Sui has added two NIST-approved post-quantum signature schemes to its blockchain roadmap as it prepares optional quantum-safe accounts and vaults for future network upgrades.

According to Sui’s latest announcement, the blockchain plans to introduce ML-DSA-65 as a native signature scheme for regular accounts and SLH-DSA-SHA2-128s for high-value smart contract vaults, giving users an optional way to protect accounts against future quantum computing risks without replacing their recovery phrases or moving assets.

Senate Republican leaders are expected to head into the August recess without bringing the CLARITY Act to a vote, according to a report from Politico. Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the chamber would not vote before the recess, setting up a renewed push for consideration when senators return next month.

The delay leaves a major legislative milestone unresolved for the U.S. crypto sector’s most prominent push for a clearer market-structure framework. It also compresses the remaining calendar for lawmakers to secure enough support for a measure that—absent broader consensus—may face procedural hurdles that typically require a high voting threshold.

Key takeaways

• Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the CLARITY Act will not be voted on before August recess, with action expected when senators return next month.
• Politico reports Democrats have not yet provided sufficient support, and negotiations over timing arrangements have not closed.
• Without adequate backing, Republicans may struggle to reach the level of support often needed to overcome a filibuster.
• The CLARITY Act’s goal is to establish a federal framework for digital asset markets and clarify SEC vs. CFTC oversight.

Thune confirms no pre-recess vote

Thune’s position, as described in comments his office provided to Cointelegraph, centers on Senate scheduling and the current state of bipartisan agreement. He pointed to Democratic opposition to procedural timing and said the bill would be prioritized when senators return.

“The Dems are insistent on no Clarity vote,” Thune said, according to remarks his office shared with Cointelegraph. He also indicated that work with the bill’s sponsors is close enough to move quickly once the chamber is back in session, adding that Sen. Cynthia Lummis “was great” during the negotiations and that the effort is “queued up first thing when we come back.”

That matters for investors and developers because the CLARITY Act is intended to reduce uncertainty in U.S. digital-asset market oversight—particularly how regulatory responsibilities are divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. While market participants have long navigated a patchwork of guidance and enforcement, a statutory framework would potentially offer a more durable basis for compliance planning and product design.

Republicans race a shrinking timetable

Politico’s reporting suggests Democratic support remains the central bottleneck. The outlet cited three people familiar with the matter in saying the CLARITY Act lacks Democratic support and that negotiations were still underway as the August schedule tightened.

In the reporting, the challenge is not only whether the bill can reach the floor, but whether Senate leaders can move the remaining pre-recess business without extending the session deeper into the next week—something Politico says would generally require unanimous consent from all 100 senators to complete outstanding items.

One possibility discussed in the reporting is whether Thune could file cloture before the recess. Cloture, if pursued, can be used to limit debate and set up a floor vote later; however, Politico reported that even if cloture were filed, it would not itself be a direct vote on the legislation before senators depart.

Cointelegraph also reported that it requested clarification from Thune’s office on whether he intended to file cloture before the Senate leaves for recess, but did not receive a response by publication.

What the CLARITY Act would change

The CLARITY Act would create a federal framework for digital asset markets and—importantly—clarify how oversight is allocated between the SEC and the CFTC. That division has been a continuing focus for the industry, as regulatory treatment can affect everything from token classification and custody rules to the structure of trading venues and derivatives products.

From an editorial perspective, this is the heart of why the scheduling matters: when lawmakers cannot align quickly enough to bring the bill forward, the U.S. regulatory timeline remains dependent on ongoing agency interpretations and enforcement actions. Those are often slower to resolve and can vary in application, increasing compliance uncertainty for market participants operating in a highly competitive global environment.

Industry reaction: urgency persists

Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim called the postponement “disappointing,” according to comments provided to Cointelegraph. He said the legislation’s direction has not changed, but warned that delays continue to impose real-world costs on U.S. users and builders.

“Every day without such a framework pushes American users and builders offshore and leaves consumers at risk,” Kim said.

That critique reflects a common argument within the industry: when legislative clarity stalls, companies may rationally consider relocating or prioritizing non-U.S. markets to reduce regulatory exposure and uncertainty. At the same time, policymakers opposing the bill may be concerned about how any statutory language would codify regulatory power or shift responsibilities between agencies.

Next steps after the recess

Thune’s statement, combined with Politico’s reporting, points to a renewed attempt to move the CLARITY Act when senators return in mid-September. Readers should watch whether Republicans can secure Democratic buy-in for procedural timing—especially any time agreements needed to reach the floor—and whether the chamber can gather the level of support likely required for the bill to advance without running into the most difficult Senate obstacles.

The U.S.-listed spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds have pulled in $754.69 million in investor funds this week, according to data source SoSoValue. That puts these funds on track for their best week since April.

“The clearest shift has come in institutional flows,” Liya Kalchev, Analyst at Nexo, said, explaining the ETF inflows.

“Spot Bitcoin ETFs have taken in more than half a billion dollars so far in August, with inflows building through the week and Wednesday alone contributing over $240 million — a sharp reversal from June, when the funds recorded their worst month on record,” Kalchev added.

Note that despite the on-chain and ETF accumulation, BTC’s spot price has not yet been able to chalk out a meaningful rally. That, according to Kalchev, is a telltale sign of the kind of buyer stepping into the market right now.

“That the reversal has not yet lifted price meaningfully is itself informative: some desks argue the marginal buyer looks more tactical than convicted, and that a genuine recovery narrative likely needs a decisive close above $65,000 to take hold,” Kalchev explained.

BTC’s price chart patterns point to a potential for a notable price rally. At the same time, the fact that the U.S. Senate is unlikely to vote on the Clarity Act this month presents a headwind. The Clarity Act is widely seen as the one unlocking a massive institutional bid for the cryptocurrencies.

Japan’s Financial Services Agency and National Police Agency asked cryptocurrency exchanges on Aug. 6 to introduce withdrawal delays, address registration and stronger fraud controls as authorities respond to rising scam losses involving digital assets. 

The request went to the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association, the industry’s self-regulatory body.The measures are requests rather than a binding rule. The FSA did not set a nationwide waiting period. Exchanges should tailor controls to their services and risk profiles. System changes may be phased.

Withdrawal delays are part of an 11-point anti-fraud package

The FSA wants exchanges to restrict crypto withdrawals for a period after customers deposit fiat currency or buy digital assets. It also asked platforms to require users to register withdrawal destinations in advance and impose another waiting period after a new address is added. The regulator did not specify either period’s length.

Exchanges were also asked to set withdrawal limits using customer risk, assets held, transaction purposes and previous activity. Regulators want firms to review customers who rapidly make large or frequent withdrawals after restrictions end, adding friction where scam proceeds can leave an exchange.

The request goes beyond withdrawal timing. Exchanges should strengthen transaction and access monitoring, detect activity inconsistent with customer profiles and identify accounts using devices linked to known misuse. Authorities also want suspicious transactions handled faster through holds, withdrawal restrictions or account freezes.

For higher-risk activity, regulators requested phishing-resistant multifactor authentication and stronger impersonation checks. Platforms should compare the name of a bank remitter with the crypto account holder and respond to mismatches. Exchanges are also expected to share fraud indicators and provide information rapidly to police.

Scam losses explain Japan’s tougher exchange controls

The National Police Agency’s latest published figures show why regulators are increasing pressure. Through May 2026, Japan recorded 18,067 special fraud cases, with losses reaching 151.47 billion yen. SNS investment scams accounted for 5,099 cases and 70.04 billion yen in losses, while SNS romance scams caused another 20.2 billion yen.

The trend was already visible in 2025. Police recorded 9,523 SNS investment scam cases with 128.8 billion yen lost. Romance scams reached 5,645 cases and 54.64 billion yen. Crypto-transfer romance scams rose to 2,177 cases, with 24.77 billion yen lost, helping explain the focus on digital-asset transfers.

Japan had already targeted the banking side. In February 2024, the FSA and police urged financial institutions to block transfers to crypto exchange accounts when the sender name differed from the originating bank account and strengthen monitoring of suspicious transfers. The latest request extends similar safeguards into exchange withdrawal systems.

As previously reported, Japan has also been tightening crypto oversight while moving digital assets closer to mainstream financial regulation. The withdrawal initiative fits that wider emphasis on investor protection and compliance.

What changes for Japanese crypto exchange users

The immediate effect will depend on each exchange. Because the FSA prescribed no single waiting period, users should not assume every Japanese platform will apply identical delays. Some operators already maintain withdrawal restrictions. SBI VC Trade, for example, says funds tied to certain quick deposits cannot be withdrawn or transferred as crypto until the eighth day.

For users, visible changes could include slower first-time withdrawals, mandatory address registration, personalized limits and more verification when activity differs from normal behavior. A customer adding a new wallet and immediately attempting a large transfer could face additional checks or a temporary hold.

The safeguards may also affect legitimate users who need rapid access to self-custody wallets. However, the FSA says implementation should reflect each operator’s business model and misuse experience. It does not order exchanges to impose a blanket freeze on every withdrawal.

Travel Rule requirements already require exchanges to collect and share identifying information for certain transfers. Japan’s newest request adds transaction friction and behavioral monitoring to those identity-based controls.

What happens next for Japan’s crypto exchanges

The FSA and police asked the JVCEA and member exchanges to strengthen the measures from August. Exchanges must assess which controls require policy or system changes and how quickly they can deploy them. The official request says planned implementation is acceptable where immediate technical changes are difficult.

No uniform start date or mandatory delay length was announced. The next developments to watch are exchange-specific notices, possible JVCEA guidance and any later move by the FSA to convert parts of the request into formal supervisory requirements. Until then, implementation is likely to vary by platform in practice.