Strategy (MSTR) last week acquired 1,587 bitcoin for approximately $100 million, increasing its total holdings to 846,842 BTC, according to a Monday morning filing.

The latest purchase was made at an average price of $63,024 per bitcoin. The company disclosed it had also increased its USD Reserve by $100 million to $1.1 billion via the sale of common stock.

The purchase ran from June 8 to June 14, the same week Strategy raised $209 million by selling about 1.73 million MSTR shares through its at-the-market program.

The reserve is the money Strategy set aside in December 2025 to cover dividends on its preferred shares and interest on its debt. Building it up while continuing to buy bitcoin signals the company is funding both its accumulation and its obligations through equity issuance rather than touching its bitcoin or its cash cushion.

The buy lifts Strategy’s holdings to 846,842 BTC, worth about $56 billion at current prices and bought at an average of $75,656 per coin for a total of around $64 billion. The company remains the largest corporate holder of bitcoin, at roughly 4% of the supply that will ever exist.

Strategy disclosed on June 1 that it had sold 32 bitcoin to fund preferred dividends The company’s shares are up 5% pre market with bitcoin trading above $66,000.

Bitbank, one of Japan’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, warned users that transactions linked to prediction market platforms such as Polymarket could result in account suspensions due to potential conflicts with the country’s gambling laws.

In a notice published on Monday, Bitbank said it may restrict accounts making deposits or withdrawals connected to prediction market services.

The warning highlights the regulatory uncertainty surrounding prediction markets in Japan, where local gambling laws may complicate Polymarket’s previously stated interest in expanding into the country.

Bitbank warns of sweeping account restrictions

Bitbank said users whose accounts are suspended would lose access to a wide range of services, including account logins, deposits and withdrawals, as well as crypto trading.

“We will not be liable for any damages incurred by our customers as a result of the account suspension measures,” the exchange added.

Source: Bitbank (translated by Google)

The announcement urged customers to exercise caution when using external services and avoid becoming involved in criminal activity or legal disputes.

Bitbank did not cite any specific regulatory action or government directive behind the warning. It said prediction market platforms that allow users to bet on election results, sports outcomes and other future events could be considered gambling under Japanese law when used for financial gain.

Related: SBI eyes Bitbank deal as Japan’s crypto exchange market consolidates

Cointelegraph asked Bitbank what prompted the notice but had not received a response by publication.

Questions emerge as Polymarket eyes expansion

Bitbank’s notice comes as prediction markets face growing scrutiny globally, with regulators in multiple jurisdictions taking action against Polymarket and Kalshi over gambling concerns.

Polymarket currently lists Japan among 35 restricted jurisdictions in its access policy. The company signaled in May that it was exploring expansion in Japan, raising questions about how it may navigate potential conflicts with local gambling laws.

Source: Bitbank

Japan has not issued formal guidance specifically on prediction markets, but Bitbank’s warning indicates that at least some crypto companies are taking a more cautious approach to services that could be classified as gambling.

Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitcoin (BTC) starts the third week of June with a spring in its step as the US-Iran peace deal sends risk assets higher.

Key points:

• Bitcoin price action targets $66,000 as US stock futures soar and oil approaches its lowest levels since early March.
• Traders see $69,000 as a likely short-term BTC price target.
• The Federal Reserve interest-rate decision is under the microscope thanks to new Chair Kevin Warsh.
• Bitcoin whales have reversed their selling mentality, putting in a “rock-solid floor” near $60,000.
• Overall demand weakness raises questions over a bull-market comeback.

Oil price drops below $80 as Iran peace countdown begins

The US-Iran war is again the center of attention for traders this week as a peace deal appears closer than ever.

Developments over the weekend initially included a Sunday deadline for signing off on a ceasefire, but this subsequently became Friday.

Multiple sources then confirmed that the US and Iran would sign an agreement for a 60-day pause in hostilities, along with various other measures, in Switzerland on Friday.

In a post on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump confirmed that the deal would include the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — a key global oil route.

“With the opening of the Strait upon the signing of the Deal on Friday, for purposes of mine removal, oil will flow on both ends again for the Region, and the World!” he wrote.

Source: Truth Social

US stock futures surged as a result, with risk assets moving higher across the board — including Bitcoin and crypto.

Oil, by contrast, fell immediately, with WTI crude trading below $80 per barrel for the first time since mid-April.

CFDs on US WTI crude oil one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Reacting, portfolio manager Danny Dayan described the deal as the “biggest and worst TACO of all time,” referring to the Trump administration’s approach to various geopolitical and macroeconomic conflicts.

“Overheat, higher core inflation, and higher neutral rate, will be the macro considerations ahead,” he told X followers, seeing a pivot away from oil as a market mover.

Throughout the conflict, oil price strength has been a headwind for Bitcoin, even as stocks see repeated new all-time highs. 

BTC/USD is now back at the exact level it traded when it began on Feb. 28. 

Bitcoin traders see $69,000 short squeeze

News of a US-Iran peace deal helped propel BTC price action toward two-week highs into Sunday’s weekly candle close.

Data from TradingView captured local highs of $65,988 as the new week began.

BTC/USD four-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

With both $60,000 and Bitcoin’s 200-week simple moving average (SMA) at $62,000 holding as support, traders’ short-term outlook began to improve.

“Closed near the highs with almost no upper wick, favoring a push higher this week,” trader SuperBro wrote in his latest analysis on X.

SuperBro eyed the 200-week exponential moving average (EMA) as a potential target for a short squeeze.

“There are a lot of leveraged shorts up to the 200 EMA around $69K. Good chance that is where this is headed,” he added. 

“Q2 closes in just 2 weeks. Let’s see if bulls can keep the heat on.”

BTC/USD one-week chart. Source: SuperBro/X

Trader CrypNuevo also had the area just below the $70,000 boundary in sight for the week.

“Still seeing a recovery to the mid-range $69k,” he wrote in his X analysis.

CrypNuevo warned that BTC/USD could still return to local lows as part of range-bound trading.

BTC/USDT one-day chart. Source: CrypNuevo/X

Trader and analyst Rekt Capital agreed, stressing that price rebounds tend to become weaker as bear markets progress, along with key support — in this case the $60,000 mark.

BTC/USD one-week chart. Source: Rekt Capital/X

New Fed chair under pressure on rate cut

Against the backdrop of serious geopolitical flux, “all eyes” nonetheless remain on the US Federal Reserve.

On Wednesday, the Fed’s new chair, Kevin Warsh, will lead his first meeting to decide on interest-rate changes.

Given the inflationary catalyst that the Iran war has become, markets see barely any chance of Warsh cutting rates — but Trump has repeatedly called for that very outcome.

In an interview in April, Trump told mainstream media that he “would” be disappointed if Warsh did not deliver a cut at the first opportunity.

“All eyes are on the Fed this week,” trading resource The Kobeissi Letter summarized in its latest X analysis.

Fed target rate probabilities for Wednesday FOMC meeting (screenshot). Source: CME Group

The latest data from CME Group’s FedWatch Tool puts the odds of a minimal 0.25% cut at just 3.4%.

Reacting, commentators overwhelmingly see rates remaining at current levels.

In analysis on Sunday, Dayan described Warsh as “trapped no matter what he does.”

“If he is hawkish, he will be breaking promises made to Trump,” he wrote. 

“On the other hand, if he uses the recent decline in oil prices as a reason for a wait and see stance, I think he is raising the odds we will see a panic hike in the second half of the year as the economy overheats.”

US markets will have a shorter four-day week, with Wall Street closed Friday for the Juneteenth holiday.

Whales deliver “rock-solid floor”

In a boost for Bitcoin bulls, new analysis reveals a potential sea change in large-volume investor mentality in recent days.

Bitcoin whales, according to onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant, have become buyers again.

Looking at exchange inflows from whale wallets, CryptoQuant data shows that coin days destroyed (CDD) — the number of days funds spent dormant after last moving — have significantly cooled.

“Inflow CDD plunged from 2.16M to near-zero (33K), showing long-term whale dumping has completely stopped,” contributor Woo Minkyu wrote in a Quicktake blog post on Monday.

Bitcoin whale data (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

Woo described whales as putting in an “aggressive bottom buy” at around $61,000, absorbing “all” coins panic sold by other investor cohorts.

“The wealth transfer from weak hands to strong hands is complete,” he concluded. 

“Whales have locked in the $60,000–$61,500 range as a rock-solid floor. With exchange reserves depleted, the path of least resistance for Bitcoin is now firmly upward.”

Earlier, Cointelegraph reported that three key conditions for a BTC price rebound were almost satisfied. Whales on Hyperliquid and Bitfinex, analysis said at the time, were already positioned for a bounce.

Bitcoin apparent demand stays negative

When it comes to a full bull-market rebound, CryptoQuant remains cautious in light of current onchain data. 

Related: Bitcoin miner ‘capitulation’ comes as trader sees later 2026 bear-market bottom

Apparent demand, contributor XWIN Japan notes, is still negative — something that has always coincided with bear markets in the past.

Bitcoin apparent demand (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

Apparent demand is the difference between Bitcoin’s issuance — or newly mined coins — and the supply inactive for over a year.

“If the decrease in inventory exceeds production, demand is increasing, and vice versa,” CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno explains.

Accordingly, current negative values signal a broad lack of interest in BTC exposure and may even override the four-year cycle theory to dictate future price action, XWIN says.

“This suggests that Bitcoin may not be declining simply because ‘the cycle says so.’ Instead, demand growth has slowed,” it wrote this weekend.

Bitcoin apparent demand (screenshot). Source: CryptoQuant

XWIN also pointed to declining open interest on Bitcoin futures markets while echoing the theory that a final “capitulation” event may yet occur.

Crypto’s market structure bill cleared committee and then walked into a trap with two jaws. One fight is about the President’s crypto fortune. The other is about whether writing code makes you a money transmitter. Neither side will move, and the clock is running out.

A month ago the CLARITY Act looked close to inevitable. The Senate Banking Committee had advanced it 15 to 9 on May 14, two Democrats had crossed the aisle, the bill landed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on June 1, and prediction markets priced its 2026 passage near 74%. Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of its architects, called the committee vote the most consequential Senate action on crypto regulation in history. The industry allowed itself to believe the market structure bill it had wanted for years was finally going to happen.

Then the trap closed. By mid-June, Polymarket’s passage odds had fallen to roughly 48%, a coin flip, down 26 points in a month. An ethics agreement that negotiators thought they had collapsed in a closed-door meeting on a Tuesday. A second front opened almost simultaneously, with the nation’s largest law enforcement organizations mobilizing against a single section of the bill.

Advertisement

Two Democratic senators tied their votes to the first fight, two more tied theirs to the second, and the bill that needed seven Democratic crossovers to reach 60 suddenly faced four senators pulling in incompatible directions. With 31 Senate session days left before the August recess, CLARITY Act is stuck, and it is stuck in the worst possible way: not from a single objection that could be negotiated away, but from two unrelated poison pills lodged on opposite sides of the bill, each defended by people who will not move.

What follows lays out the trap: the two fights, why each is intractable on its own, why they are far worse together, the irony that connects them through one section of the bill, and what a two-sided stall means for whether crypto gets its framework in 2026 or starts over from nothing.

Poison pill one: the President’s crypto fortune

First, the fight most people know about, and it is intractable because it is not really about crypto at all. Democrats on the Banking Committee conditioned their support on ethics provisions restricting government officials from conflicts of interest in crypto, a demand driven directly by the business activities of President Trump’s family. The scale of those activities is the reason the demand will not go away: since returning to office, Trump and his family have generated an estimated $2.3 billion from crypto ventures, according to Reuters, spanning a personal memecoin, a family-linked venture with its own token and a dollar stablecoin, mining interests, and a media company with a crypto treasury. No previous administration has held positions remotely like these while crypto legislation moved through Congress, and the legislation itself would shape the value of several of them.

Advertisement

For Democrats, a market structure law written without ethics rails would mean regulating an industry in which the signing official holds billions in personal positions. Senator Ruben Gallego, one of the two Democrats who supplied the decisive committee votes, drew the line in public: the group had come close but not finished an agreement on ethics guardrails for all elected officials, and if it was not resolved by the floor vote, he was not afraid to vote no. Senator Angela Alsobrooks, the other crossover, has signaled she may need further negotiation before committing on the floor. The two votes that carried the bill out of committee are explicitly conditional, and the condition is ethics.

The White House holds its own line, and the two lines do not meet. The administration will accept rules that apply across the board, from the President down to the newest intern, but rejects anything it reads as targeting a specific officeholder. That formula sounds like room for compromise until you watch what happens when negotiators try to write it down, which is exactly what happened on the Tuesday the deal collapsed.

How the ethics deal actually collapsed

The collapse is worth getting right in detail, because it reveals why this fight resists the usual legislative solvent of splitting the difference. The closed-door meeting brought together Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Gallego, Bernie Moreno, and Lummis, along with White House Crypto Council director Patrick Witt. It was the first ethics meeting since a bipartisan group reached a tentative framework back in May, and it was supposed to convert that framework into agreed text. It collapsed when Republicans and the White House withdrew a specific provision: language that would have let state attorneys general sue the Department of Justice over failures to enforce ethics rules tied to the President’s crypto interests.

That withdrawn provision contains the whole fight. An ethics rule without an enforcement mechanism is a statement of principle; an ethics rule that lets state AGs sue the DOJ for not enforcing it is a weapon, one that could be pointed directly at the administration’s handling of the President’s holdings. Democrats wanted the enforcement teeth precisely because a rule the DOJ can decline to enforce is, against this administration, no rule at all. The White House withdrew the teeth precisely because a mechanism letting partisan state AGs drag the DOJ into court over the President’s businesses is the targeting it said it would never accept.

Advertisement

Both sides are correct about what the provision does, which is why neither will yield. The enforcement teeth are the compromise and the dealbreaker at the same time, depending on which side of the table you sit. A true poison pill works this way. It is not a number to be split or a date to be moved. It is a binary, where the thing one side needs to vote yes is the precise thing the other side cannot accept, and no drafting cleverness dissolves it, because the disagreement is about the underlying reality the words describe, not the words.

This is why the conflict-of-interest fight examined in depth matters so much to the bill’s floor math. It is not just a messaging dispute around Trump’s crypto activity. It is the condition attached to the very Democratic votes that helped the bill leave committee.

Poison pill two: is writing code money transmission?

Second, the fight almost nobody outside the policy weeds is tracking, and it may be the more dangerous of the two because it pits the crypto industry’s allies against each other. Section 604 of the Senate draft is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, and its purpose is to settle a question that has hung over crypto development for a decade: is a person who writes blockchain software, but who cannot control or move users’ assets, a money transmitter subject to the full weight of financial-surveillance law? Section 604 says no. It defines a non-controlling developer or provider as one lacking the legal right or unilateral ability to control or initiate user transactions, and it limits money-transmitter treatment to parties who actually control or move assets, leaving developers who write distributed-ledger software, build self-custody tools, or support blockchain infrastructure outside that classification.

For the crypto industry, Section 604 is close to sacred. It codifies a principle the Department of Justice itself articulated in 2025, when a senior official said that merely writing code, without ill intent, is not a crime. It protects the open-source developers who build the rails without ever touching user funds, and stripping it would leave them exposed to prosecution as unlicensed money transmitters for the act of publishing software. When crypto industry heavyweights signed letters urging the Senate to pass CLARITY, the phrase they kept repeating was “with developer protections intact.” Section 604 is the protection they mean.

Advertisement

For law enforcement, Section 604 is a loophole. The National Sheriffs’ Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National District Attorneys’ Association have mobilized against it, arguing the provision could make it harder to pursue bad actors operating on-chain, hampering investigations into money laundering and other illicit finance. Their case rests on real numbers: TRM Labs estimated illicit crypto volume reached $158 billion in 2025, up nearly 145% from the prior year, and the FBI’s 2025 report found crypto investment fraud alone generated $7.2 billion in reported losses. The police organizations worry that a statute placing developers categorically outside money-transmitter rules removes a tool they use to reach the infrastructure criminals rely on.

Why the second fight has its own veto bloc

Law enforcement’s objection would be background noise if it did not come attached to votes, and it does. Senators Mark Warner and Catherine Cortez Masto have tied their support for CLARITY Act to law enforcement’s sign-off on Section 604. That sentence is the structural problem. The bill already needs roughly seven Democrats beyond the two committee crossovers to clear the 60-vote threshold, and two of the most gettable Democrats have made their votes contingent not on ethics, the first poison pill, but on a completely separate objection that the crypto industry’s own allies consider an attack on the bill’s core protections.

The pro-crypto Democrats are not even unified among themselves: a group of five, Warner, Cortez Masto, Raphael Warnock, Alsobrooks, and Gallego, met in Warner’s office to discuss strategy before the committee markup, and they want different and partly incompatible things from the same bill. The White House sees the danger and is working the law enforcement front directly. The White House Crypto Council convened representatives from the major police and prosecutor organizations, alongside officials from the DOJ, Treasury, and FinCEN, to address the Section 604 objections, with crypto adviser Patrick Witt arguing the bill is pro-regulatory and pro-enforcement and that the developer language does not shield criminals.

Advertisement

Whether that lobbying succeeds is unknown, but its mere necessity tells the story: in June 2026, the administration is spending political capital persuading sheriffs, not just senators, because the sheriffs now hold a bloc of Democratic votes through Warner and Cortez Masto.

The cruel irony: one section, both directions

One detail in CLARITY’s stall is almost too neat, and most coverage misses it. Section 604 has already been cut once, and the cutting is what set up the current trap. In the frantic dealmaking before the May 14 committee vote, negotiators removed language from Section 301 of the bill that referenced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act in Section 604, weakening the protections for non-custodial DeFi developers as the price of getting Gallego and Alsobrooks to yes. DeFi advocates raised alarms immediately, warning that the change could strip critical developer protections and leave open-source builders exposed to the vague standard of exercising control through agreements or understandings, which regulators could later stretch to cover governance-token voting or protocol participation.

The industry won the committee vote by partly sacrificing the developer protection it cares about most. Now watch the geometry that creates. The developer protection was already weakened to pass committee, which enraged the crypto-native DeFi camp. The remaining protection is still strong enough that law enforcement is fighting to weaken it further, which has captured Warner and Cortez Masto.

So Section 604 is simultaneously too weak for the developers who want it strengthened back and too strong for the police who want it cut more, and any move in either direction loses votes on the opposite side. Strengthen it to win back DeFi advocates and the broader developer base, and you harden the law enforcement bloc against the bill. Weaken it to satisfy the sheriffs and Warner and Cortez Masto, and you lose the developer-protection argument that is half the industry’s reason for wanting CLARITY Act at all. One section of one bill is being pulled in both directions at once, and there is no position for it that does not bleed votes somewhere.

Advertisement

That is why it functions as a two-sided poison pill instead of two separate problems. The ethics fight and the Section 604 fight are different disputes with different antagonists, but Section 604 itself contains a second internal poison pill, a provision that cannot be set anywhere on the dial without losing the votes the bill needs. A bill can sometimes route around one intractable clause. Routing around two, one of which is internally self-contradicting, inside 31 session days, is a different order of difficulty.

The vote math that makes it fatal

The arithmetic is where the two poison pills turn from survivable to fatal, because in a friendlier vote environment they would be neither. CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to break a filibuster. The committee vote was 15 to 9, mostly along party lines, with all 13 Republicans and just two Democrats. Reaching 60 on the floor requires roughly seven Democrats beyond those two, which means the bill must hold both committee crossovers and add five more, all from a caucus with two separate reasons to withhold support.

The two ethics-conditioned votes, Gallego and Alsobrooks, and the two enforcement-conditioned votes, Warner and Cortez Masto, are four of the most plausible Democratic yes votes, and all four are currently contingent on fights that point in incompatible directions. Satisfying the ethics bloc does nothing for the enforcement bloc, and vice versa. The bill cannot trade one group’s price for the other’s, because they are buying different things.

This is before even adding the third fight running inside the bill: the stablecoin-yield dispute between banks and crypto firms. That fight is not the central trap in this piece, but it shows how crowded the bill’s risk map has become. A market-structure bill that already had to solve the SEC-CFTC split is now carrying ethics, developer liability, law enforcement, and banking-industry pressure at the same time.

Advertisement

The calendar turns that difficulty into a deadline. With 31 session days before the August recess and no floor date yet announced, the bill needs floor time it has not been promised, in a Senate competing with appropriations, surveillance reauthorization, and everything else, during an election year that makes every Democratic vote to hand the administration a signing ceremony more costly as November approaches. Bill sponsors have suggested that if CLARITY Act does not pass in this window, reconsideration before 2030 is unlikely, which raises the stakes of the recess from a delay to a potential multi-year reset. Galaxy Research still estimates a 60 to 75% chance of passage in 2026 and a possible signing the week of August 3, but the prediction markets, at 48%, are pricing the two poison pills more pessimistically than the research desks, and the prediction markets moved 26 points in a month while the fundamentals deteriorated.

Why two pills are worse than twice one pill

Instinct treats two problems as additive, two fights to win instead of one. The reality is multiplicative, and understanding why explains the odds collapse. A single poison pill creates a negotiation with one axis. Both sides know what they are fighting over, the coalition that wants the bill can focus its energy on one compromise, and success requires moving one group.

Two poison pills on opposite sides create a negotiation with no stable solution, because every move to satisfy one bloc can alienate the other, and the coalition’s energy splits between two fronts that do not reinforce each other. Worse, the two fights attract different and partly opposed constituencies into the same bill: the ethics fight pulls in good-government Democrats and the White House’s defenders of presidential prerogative, while the Section 604 fight pulls in law enforcement and the open-source developer lobby, and these groups have no reason to trade with each other because they care about different sections. There is no grand bargain available, because a grand bargain requires the parties to want things they can exchange, and ethics hawks have nothing the sheriffs want.

A deeper problem: two simultaneous fights consume the one resource the bill cannot replace: time and floor attention inside a closing window. Even if each fight were individually winnable in three weeks, two fights running in parallel, each requiring leadership focus, each capable of reopening if the other’s solution disturbs the coalition, can easily consume the entire 31-day runway without either resolving. The bill does not need to lose either fight outright to die. It only needs both fights to stay unresolved when the recess arrives, and a two-front stall is far more likely to run out the clock than a one-front stall, because there are two ways to fail and they interfere with each other’s solutions.

Advertisement

What happens if the clock wins

At 48% odds, the failure scenario is no longer a tail risk, and it should be taken seriously instead of waved away. If neither poison pill is resolved before the August recess, the practical window for 2026 passage may close, and th e bill’s sponsors have suggested reconsideration could wait years. A reset would send the framework back to drafts in the next Congress, under unknown majorities after the midterms, with the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin rules as the only major crypto statute on the books and everything else, market structure, the SEC-CFTC jurisdiction split, the developer protections, the commodity classifications, left to agencies governing by enforcement and interpretation.

For the assets whose legal status CLARITY Act would settle, most consequentially the large non-Bitcoin tokens carrying classification overhangs, a reset means their agency-level treatment stays reversible by the next administration, which is the precise uncertainty that the statute exists to remove. That is what the bill would unlock for XRP if it passes, and why XRP remains the asset with the most riding on the outcome. If CLARITY Act stalls, XRP does not merely lose a near-term legislative catalyst. It loses the statutory certainty that ETF access alone could not provide.

A two-sided death carries its own irony: the bill would fail not because the country rejected crypto market structure, which polls as broadly bipartisan, but because two narrow and unrelated fights, one about one family’s holdings and one about the liability of software developers, occupied the same bill at the same time and neither could be settled before the calendar expired. CLARITY Act would die not from opposition to its purpose but from the geometry of its obstacles, which is a worse and more frustrating way for legislation to fail, because nobody actually voted against the thing itself.

Advertisement

What to watch

The next several weeks come down to a short watch list with the two pills as the axes. On the ethics front, watch whether any enforcement mechanism survives that both Democrats and the White House can accept, since the collapse centered on the state-AG-versus-DOJ provision, and watch Gallego and Alsobrooks specifically, whose public statements will move before their votes do. On the Section 604 front, watch the outcome of the White House Crypto Council’s law enforcement outreach, watch Warner and Cortez Masto for any sign the sheriffs have been satisfied, and watch the DeFi advocates for whether a strengthened developer protection re-enters the text, which would help one bloc while threatening the other.

Above both, watch the full procedural map and calendar: a floor date being scheduled at all would signal that leadership believes one or both pills are close to resolution, and continued silence on a date signals the opposite. And watch the prediction markets as a real-time gauge, since they fell from 74% to 48% as the pills hardened and will move first if either softens.

A bill caught in its own machinery

CLARITY’s stall is a specific kind of legislative tragedy, the kind where a bill with majority support and genuine momentum gets caught not by its enemies but by two unrelated disputes that happened to lodge in the same text at the same time. The ethics fight and the Section 604 fight have nothing to do with each other; one is about a President’s fortune and the other about a developer’s liability. They share only a vehicle, and that shared vehicle is now being pulled apart between them, with four senators holding votes hostage to two incompatible demands and a calendar that gives the coalition no time to satisfy both.

Cruelest of all is the symmetry. Each poison pill is defended by people with a real grievance: Democrats are right that regulating an industry while the signing official profits from it is a genuine conflict, and law enforcement is right that $158 billion in illicit volume is a real problem deserving real tools. Neither side is acting in bad faith, which is exactly why neither will fold, and a bill caught between two good-faith intractable positions is harder to save than one caught between a good-faith position and a bad-faith one.

Advertisement

The 48% on the prediction markets is not pessimism. It is an accurate reading of a bill that has to thread two needles pointing in opposite directions, inside a month, in an election year, and that has already watched one of the needles, Section 604, prove it cannot be threaded from either end. The clock, more than any senator, may end up casting the deciding vote.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the two issues blocking the CLARITY Act?

Two unrelated disputes have stalled the bill. The first is an ethics fight: Democrats want provisions restricting government officials, especially President Trump and his family, from crypto conflicts of interest, after the family generated an estimated $2.3 billion from crypto ventures. The second is over Section 604, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which protects software developers from being treated as money transmitters; law enforcement groups object that it could hamper investigations. Two Democratic senators are tied to each fight, and the demands point in incompatible directions.

What is Section 604 of the CLARITY Act?

Section 604 is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act provision. It defines a non-controlling developer as one who cannot control or move user assets and limits money-transmitter treatment to parties who actually handle funds, shielding open-source developers who write blockchain software from prosecution as unlicensed money transmitters. The crypto industry considers it essential developer protection; the National Sheriffs’ Association, Fraternal Order of Police, and National District Attorneys’ Association argue it could make pursuing on-chain criminals harder.

Why did the CLARITY Act’s ethics agreement collapse?

A closed-door meeting collapsed when Republicans and the White House withdrew a provision that would have let state attorneys general sue the Department of Justice over failures to enforce ethics rules tied to the President’s crypto interests. Democrats wanted that enforcement mechanism because a rule the DOJ can decline to enforce is weak against the current administration; the White House rejected it as targeting the President. The enforcement teeth were both the compromise and the dealbreaker, which is why the meeting ended without agreement.

Advertisement

What are the CLARITY Act’s odds of passing in 2026?

Prediction markets price 2026 passage near 48% as of mid-June, down from 74% a month earlier, as the two poison pills hardened. Research desks are more optimistic, with Galaxy Research estimating 60 to 75% and a possible signing the week of August 3. The bill needs 60 Senate votes, roughly seven Democrats beyond the two committee crossovers, with 31 session days left before the August recess and no floor date scheduled.

Why are two problems so much harder than one for the bill?

A single dispute creates a negotiation with one axis that the bill’s coalition can focus on resolving. Two disputes on opposite sides create a negotiation with no stable solution, because satisfying one bloc can alienate the other, and the two fights attract different constituencies with nothing to trade. Section 604 makes it worse: it was already weakened once to pass committee, so it is now too weak for developers and too strong for police at the same time, meaning any move loses votes somewhere. The two fights also consume the scarce floor time the bill cannot replace.

What happens to crypto if the CLARITY Act fails in 2026?

If neither dispute resolves before the August recess, the 2026 window may close, and sponsors have suggested reconsideration could wait years. The framework would reset to drafts in the next Congress under post-midterm majorities, leaving the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin rules as the only major crypto statute and everything else, the SEC-CFTC split, developer protections, and commodity classifications, to agencies governing by enforcement and reversible interpretation. The assets most affected are the large non-Bitcoin tokens whose legal status the bill would have settled permanently.

As of June 15, 2026. Legislative status changes rapidly; verify the current state of negotiations before relying on this analysis. This article is information, not investment advice.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump said over the weekend that the U.S and Iran had reached a peace deal and will sign it on June 19.

Among other conditions, the agreement sees the removal of the U.S. naval blockade and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Crude oil fell 5% to around $80 per barrel. It is now down roughly 33% from its early March high of $120.

Equity markets rose on the news. Indexes advanced worldwide, except in Tel Aviv, and U.S. stocks rallied in pre-market trading. The Invesco QQQ ETF, which tracks the Nasdaq 100 index, added 2% in pre-market trading.

Bitcoin BTC$66,106.22 and precious metals also gained. The largest cryptocurrency briefly topped $66,000, and was recently 2.7% higher over 24 hours, with most of the advance occurring on Sunday shortly after Trump’s announcement. Gold has risen nearly 3% over 24 hours to trade above $4,330 per ounce.

This extended ceasefire will remain in place for another 60 days, while talks on a final deal proceed. It’s worth keeping in mind the numerous shifts in negotiations over recent months, including ceasefires, breakdowns and renewed agreements, which suggest the path to a lasting resolution is unlikely to be straightforward

Key Highlights

• Japanese exchange Bitbank issues suspension warning for Polymarket-related transactions.

• Crypto transfers to prediction platforms could violate Japan’s gambling regulations.

• Account freezes may block login, deposits, withdrawals, and trading capabilities.

• Japanese crypto platforms increase monitoring of prediction market involvement.

• Global regulatory pressure mounts on Polymarket and similar betting services.

Japanese cryptocurrency exchange Bitbank has issued a stern warning to its customer base regarding potential account suspensions linked to Polymarket activity. The platform indicated that any deposits or withdrawals connected to prediction market platforms could violate Japan’s gambling legislation. This development represents the latest challenge facing prediction markets as international regulatory bodies intensify oversight.

Exchange Identifies Prediction Platform Risks

According to Bitbank’s announcement, prediction market platforms enable participants to speculate on election outcomes, sporting events, and various future occurrences. These services frequently utilize digital currencies and typically operate beyond Japanese jurisdiction. Bitbank emphasized that Japanese residents using such platforms for profit-seeking purposes may face legal complications.

The trading platform specifically highlighted Polymarket as a representative example of these prediction services. Additional platforms offering wagering functionality were also referenced in the warning. Bitbank strongly advised its clientele to refrain from any transactions associated with these operations.

The exchange stated it reserves the right to freeze accounts upon detecting incoming or outgoing transfers linked to prediction markets. Bitbank indicated that similar or potentially related services might also prompt enforcement actions. Notably, the company did not reference any explicit governmental directive as the basis for this policy.

Suspension Measures Could Eliminate Platform Access

Bitbank outlined that users facing suspensions would be denied access to critical account features. The restrictions encompass account authentication, cryptocurrency deposits, digital asset withdrawals, fiat currency withdrawals, and all trading functionality. Consequently, impacted clients may encounter complete platform lockouts.

The exchange additionally clarified it would not assume liability for any losses resulting from enforcement actions. Users who believe their accounts were erroneously restricted may reach out to customer support for review. Bitbank confirmed it would examine such complaints through its established inquiry channels.

This announcement signals a more aggressive compliance approach among Japan’s cryptocurrency service providers. While Japanese authorities have yet to establish explicit regulations governing prediction markets, Bitbank’s preemptive measures demonstrate that exchanges may implement safeguards ahead of official regulatory framework.

Polymarket Confronts Expanding Regulatory Challenges

Polymarket currently identifies Japan as a prohibited territory within its user agreement and access restrictions. Despite this, the platform has expressed interest in Japanese market expansion, creating regulatory complications. Such ambitions may encounter significant obstacles given mounting legal apprehensions.

Prediction markets have attracted heightened regulatory attention because participants place bets on actual events and outcomes. Government agencies frequently evaluate these platforms under gambling statutes, derivatives regulations, and consumer protection frameworks. Cryptocurrency exchanges processing related transactions increasingly categorize such activity as elevated risk.

South Korean regulators have similarly launched investigations into local Polymarket participants regarding potential gambling law infractions. American regulatory agencies maintain ongoing surveillance of prediction markets for fraudulent activity and market manipulation. Within this regulatory environment, Bitbank has proactively implemented restrictions to minimize exposure before conflicts escalate.

 

Bitcoin enters the third week of June supported by a rare alignment of macro and on-chain signals: US-Iran ceasefire expectations have lifted risk sentiment, while oil prices have fallen sharply. At the same time, traders are watching a potential short squeeze as price consolidates above long-standing support levels.

However, analysts at CryptoQuant also flag that the picture is not fully bullish. Whale activity may have shifted toward accumulation, but “apparent demand” for BTC remains negative—an indicator that has historically coincided with bear-market conditions.

Key takeaways

• US-Iran ceasefire momentum pushed broader markets higher, with WTI crude slipping below $80—an environment that traders say can ease an important headwind for BTC.
• BTC has held key technical support around $60,000 and its long-term moving averages near the low-$60,000s, improving near-term upside odds.
• Several traders cited $69,000 as a likely short-term target, pointing to concentrated leveraged shorts in the $60,000s to high-$60,000s area.
• CryptoQuant data suggests exchange inflow “coin days destroyed” has cooled dramatically, implying large holders have stopped dumping and moved into aggressive accumulation near ~$61,000.
• Despite that whale reversal, CryptoQuant reports BTC “apparent demand” is still negative, which historically has tracked with weaker market phases.

Ceasefire hopes lift risk assets, oil breaks down

The week’s earliest catalyst was the prospect of de-escalation between the United States and Iran. Reports circulated over the weekend about a ceasefire sign-off window, which later shifted to a June 19 timeline, before multiple sources confirmed a broader agreement framework.

According to those accounts, the US and Iran would sign an agreement for a 60-day pause in hostilities alongside additional measures in Switzerland on Friday. In a Truth Social post, US President Donald Trump said the deal would include reopening the Strait of Hormuz—a critical global oil route—after the agreement is signed.

Trump’s message also linked the Strait reopening to improved conditions for mine removal and the resumption of oil flow. Market participants reacted quickly: US stock futures strengthened as risk appetite improved, and crypto followed the move.

Oil moved in the opposite direction. WTI crude fell below $80 per barrel for the first time since mid-April, according to the reporting. The shift matters for BTC because sustained strength in crude has often correlated with tighter macro conditions and can dampen crypto risk-taking.

BTC traders target a squeeze toward $69,000

With the macro lift filtering into crypto, traders moved to technical levels that define whether the market can extend its bounce. TradingView data referenced in the report showed local highs around $65,988 as the new week began.

Support has been reinforced near $60,000, with both the $60,000 area and Bitcoin’s 200-week simple moving average (SMA) near $62,000 described as key floor levels. One trader, SuperBro, argued that BTC closed near its highs on the weekly candle with minimal upper wick—an expression of bullish pressure—while also highlighting the 200-week exponential moving average (EMA) as a potential magnet for price.

SuperBro specifically pointed to leveraged shorts clustered around the 200 EMA area near $69,000. In his view, that concentration could increase the odds of a short squeeze if price keeps grinding upward. He also noted that the market is approaching quarterly closing dynamics (“Q2 closes in just 2 weeks”), a period when positioning and liquidity can shift.

Other analysts echoed the $69,000 recovery zone. CrypNuevo said he still expected a return toward the mid-$69,000 range, while cautioning that BTC could still revisit local lows as part of range-bound trade behavior. Rekt Capital added a broader bearish-market nuance: rebounds in bear markets often weaken over time, and key support—again, the $60,000 level—remains pivotal to whether bulls can build momentum.

The Fed’s first Warsh meeting becomes the next pressure point

Even with geopolitical risk easing in the headlines, attention quickly turned back to monetary policy. The US Federal Reserve’s new chair, Kevin Warsh, is scheduled to lead his first meeting where interest-rate changes will be decided.

Market expectations, as reflected in CME Group’s FedWatch Tool, suggest minimal odds of a meaningful cut. The report cited FedWatch estimates placing the probability of at least a 0.25% cut at just 3.4%. That framing aligns with the broader view that inflationary pressures—potentially reintroduced or amplified by geopolitical developments—make rate cuts difficult.

Still, political pressure adds complexity. The reporting noted that Trump has repeatedly called for rate cuts and, in an April interview referenced by Cointelegraph, said he would be disappointed if Warsh did not deliver a cut at the first opportunity. That tension—between White House preferences and the Fed’s likely inflation constraints—has been part of trader anxiety going into the meeting.

One commentary cited in the piece described Warsh as “trapped no matter what he does.” The logic: if he appears hawkish to control inflation, he risks breaking promises implied by Trump; if he waits based on oil’s decline, he may be setting the stage for future tightening if the economy overheats later in the year.

The immediate calendar also matters. The US market will run a shorter four-day week with Wall Street closed Friday for Juneteenth, which can affect liquidity and the way traders react to Fed-linked headlines.

Whale behavior improves—but demand indicators remain weak

On-chain data provided the most bullish counterweight: CryptoQuant says large holders have shifted from selling to buying. The analysis referenced in the report focused on exchange inflows associated with whale wallets, and how long coins had been dormant before moving.

CryptoQuant contributor Woo Minkyu wrote that “coin days destroyed” (CDD) plunged from about 2.16 million to near-zero (around 33,000). In plain terms, this signals that long-idle BTC sitting in whale-controlled wallets is no longer being pushed to exchanges in a way consistent with continued distribution. Minkyu characterized it as the end of long-term whale dumping.

He also described an “aggressive bottom buy” around $61,000, framing it as an absorption of “all” panic-sold coins from other investor cohorts. The report further quoted the view that whales have effectively locked in a “rock-solid floor” in the $60,000–$61,500 range, especially as exchange reserves appear to have been depleted.

Yet, CryptoQuant’s overall stance remains cautious because whale buying alone may not be enough to restart a durable uptrend. The report highlighted a separate CryptoQuant indicator: BTC “apparent demand,” attributed to XWIN Japan’s analysis.

Apparent demand is defined in the source as the difference between BTC issuance (newly mined coins) and supply that has remained inactive for over a year. Julio Moreno of CryptoQuant, cited in the report, explained that when inactive inventory declines faster than production, demand is increasing; when it rises relative to production, demand is weakening.

In the latest readings referenced, apparent demand still appears negative—an outcome the analyst says has historically matched bear markets. That negative condition can matter because it suggests that even if whales are stabilizing prices by absorbing sell pressure, broader market interest and willingness to build exposure may still be lagging.

XWIN also pointed to declining open interest in BTC futures markets and reiterated the possibility that a final “capitulation” event may still occur, a theme Cointelegraph previously covered in relation to bear-market dynamics.

What to watch next

BTC’s immediate direction may be shaped by two competing forces: the potential for a squeeze toward trader-cited resistance near $69,000 versus the risk that weaker apparent demand keeps rallies fragile. The next major test will likely come from the Fed decision under Kevin Warsh—and whether macro relief translates into sustained crypto inflows rather than a temporary rebound.