productive use of assets, the attraction is a token whose economic role could expand alongside the markets being built around it.

As a board member, Klaas’s remit spans institutional strategy, senior industry relationships and shaping how Edel’s markets for tokenized equities and commodities on Canton serve institutional participants. He brings the team into conversations with decision-makers across traditional finance, while helping translate their commercial and operating requirements into the markets Edel is building.

Canton gives that discussion a practical dimension: qualifying applications can earn Canton Coin rewards for the economic activity they bring to the network. Edel reported in August that it was generating “tens of thousands in revenue every day,” which the company attributes to those rewards. That offers a concrete example of the broader opportunity Klaas describes: earning from participation in the infrastructure, alongside the business built on top of it.

What matters is the overlap between what he spent decades building and the problem now emerging onchain. His experience connects the technology to the business decisions that determine whether institutions will use it.

The Profit Formula

Klaas is clear-eyed about institutional change. Large firms have established revenues, internal obligations and investors whose agreement may be needed before they can adopt a different approach. Their willingness to move, he argues, is affected by “their own profit formula.”

That observation cuts both ways. An institution has little reason to replace a working system merely because a newer technology exists. It has a more compelling reason to consider one that could lower funding costs, improve collateral availability or allow it to do more business with the assets it already holds.

This is where collateral mobility becomes interesting. If assets take hours or days to move between systems, institutions may need additional liquidity to meet obligations while they wait. If an eligible security can be deployed more efficiently as collateral, some of that funding burden could fall. An existing portfolio could support financial activity that would otherwise require a separate pool of cash.

Those improvements have to justify the cost of integration and satisfy the institution’s risk requirements. But they speak directly to the economics Klaas describes. The same concern for profitability that makes a firm reluctant to change can give it a reason to adopt a system that demonstrably improves how it uses capital.

Tokenized Assets Need Something to Do

Edel is exploring one application of that idea: whether securities tokenized by DTC could be recognized directly as margin within Edel Markets.

Its immediate focus is perpetual futures on Canton. The broader ambition is to build capital-markets infrastructure that makes tokenized assets more productive, improving how they move, support positions, and serve the institutions holding them.

If the necessary arrangements can be established, an institution might be able to post an eligible security rather than sell it or raise separate cash to fund margin. The potential benefit would come from reducing the friction between holding an asset and putting it to work.

Recognition as margin, however, requires more than a token that can move. The receiving market has to accept the asset, value it appropriately, and establish what happens if the position deteriorates or the counterparty defaults. Custody, permissions and enforceable rights remain part of the transaction.

These are the kinds of questions that connect the proposed application to Klaas’s experience. A crypto developer can explain what the technology permits. An institution needs to understand how the arrangement fits its financing, risk, and operating requirements. His contribution lies in helping those conversations meet.

The post Edel Expands Institutional Push as Wall Street Tokenization Matures appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

XRP trades near $1.29 after a sharp correction pushed its two-week Relative Strength Index to the lowest level in the token’s 13-year trading history.

That extreme reading has sparked fresh debate over whether XRP has finally found its cycle bottom.

What This Record-Low RSI Reading Actually Means

Analyst Cryptollica highlighted the milestone in a widely shared post, noting the current two-week RSI near 33.5 has now dropped below the lows seen during the 2018 bear market, the 2020 COVID crash, and the 2022 crypto winter.

The accompanying chart shows XRP still sitting inside a long-term rising channel that has guided the asset through multiple cycles. Price currently rests near that structure’s lower boundary, an area that has historically provided strong support.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.

The analyst argued the market may be misreading the moment entirely. Sentiment has collapsed, and short-term price action looks broken, yet the higher-timeframe trendline has not failed. The analyst wrote that almost nobody wants XRP when its chart looks this damaged, even though such extremes have often preceded major rallies.

EGRAG Crypto added supporting evidence, noting that XRP’s two-month RSI has re-entered a historical zone associated with prior bottoming processes, arguing that cycle behavior matters more than the exact number.

Is Every Analyst Convinced XRP Has Bottomed?

Not everyone agrees a bottom is confirmed. Technical analyst ChartNerd noted XRP remains compressed between the 20-week EMA near $1.29 and the 50-week EMA resistance around $1.52.

A sustained weekly close below $1.29, ChartNerd warned, could open a path toward the $1.00 psychological level. Lower highs and lower lows still appear on intermediate timeframes, suggesting continued consolidation rather than a confirmed reversal.

“Similar to failed closes above the 50 week EMA since the rise to $1.70, If $XRP witnesses daily/weekly closes below $1.29, the next support is back at $1.00. That’s how important the 20 week EMA retest that we just printed is. It has to hold or we dive,” ChartNerd said on X.

CrediBULL Crypto offered a more constructive view, pointing to a related bottom-zone setup in which relative strength has already begun to improve from recent lows.

XRP now sits at a genuine technical inflection point. The record-low RSI, an intact multi-year structure, and heavy negative sentiment together create one of the more debated risk-reward setups in the current market.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.

Whether this reading marks a true cycle low or just another stage in a longer bottoming process depends on price action ahead. Holding the long-term structure would strengthen the bottom case, while a decisive break below $1.29 would shift focus to deeper support.

The post This XRP Chart Signal Hasn't Happened in 13 Years appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink may be the sentiment of the crypto industry, lobbyists and lawmakers who’ve spent the last year trying to get the CLARITY Act over the line.

No shortage of negotiations, amendments or political wrangling; yet not enough to get the bill moving through the Senate.

The CLARITY Act may have rammed into a Senate-shaped hurdle this week, but it isn’t dead on arrival yet — let’s go with walking wounded.

There’s still a chance for the digital asset market structure bill to scramble together the 60 votes it needs to clear the Senate.

Advertisement

When Republican Senator Thom Tillis switched his vote from yes to no at the last minute, he did so on procedural grounds. It may have looked like a swing against CLARITY, but it was really a parliamentary maneuver, allowing him to file a motion to reconsider and preserve a route back to the Senate floor.

The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI)’s director of US federal affairs, Ryan Eagan, tells Magazine:

“Senator Tillis’s motion to reconsider would provide an opportunity to revisit CLARITY’s cloture vote at any point this session. Specific timing regarding next steps is not clear, but that desire to preserve that opportunity is in part due to the progress made over the past week.”

But the Senate is running out of time; both Democrats and Republicans remain divided over ethics provisions involving President Donald Trump, and even supporters of the bill say a more bipartisan negotiating process may now be necessary.

So can CLARITY still be resuscitated, and if it can, how much of the bill will need serious CPR to get there?

Advertisement

CLARITY isn’t dead, but the clock is running down

The failed cloture vote, a procedural vote to end debate on a bill and move it toward a final vote, doesn’t end CLARITY’s journey through Congress just yet. It requires 60 votes in the Senate, and CLARITY fell 49-50 on Tuesday.

Tillis’ motion to reconsider means the vote can be revisited during the current session, but that route is running into a much more practical problem: a ticking clock.

Related: Coinbase faces greater fallout from CLARITY Act setback: Saxo

The Senate is scheduled to leave for recess on October 2 before returning after the midterm elections, and the House of Representatives has already recessed for the election period, complicating any attempt to move legislation through both chambers before the end of the year.

Advertisement

Congressman Shri Thanedar, a Democrat who supported CLARITY when it passed through the House in July 2025, tells Magazine that timeline presents a “major barrier” to reaching an agreement:

“There are only 20 legislative days left in this Congress, all of them after the midterms, making odds of a 2026 compromise, unfortunately, very low.”

Very low doesn’t mean impossible, and the crypto industry has a precedent in the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation in US Stablecoins (GENIUS) bill, which failed cloture 48-49 in May 2025 before clearing a second cloture vote 66-32 just 11 days later. It passed the Senate the following month. However, Kyle Chassé, founder of crypto investment firm MV Global, tells Magazine:

“GENIUS came back from a failed cloture in 11 days. But GENIUS had a deal. This one has a calendar and no votes. Miss Jan. 3, and it restarts from zero in 2027 with a House that is probably Democratic.”

While a lame-duck session after the November elections could give CLARITY another shot, that’s not the same as having a ready-made deal waiting to go.

The 60-vote problem is a negotiating problem

Of the 49 votes for CLARITY, not a single one came from the Democratic camp. Chassé says:

Advertisement

“Every one of the 49 was a Republican. Zero Democrats voted to even open debate.”

While that’s clearly less than ideal, it doesn’t necessarily mean the Democrats have abandoned the bill entirely.

On Wednesday, seven Democratic senators — all of whom had voted a day earlier against advancing the bill — said they “remain committed” to enacting the legislation. Among them was Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, who backed moving the bill out of the Banking Committee in May before voting no on cloture. She said it’s “clear that now is the time to regulate digital assets” and that she’s willing to negotiate over the ethics provisions, adding:

“We were ready to strike a deal today and in discussions right up until the vote. Republican leadership shut it down at the very last minute after it became clear that we were on a path to a successful vote.”

Tillis said Wednesday he now wants to “convince the Democrats to get on board,” and “put pressure on them to own it,” and his procedural vote switch was designed to keep that possibility alive. “I feel very strongly that this is an unregulated marketplace and that we need some guardrails on,” he added.

Related: Bernstein expects ‘aggressive’ rulemaking from SEC, CFTC, following CLARITY Act failure

Advertisement

The divide isn’t over whether Congress should establish rules for crypto anymore, but whether the current package goes far enough to secure bipartisan support.

Seven Democratic senators “remain committed” to enacting the legislation. Source: Kirsten Gillibrand, Senate

While Congressman Thanedar says he supports the bill in its current form, he acknowledges that Tuesday’s result shows the need for both parties to work together further on the draft:

“I do believe that the failed CLARITY vote on Tuesday demonstrates that a more bipartisan drafting process would lead to a higher likelihood of creating the bipartisan, supermajority coalition that passing this legislation into law would require.”

If saving CLARITY means rewriting it, what survives?

Chassé says the problem has moved beyond the technical drafting of crypto policy and is now centered on President Trump’s crypto interests and the ethics provisions around them:

“This stopped being a drafting problem. It’s a referendum on the President’s crypto holdings six weeks before an election, and the text as written can’t survive that.”

Republicans had already made 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats ahead of Tuesday’s vote, including tighter restrictions on public officials profiting from crypto ventures, and giving state attorneys general a role in enforcing some of the ethics provisions.

Advertisement

Alsobrooks votes no on CLARITY. Source: Angela Alsobrooks, Senate.

Despite the concessions, Thanedar says the Democrats want more restrictions “on the President’s ability to use his office for personal gain.” He says the at least $1.4 billion in crypto earnings Trump reported for 2025 in his annual financial disclosure shows that “guardrails are necessary to both hold the President accountable and protect the long-term health of the digital asset market.”

Ethics is not the only potential fault line, though, and Chassé says the industry “should stop dying on that hill.” He points instead to stablecoin rewards, saying “some kind of cap or circuit breaker on yield” would likely be “the price of the bank-side senators and a chunk of Democrats,” along with “tighter illicit finance and state enforcement language.”

He says self-custody and developer protections are areas the crypto industry should be reluctant to trade away. Those protections have been bitterly defended throughout the negotiations, with lawmakers and industry groups debating how far the bill should go in shielding non-custodial developers from financial and anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements.

Congress may stall, crypto regulation doesn’t have to

Even if CLARITY remains stuck in Congress, US crypto regulation is not standing still. Eagan says the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have “demonstrated commitment to reduce uncertainty” through guidance, rulemaking, no-action relief and exemptions.

Advertisement

“CCI expects that agencies’ crypto agenda will proceed in robust fashion regardless of the CLARITY Act,” he says, adding that the GENIUS Act implementation continues at Treasury and the banking regulators.

Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor also pointed out that the SEC, CFTC and Treasury could continue to advance rules under existing laws:

“Progress need not wait for Congress.”

That may be true, but agency action is not the same as getting CLARITY over the finish line. Regulatory guidance can be swept out with administrations, but legislation is harder to unwind.

CLARITY may still have a way to limp back to the Senate, but whether lawmakers can find 60 votes without changing the bill beyond recognition is another matter.

Advertisement

Magazine: Revolut ID thefts highlight KYC’s dangers: Here’s how to fix it

Cointelegraph publishes long-form journalism, analysis and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Some articles contain affiliate links, from which Cointelegraph may earn a commission. These relationships do not influence which products we review or our editorial conclusions. Content published in here does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence.

Source link

Copyright ©2026 Investor’s Business Daily, LLC. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Source link

In Trump crypto news today, the crypto industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns over the past two years to secure a stronger position at the legislative table.

With Donald Trump in the White House, the industry appeared to have an opportunity to advance its highest-priority legislation. Instead, the president’s own involvement in crypto became central to the measure’s collapse.

Senate Democrats blocked the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Tuesday after a dozen Democrats who had contributed significant input to its drafting voted against it.

Their objections focused heavily on Trump’s personal crypto interests and on ethics provisions they viewed as inadequate. The outcome left the bill’s prospects in doubt and turned a push for digital-asset legislation into a dispute over presidential conflicts of interest.

Why Did the Trump Crypto Industry’s Big Bill Collapse?

The vote was notable because the opposition did not come simply from lawmakers hostile to the crypto industry. A dozen Democrats helped shape the CLARITY Act and supported a narrower, industry-focused bill the previous year.

But they ultimately voted against the broader package, with several pointing to unresolved concerns about the president’s ability to profit from digital assets while his administration shaped policy affecting the sector.

The CLARITY Act would have given the crypto industry a more favorable regulatory and legal footing after industry participants faced dozens of lawsuits during the Biden administration over compliance with corporate-transparency laws.

Republicans included a presidential ethics provision to win Democratic support. Yet the proposed enforcement structure left oversight with the U.S. Attorney General, meaning the Trump administration would police itself.

That structure became a focal point in negotiations. The bill also faced a separate challenge from the banking industry, which opposed a provision allowing digital-asset service providers to pay rewards to certain stablecoin holders.

Banks warned that the arrangement could draw deposits away from traditional savings accounts, and several Republicans highlighted those concerns.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

The Conflict at the Center of the CLARITY Act

Democrats cited Trump’s crypto activities as a key reason for their opposition to a proposed bill. Sen. Adam Schiff highlighted the administration’s refusal to accept a deal that would end the president’s profiteering from digital assets, framing the issue as an ethics dispute.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin noted that while significant progress had been made on law enforcement and national security concerns, the unresolved conflict of interest kept her from supporting it. Similarly, Sen. Mark Warner argued that Congress couldn’t enact major crypto legislation while the president profited from it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a leading opponent of the bill, pointed to the administration’s approval of a bank charter for a Trump-linked entity as evidence of the unacceptable intertwining of the president’s business interests and administration actions.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

Republicans’ Case: Anti-Trump Politics Sank the Bill

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, a lead author of the CLARITY Act and a prominent crypto advocate in the Senate, offered a different explanation for the vote.

In comments to HuffPost, she said Democratic opposition stemmed mainly from antipathy toward Trump rather than a principled objection to the legislation.

Lummis also characterized the Democratic Party as increasingly hostile to business, free enterprise and the profit motive. She said that opposition was directed particularly at Trump, while also portraying it as part of a broader ideological disagreement over business and markets.

Her argument sits alongside the record of Democratic participation in the bill’s development. The dozen Democrats who voted no had helped provide input on the CLARITY Act and had backed a narrower crypto bill the year before.

Their stated objections focused on Trump’s personal crypto profits and on Republicans’ refusal, in their view, to impose sufficiently strong limits on that conduct.

Lummis had previously expressed concerns about Trump’s crypto involvement. In 2024, before Trump was elected, she told HuffPost that his embrace of crypto made her somewhat uncomfortable and that he should place his assets in a blind trust.

That earlier position underscores how the question of presidential holdings remained relevant even among supporters of crypto legislation.

Make Your Prediction Count With $25 For Free on Kalshi

The post Trump Crypto Ethics Dispute Derails Senate Crypto Bill: Is The Whitehouse Still Good for Crypto? appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Bitcoin price is trading at $76,300 today. The same snapshot put its market cap at about $1.532 trillion, 24-hour trading volume at about $29 billion, and its 24-hour gain at 1%.

The price update followed a procedural setback for the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act in the Senate. The bill failed to advance in a procedural vote on Tuesday after falling short of the 60 votes required. Bitcoin had dropped to around $75,600 on September 16 from nearly $80,000 before the vote.

The failed vote was a near-term setback for comprehensive U.S. crypto market-structure legislation. Senate Democrats blocked the measure’s advancement amid concerns about government ethics provisions and presidential conflicts of interest. The lobbying by community banks over stablecoin reward rules and Republican defections were factors that weakened the bill’s momentum.

The vote was procedural rather than a final passage. The measure fell short of the threshold needed to advance, leaving its future uncertain as the midterm legislative calendar approaches. The report also noted losses in crypto-linked stocks, including Coinbase, Robinhood, and Strategy, alongside the decline in Bitcoin around the vote.

Earn $50 and Enter $300K Prize Draw on EdgeX

Can Bitcoin Price Recover From Here?

Bitcoin (BTC)

24h7d30d1yAll time

Bitcoin is the first and largest cryptocurrency, with a fixed supply cap of 21 million coins. The September 17 market snapshot listed circulating supply at 20,085,571 BTC. The provider’s 2026 outlook characterizes the year as a recovery period rather than a renewed push to record highs, with a projected range of $59,500 to $84,200 and an average near $71,400.

That outlook identifies Federal Reserve rate cuts and sustained spot-ETF inflows ahead of the 2028 halving as its main bullish factors. It identifies higher-for-longer rates and a sustained break below $58,300 as the principal downside risk.

Our technical analysis identifies a series of levels traders may monitor. Its technical section was based on a period when Bitcoin traded in the low-$60,000s price level and described the market as below its 50-day average near $65,143 and its 200-day average near $74,705. It also placed the RSI near 48 and described the Fear & Greed Index as Extreme Fear.

With Bitcoin quoted above $76,000 in the September 17 snapshot, the market was above the $74,705 level on that reading. The framework nevertheless treats a sustained reclaim of the 200-day average, rather than a single price observation, as the relevant technical test.

Trade Bitcoin on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop

What to Watch Next?

For the regulatory story, the central issue is whether the CLARITY Act can regain momentum after its procedural failure. Yahoo Finance reported that the vote highlighted continuing disputes over ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and stablecoin rules.

For market analysis, the levels identified by our analyst provide a defined framework: $74,705 is the longer-term average it highlights, while $62,460, the $60,000-$61,000 zone, and $58,300 mark lower areas of support.

The outlook also keeps attention on rate policy, spot-ETF flows, and the approach of the 2028 halving. None of those factors makes a Senate procedural vote a definitive verdict on Bitcoin’s valuation.

Discover: The Best Token Presales

The post Bitcoin Price Shows Strength At $76K Amid Market Tests appeared first on Cryptonews.

Source link

Source link

The SEC’s Innovation Exemption allows limited tokenized US stock trading on onchain venues with trading caps and transparency requirements.

Source link

Source link