Crypto World
The CLARITY Act quietly bans a US CBDC. What that actually means
Everyone is watching the CLARITY Act for what it does to crypto market structure. Buried inside it is a provision with a different target entirely: a ban on a US central bank digital currency. It is literally one of the bill’s three names. Here is what the anti-CBDC provision does, why it is there, and why it may matter more for stablecoins than for anything else.
Summary
- The CLARITY Act carries an anti-CBDC provision so central that it is one of the bill’s three official short titles, alongside the market-structure language that gets all the attention.
- The provision amends the Federal Reserve Act to bar the Fed from issuing a retail central bank digital currency directly or indirectly, and from using one to conduct monetary policy, without explicit approval from Congress.
- A central bank digital currency would be a direct liability of the Fed recorded on a government-controlled ledger, which supporters argue would hand the government real-time visibility into individual transactions.
- The biggest practical effect would be to remove the only potential government-backed competitor to private stablecoins, handing issuers of tokens like USDC, USDT, and Ripple’s RLUSD a durable structural advantage.
- The same CBDC ban is advancing on several tracks at once, including a four-year ban that already passed both chambers inside a housing bill, so the CLARITY provision is part of a broader, redundant Republican push.
Almost everyone watching the CLARITY Act is watching it for one reason: it would settle the long fight over whether crypto tokens are securities or commodities, reshaping how the entire digital-asset market is regulated. That is the headline, and it is a big one. But folded inside the same bill is a provision aimed at something completely different, a ban on a United States central bank digital currency, and it is not a minor footnote.
The anti-CBDC language is so integral to the legislation that it is one of the bill’s three official short titles: the same act is named the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the CLARITY Act, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. In other words, stopping a government digital dollar is not a rider quietly attached to the bill; it is one of the bill’s stated purposes, written into its very name. Yet because the market-structure debate consumes nearly all the attention, the CBDC ban has traveled largely under the radar, which is exactly why it is worth examining on its own.
The reason this matters extends well beyond a technical change to the Federal Reserve Act. A ban on a US central bank digital currency touches some of the most charged questions in money today: financial privacy, government surveillance, the future of the dollar, and, most concretely for crypto, the competitive fate of private stablecoins. Removing the possibility of a government-issued digital dollar does not just settle a privacy debate; it clears the field of the one competitor that could have challenged the private stablecoins now becoming central to crypto and payments.
This piece explains what the anti-CBDC provision actually does, what a central bank digital currency is and why it generates such fierce opposition, the political case behind the ban, the bigger prize of a protected lane for private stablecoins, the several parallel tracks on which the ban is moving, the serious arguments against it, and what it all means for crypto holders. The market-structure fight may decide how crypto is regulated, but the CBDC provision could quietly shape who wins the payments future, which makes it one of the most consequential parts of the bill almost nobody is discussing.
What the provision actually does
Start with the mechanics, because the provision is specific. The anti-CBDC language amends the Federal Reserve Act to impose several related prohibitions on the central bank. It bars the Federal Reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to individuals, which is the structural feature a retail digital dollar would require, since a true retail CBDC would mean ordinary people holding accounts or balances directly with the Fed.
It prohibits the Fed from issuing a central bank digital currency, or any digital asset substantially similar to one, directly to individuals or indirectly through financial institutions or other intermediaries. It prohibits the use of a central bank digital currency to conduct monetary policy. And in its fuller forms, the anti-CBDC framework also bars the Fed from even testing or developing a CBDC without explicit authorization from Congress.
The throughline of all these provisions is a single principle: the Federal Reserve should not be able to create a digital dollar for the general public on its own authority. Under the ban, any move toward a retail CBDC would require Congress to pass a law specifically authorizing it, rather than the Fed proceeding through its own rulemaking. This converts the question of a digital dollar from a decision the central bank could make into one that only elected legislators could make, which supporters see as a crucial check and critics see as an unnecessary handcuff.
Notably, the bans are generally written to protect private, dollar-denominated digital currencies that are open and preserve the privacy features of physical cash, meaning they target a government-issued CBDC specifically while leaving private stablecoins untouched. That carve-out is not incidental; as the later sections show, protecting private stablecoins while blocking a government one is arguably the whole point.
What a CBDC is, and why it draws such fire
To understand the intensity of the opposition, you have to understand what a central bank digital currency actually is, because it is easy to confuse with the digital money people already use. The dollars in an ordinary bank account are already digital, but they are a liability of a commercial bank, not the Federal Reserve, and they pass through the banking system with its existing layers of intermediation.
A retail central bank digital currency would be fundamentally different: it would be a direct liability of the Federal Reserve itself, a form of digital money issued and backed by the central bank, held by the public, and recorded on a ledger the government controls. In its retail form, it would be used by ordinary people for everyday transactions, the digital equivalent of cash but issued directly by the state, as distinct from a wholesale CBDC, which financial institutions would use to settle large transactions among themselves.
The objection that animates the ban is captured in the bill’s own framing as an anti-surveillance measure. Critics of CBDCs, including the lawmakers behind the provision, argue that because a retail CBDC would be recorded on a centralized, government-controlled ledger, it would give the issuing authority complete, real-time visibility into individual transactions, and potentially the power to control or restrict how people spend their own money.
To this way of thinking, a government digital currency is the antithesis of the privacy that cash and, in a different way, cryptocurrency provide, and it edges toward a system of financial surveillance incompatible with a free society. Supporters of the ban frame it as protecting Americans from government overreach into their financial lives.
This is why the provision carries the loaded name Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, and why the issue has become a rallying point: for its proponents, blocking a CBDC is about preventing a tool of state surveillance before it can be built, which is a far more emotive cause than the technical market-structure questions that surround it in the same bill.
The political case behind the ban
The anti-CBDC provision did not arrive by accident; it reflects a deliberate and long-standing political push, and understanding that context clarifies why it sits inside the CLARITY Act. Opposition to a US central bank digital currency has been a priority for many Republican lawmakers and for the current administration, framed around privacy and limited government.
The legislator most associated with the standalone anti-CBDC effort has described its purpose as codifying the President’s stated effort to prevent the development of a central bank digital currency and to keep the country’s digital-currency policy in the hands of the American people rather than what he called the administrative state.
The President signed an executive order opposing a CBDC early in the administration, and the Treasury Secretary has publicly stated that a digital dollar is off the table, with the government instead focusing its energy on passing crypto legislation like the CLARITY Act.
This alignment between the administration and congressional Republicans is why the anti-CBDC language has been pursued through multiple vehicles and why it found a home inside the CLARITY Act. For its proponents, the goal is not merely to stop a CBDC that might be built someday, but to write the prohibition into durable law so that no future administration could pursue a digital dollar without going back to Congress.
It is worth being precise that this is a contested, partisan framing rather than a neutral consensus: supporters present the ban as a vital privacy protection, while opponents, as a later section details, see it as solving a problem that does not exist and forfeiting a tool other countries are embracing.
But on the proponents’ side, the case is coherent and deeply felt: a retail CBDC represents, in their view, an unacceptable expansion of government power over individuals’ money, and banning it preemptively is a way to foreclose that risk for good. That conviction is what put an anti-surveillance measure into a crypto market-structure bill and made it one of the bill’s defining names.
The bigger prize: a moat for private stablecoins
Beyond the privacy argument, the anti-CBDC provision carries a commercial consequence that may matter more for crypto than the surveillance debate, and it concerns the booming market for private stablecoins. Stablecoins are privately issued digital tokens pegged to the dollar, and they have become central to crypto trading and increasingly to real-world payments, with the largest, such as Circle’s USDC and Tether’s USDT, accounting for the overwhelming majority of stablecoin volume, and newer entrants like Ripple’s RLUSD growing quickly.
A retail central bank digital currency would be the one thing capable of seriously challenging these private stablecoins, because a government-issued digital dollar would offer the public a sovereign, risk-free digital alternative to a privately issued token. If people could hold digital dollars directly from the Federal Reserve, the appeal of holding a private stablecoin would diminish for many uses.
By banning a US CBDC, the provision removes that competitor before it can exist, and this is where the privacy framing and the commercial reality converge. The ban forecloses the only credible government-backed rival to private stablecoins, effectively handing issuers a structural advantage that no amount of regulation or marketing could buy them: the absence of a sovereign competitor, guaranteed by law.
This is why the CLARITY Act and the stablecoin framework already signed into law are best understood as sequential pieces of the same strategy. The earlier law set up the licensing framework for private stablecoins, and the CLARITY Act, by blocking a CBDC, helps clear the competitive field on which those stablecoins will operate. The result is a deliberate tilt of the payments future toward private issuers and away from a government digital dollar.
For crypto, and for the stablecoin issuers in particular, this is arguably the most important practical effect of the anti-CBDC provision: not the abstract privacy principle, but the concrete removal of the one competitor that could have constrained the private stablecoin market just as it is becoming central to the industry. Holders of stablecoin-linked assets, including those in the XRP ecosystem given Ripple’s RLUSD, sit on the favorable side of that tilt.
The ban is moving on several tracks at once
An important nuance, often lost in coverage, is that the CLARITY Act is not the only vehicle carrying the CBDC ban, and appreciating the full picture prevents overstating the role of any single bill. The same anti-CBDC objective has been advancing through at least three parallel paths. First, the language lives inside the CLARITY Act itself as one of its named components.
Second, a standalone Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act passed the House of Representatives as its own bill and went to the Senate separately, giving the prohibition an independent path. Third, and most strikingly, a four-year ban on a Federal Reserve CBDC, running through the end of 2030, was attached to an unrelated housing bill that passed the Senate by an overwhelming margin and cleared the House, putting it on the verge of becoming law.
That housing-bill ban illustrates both the momentum behind the anti-CBDC push and the political turbulence around it. The provision sailed through Congress with broad support, banning the Fed from issuing a CBDC directly or indirectly through intermediaries while explicitly protecting private stablecoins that are open and preserve cash-like privacy. But the bill’s signing was delayed when the President held it up over an unrelated demand on separate legislation, a reminder that even broadly supported measures can get caught in larger political standoffs, and that the delay consumed legislative time the CLARITY Act itself could ill afford.
The takeaway is that the CBDC ban is overdetermined: it is being pursued through redundant channels, so even if the CLARITY Act stalls, the prohibition may well become law through one of the other paths. For anyone trying to gauge the future of a US digital dollar, the honest assessment is that the political system has moved decisively against one, through multiple overlapping efforts, of which the CLARITY Act provision is one prominent part instead of the sole determinant.
The serious case against the ban
Evenhandedness requires taking the arguments against the CBDC ban seriously, because they are substantive and come from credible quarters, not just from would-be government surveillers. The most striking criticism is that the ban would make the United States a global outlier. A great many countries are actively developing or piloting central bank digital currencies, with China’s digital yuan among the most advanced and well over a hundred countries exploring the technology in some form.
Banning a CBDC outright would make the United States the only major economy to foreclose the option entirely, which critics argue cedes ground in the evolution of money and could, over time, weaken the dollar’s competitive position in a world moving toward digital sovereign currencies. The concern is not that a digital dollar is necessarily desirable, but that permanently banning even the ability to build one is a drastic and possibly shortsighted response.
A related criticism is that the ban could hamper legitimate central-bank work on the future of payments. The Federal Reserve participates in international efforts to modernize cross-border payments using tokenized central-bank money, and a sweeping prohibition could undercut that research and the United States’ role in shaping global standards. Critics also note a certain irony: the Federal Reserve was not actually building a retail CBDC, so the ban forecloses a project that did not exist, which they argue makes it more a symbolic and ideological act than a response to a real and present threat.
From this angle, the provision solves a hypothetical problem at the cost of real flexibility, while the privacy concerns it cites could in principle be addressed through design choices instead of an outright ban. Supporters answer that a preemptive, permanent ban is exactly the point, because it removes the temptation and the risk for good, and that the surveillance dangers are too serious to leave to future design promises. Both sides have a coherent case, and reasonable people land in different places, but the debate is real and should not be flattened into a simple privacy-versus-surveillance morality tale. The ban has genuine costs as well as the benefits its supporters emphasize.
What it means for crypto and XRP holders
For crypto holders trying to translate all this into something actionable, the anti-CBDC provision points in a fairly clear direction, even if its effects are more structural than immediate. The most direct consequence is favorable for private stablecoins and, by extension, for the parts of the crypto ecosystem built around them.
By removing the prospect of a government-issued digital dollar, the ban protects the competitive position of private stablecoins at exactly the moment they are becoming central to crypto payments and settlement. Issuers like Circle and Tether benefit from the absence of a sovereign rival, and so does Ripple’s RLUSD, which means holders in the XRP ecosystem have a stake in this outcome even though it sits in the regulatory weeds instead of the price charts. The broader thesis that private, on-chain dollars will carry an increasing share of payments gets a meaningful boost when the public-sector alternative is taken off the table by law.
The effects on the wider crypto market are more diffuse but still real. The anti-CBDC stance is part of the same policy posture that favors private digital assets and lighter-touch regulation, and its advance signals an environment broadly supportive of the industry. At the same time, holders should keep the provision in proportion. Because no US retail CBDC was actually being built, the ban changes the hypothetical future more than the present reality, and its largest effects are competitive and long-term instead of an immediate catalyst for any token’s price.
It is also worth remembering that the ban is moving through several vehicles, so its fate is not bound to the CLARITY Act alone, and that the privacy debate it embodies is genuinely contested, with credible arguments on both sides about whether foreclosing a CBDC serves or harms the country’s long-term interests. The clear-eyed reading for a holder is that the anti-CBDC provision is a quiet but meaningful tailwind for private stablecoins and the broader private-digital-money thesis, embedded in a bill whose market-structure provisions will likely matter more for prices in the near term, but whose CBDC language may shape the deeper question of who owns the future of digital payments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the CLARITY Act really ban a US CBDC?
Yes, the anti-CBDC provision is one of the bill’s three official short titles, alongside the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the CLARITY Act, the third being the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. The language amends the Federal Reserve Act to bar the Fed from issuing a retail central bank digital currency directly to individuals or indirectly through intermediaries, from using a CBDC for monetary policy, and, in its fuller forms, from even testing one without explicit authorization from Congress. So blocking a government digital dollar is not a minor rider but one of the bill’s stated purposes, even though the market-structure provisions receive nearly all the public attention.
What is a central bank digital currency?
A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is digital money issued and backed directly by a country’s central bank. A retail CBDC, the kind the ban targets, would be held by ordinary people and used for everyday transactions, making it a direct liability of the Federal Reserve recorded on a government-controlled ledger. This differs from the digital dollars already in bank accounts, which are liabilities of commercial banks, not the Fed. It also differs from a wholesale CBDC, which financial institutions would use to settle large transactions among themselves. The retail version is what generates the privacy concerns, because it would route everyday payments through a ledger the government controls.
Why do supporters want to ban a CBDC?
Supporters frame it as a privacy and anti-surveillance measure. Their core argument is that a retail CBDC, recorded on a centralized government ledger, would give the state real-time visibility into individuals’ transactions and potentially the power to control how people spend their money, which they see as incompatible with financial freedom. The provision’s name, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, captures this framing. Proponents, including the administration and many Republican lawmakers, want to write the ban into durable law so no future administration could build a digital dollar without explicit congressional approval, foreclosing what they view as a serious surveillance risk before it can materialize.
How does banning a CBDC affect stablecoins?
It helps private stablecoins significantly. A government-issued digital dollar would be the one thing capable of seriously challenging private stablecoins like USDC, USDT, and Ripple’s RLUSD, because it would offer the public a sovereign, risk-free digital alternative. By banning a US CBDC, the provision removes that competitor before it can exist, handing private stablecoin issuers a structural advantage guaranteed by law. The bans are also typically written to protect private stablecoins explicitly while blocking the government one. This is arguably the most important practical effect of the provision, tilting the future of digital payments toward private issuers and away from a public digital dollar.
Is the CLARITY Act the only bill banning a CBDC?
No, and this is an important nuance. The same anti-CBDC objective is advancing through several parallel tracks. It exists inside the CLARITY Act as one of its named components, a standalone Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act passed the House separately and went to the Senate, and a four-year CBDC ban running through 2030 was attached to an unrelated housing bill that passed both chambers and is near becoming law. So the prohibition is being pursued redundantly, which means it may become law through one of these paths even if the CLARITY Act stalls. The CLARITY provision is one prominent part of a broader push instead of the sole vehicle.
What are the arguments against banning a CBDC?
Critics make several serious points. A ban would make the United States the only major economy to foreclose a CBDC entirely, while many countries, including China with its digital yuan, are actively developing them, which critics argue cedes ground in the evolution of money and could weaken the dollar’s long-term position. They note the Fed was not actually building a retail CBDC, so the ban forecloses a project that did not exist, making it more symbolic than responsive to a real threat. They also warn it could hamper legitimate central-bank work on modernizing cross-border payments. Supporters counter that a permanent, preemptive ban is precisely the point, removing the risk for good. Both sides have coherent arguments
This article is information, not legal, financial, or investment advice. The status and contents of the CLARITY Act, the standalone anti-CBDC legislation, and related bills reflect reporting available as of June 27, 2026, and can change. The CBDC debate is politically contested, and this article presents the arguments of multiple sides instead of endorsing any. Nothing here is a recommendation regarding any token or security. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
Wife of former FTX executive seeks to preclude her husband’s guilty plea
In a Friday filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) over campaign finance charges, Michelle Bond’s legal team asked the court to consider precluding evidence related to former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame, her husband who is currently serving a 90-month sentence after he pleaded guilty in 2023.
Bond faces campaign finance charges alleging that her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York was partially funded by contributions from FTX facilitated by Salame. As part of the filings this week, Bond asked the court to exclude evidence of her husband’s guilty plea and “related plea materials,” in which the former executive admitted to making “political contributions in [his] name that were funded by transfers from the bank accounts” of an entity tied to FTX.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” said the filing.
Bond’s lawyers added:
“[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
The motion also requested the court include information related to Bond’s “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings,” arguing that though she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged crime, the former FTX executive was not an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor” contributing to her campaign.
Related: US Senate unanimously adopts resolution opposing clemency for SBF
The criminal case is one of the latest involving individuals tied to the defunct crypto exchange following its 2022 collapse. Salame, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison were all sentenced to prison for their role in the misuse of customer funds and related charges.
Former congressman ordered to pay $35,000 over Kalshi bet
George Santos, a former New York House representative who was expelled from Congress in 2023, was ordered to pay a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned over bets placed on prediction markets platform Kalshi. The order from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stemmed from Santos trading on event contracts betting on his appearance at the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC.
“While buying and selling positions in this market, Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the SOTU,” said the CFTC. “In his social media posts, Santos made a series of material misrepresentations and omissions about whether he would attend the SOTU. After these posts, the SOTU contract prices moved in a direction that was favorable to Santos’ positions which allowed him to make over $17,500.”
February X post about his State of the Union attendance. Source: George Santos
Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years as part of the order. He was also previously sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump.
US solider accused of making $400,000 Polymarket bet seeks to dismiss charges
Gannon Ken Van Dyke is a US soldier who faces charges for allegedly making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information tied to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. He was involved in the operation removing Maduro, according to the US Justice Department, and allegedly used insider information to bet whether the Venezuelan president would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s legal team filed a 51-page memo in support of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on different legal theories, including that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) at the center of three of the charges was “ambiguous” in treating event contracts as “swaps.”
Although the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has claimed that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets on the basis that event contracts are treated as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers said the lack of clarity was sufficient to dismiss some of the charges.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” said the filing. “They cannot.”
The case is expected to have significant implications for lawmakers and government officials using prediction markets. Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly made more than $100,000 using Kalshi event contracts related to the president’s speeches.
Based on a schedule filed in June, Van Dyke is potentially looking at a trial beginning in late 2026 or early 2027. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Magazine: Here’s why the CLARITY Act’s ethics deal may be so hard to reach
The attacker working through Coldcard-generated keys is now emptying wallets worth a few thousand dollars each.
Galaxy Research flagged a third wave of sweeps early Sunday, roughly 208 bitcoin drained from 1,912 addresses between Friday midday and Saturday morning UTC.
That is just over a tenth of a bitcoin per victim. The July 30 opening wave averaged close to a full coin, 1,083 bitcoin from 1,196 addresses in 41 minutes.
Observed losses across all three waves now total 1,367 bitcoin, nearly $89 million, from 4,585 addresses.
Wave three sends each victim’s coins to its own destination rather than the handful of shared collector addresses that made the first two easy to map, and parks them in pay-to-witness-script-hash outputs, a format that can carry multisignature or timelock conditions, instead of the plain single-key outputs used before.
It batched an average of six victims into each sweep where wave one took exactly one at a time, and it scanned only the default derivation path, the standard branch of the key tree a wallet checks first, instead of testing several branches per seed.
Perhaps due to the quickly re-escalating tension in the Middle East, the cryptocurrency market has posted fresh losses over the past few hours, with BTC dropping to $62,000 after failing to reclaim the $63,000 support during the day.
XRP was not spared, as it just slipped below $1.05. The asset was rejected at $1.20 during the mid-July rally after the favorable US inflation data for June, and eventually lost the coveted $1.10 support. Now, it fights for the last line of defense before the bulls would have to defend the $1.00 zone.
Popular analyst EGRAG CRYPTO outlined the significance of the $1.05 level, calling it the ‘battlefield’ region. Although he noted earlier today that the cross-border token had managed to maintain that level, he acknowledged the predominantly bearish structure of lower highs on the 4-hour chart.
The short-term path of recovery would be a successful defense of $1.05 before XRP can bounce above $1.083 and eventually reclaim the $1.10 level, which now acts as resistance.
EGRAG laid out an even more promising road ahead for the asset if it manages to continue its recovery, with the “major price target” set at $1.30.
However, a decisive breakdown below $1.05 would essentially mean that XRP will head toward the notable liquidity zone at around $1.00, he warned.
Mikybull Crypto also believes XRP has the strength to stage a surprising comeback. The analyst claimed that the asset’s bullish reversal run is currently loading despite the negative outlook.
His long-term chart compares the current market structure with the one from two years ago when XRP was highly compressed at around $0.60. Once it broke out the upper boundary, though, it rocketed to a fresh all-time high within less than a year.
“Before the last run, I screamed for you to buy at a crazy discount. The opportunity is presenting again,” he said now.
History is not on XRP’s side at the moment, though, as August has been quite a painful month for the asset. As reported earlier today, the cross-border token was deep in the red in all four previous editions.
The post XRP Price Dips to ‘Battlefield’ Zone, but Analysts See Major Reversal Opportunity appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Pi Coin (PI) rose 8% on Saturday to $0.0870. The move pushed the token onto CoinGecko’s trending list, days before a hard deadline for Pi Network.
Nodes are the computers that check Pi transactions. The people who run them have until August 11 to install an update. Nodes that miss it get cut off.
Why Pi Coin Is Trending Again
CoinGecko ranked PI second on its trending board on Saturday. Most other coins on that list were falling. Pi Coin was one of the few going up.
The bigger picture is less kind. While PI has gained 7% over the past week, it is still down 25% over the past month. The token is worth about $957 million in total, making it the 67th largest coin.
Trading stayed thin. Pi Network market data shows roughly $8.6 million changed hands in 24 hours.
What the August 11 Deadline Means
Protocol v26 is the latest step in a long chain of updates that started at version 19. Pi says it makes smart contracts safer. It also improves how the network stores data and talks to other blockchains.
“Protocol 26 is a major milestone ahead of the final planned upgrade, Protocol 27. With 8 successful upgrades completed over the past few months, these final two upgrades will bring the network up to date with the latest protocol features, improvements, and functionality,” the team noted.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Only node operators need to act. People who mine Pi on their phones do not. Pi lists every step on its node page.
Pi nodes agree on transactions in small trusted groups, a design borrowed from Stellar. The July 22 Protocol v25 rollout added the cryptography that privacy apps need.
Why Pi Coin Rallies Keep Fading
Traders have seen this before. PI jumped 24% ahead of the July 22 update. It handed the gain back once the day arrived. The Protocol 24 mainnet upgrade in June ended the same way.
Zoom out and it looks worse. PI hit a record low of $0.0710 on July 14. It now sits 79% below where it traded a year ago.
New supply is the main drag. PiScan data cited last month showed about 1.71 billion PI unlocking over the next year. That is a heavy load for a market trading under $10 million a day.
Protocol v27 is the last planned update. Whether August 11 shifts the PI price forecast outlook comes down to one thing. Buyers have to show up faster than the new coins do.
The post Pi Coin Defies Market Trend Before Key Deadline: Will the 10% Bounce Hold? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Who are possible challengers to FIFA President Gianni Infantino?
Infantino was originally expected to easily retain his position at the helm of FIFA in March 2027.
Now, with public calls for review into his leadership, potential rivals may feel emboldened.
“FIFA is full of sharks, and there’s no question that many of them can smell blood. Infantino’s election in 2027, which seemed like a sure bet only a few days ago, is now an open question,” Boykoff says.
Challengers for his role must submit their candidacies by Nov. 18, and there has already been some speculation as to who might make a bid.
Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, president of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), was defeated by Infantino in 2016, the current administrator’s first term, but he could return a decade later as a frontrunner. He called Infantino’s investment proposal and his failure to consult AFC on it “totally unacceptable,” putting the two publicly at odds.
We will begin with the mandatory disclaimer, as we are well aware that historical performance does not guarantee similar moves in the future. However, history does tend to rhyme, and that’s what happened in July for BTC.
The question is: will August follow suit, as the month has not been kind to the largest cryptocurrency, especially the last four editions.
July Brought Some Gains
Before we explore what happened in July, here’s a brief outlook of the painful June, which set the stage for a rebound during the seventh month of the year. The 2026 edition of June became the most violent in terms of price moves for the cryptocurrency in precisely four years. It tumbled by 20.48% in 2026 compared to 37.28% in June 2022.
As such, it was almost expected that July would be a better month. History was also on BTC’s side as 9 out of the last 11 were in the green. However, the start was actually quite surprising as bitcoin dipped below $58,000 on July 1 for the first time in nearly two years.
The bears quickly lost control, though, and the asset reclaimed the coveted $60,000 level within a day or two. It wasn’t the most volatile of months, but BTC still managed to post some gains and peaked on July 21 at $67,000. This became its highest price tag in two months.
However, it was rejected there despite the softer-than-expected inflation data for June and the fact that the Fed refused to hike interest rates last week. Thus, bitcoin ended the month at under $64,000, which was still a 9% monthly increase.
Your Move, August
As popular analyst Ali Martinez put it yesterday: August hasn’t been kind to bitcoin. In fact, the last four have all been in the red, posting losses of 13.88%, 11.29%, 8.6%, and 6.49%, respectively. The silver lining is that the declines become less violent over time.
The broader August perspective is still deeply negative, though. Only three out of the last 12 editions have been in the green, with 2017 standing out as the most bullish one on record. At the time, BTC rocketed by over 65%, but it was a different time and a vastly different market phase.
For now, BTC enters August 2026 with lots of uncertainty not only within the industry itself, where interest has dwindled lately, but on a macro perspective as well. The war in the Middle East continues, and the one between Ukraine and Russia too, while inflation remains an issue, and Trump’s controversial actions tend to halt each breakout attempt in its tracks.
The post Bitcoin Rebounded in July, but Bears Target an August Pullback appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
A crypto-industry-backed political action committee affiliate has intensified its advertising push ahead of next week’s Michigan Republican primary, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Protect Progress PAC, which the filings indicate is funded largely by contributions from cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase, has spent more than $2 million on media to influence the contest in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
- FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
- New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
- The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
- Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
- Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) says this bear market has no shortage of money. Plenty of it is hunting for somewhere to go.
Elsewhere, Social Capital founder Chamath Palihapitiya said where he thinks it should land. Not in artificial intelligence (AI) chips.
The Bear Market Has Money. It Is Not Buying Crypto
CZ did not say where the money should go, but acknowledged that there was a lot of liquidity floating despite the bear market.
The numbers show why it is not going into crypto. Bitcoin (BTC) trades near $63,037. It is down 45% in a year. That is almost exactly half its October 6 record.
Chamath Is Buying Land, Not Chips
Meanwhile, the Social Capital founder Chamath Palihapitiya, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur, and investor, buys three things at once. Land, a power connection, and an empty building to hold the computers.
“LPS (Land Power Shell) is still the most obvious and fastest path to cash on cash returns,” Palihapitiya wrote.
Palihapitiya is a former senior executive at Facebook (now Meta), a renowned SPAC sponsor, and former minority owner of the Golden State Warriors.
His reason is simple. Towns keep blocking data centers. Every site that already has power gets rarer.
The numbers back him. Data Center Watch counted at least 75 US projects blocked or delayed in early 2026, worth about $130 billion.It was the worst quarter on record. Opposition groups doubled and now operate in 49 states.
Politicians joined in. More than 300 state data center bills were filed in six weeks. Maine missed becoming the first state to ban them outright by one House vote.
Why He Quit the Chip Business
He says he helped start Groq in 2016. Nvidia licensed Groq’s technology last December. The deal was not exclusive. Groq founder Jonathan Ross moved to Nvidia.
Neither company gave a price, but Palihapitiya says $20 billion. Still, he would not do it again as chips have to run too fast, factories have to be too exact, and a startup cannot get enough memory.
How Much Power He Has Bought
Palihapitiya says he and his partner Anita Vlallian have acquired almost six gigawatts (GW). It arrives in stages through 2029.
One deal shows the going rate. Nasdaq-listed TeraWulf used to mine Bitcoin. In July it leased a 401-megawatt site in Hawesville, Kentucky, to Anthropic. The lease runs 20 years and should bring in about $19 billion.
Here is the part that proves his point. That site is not built yet. Power starts flowing in late 2027 and reaches full load in early 2028.
The money is committed anyway. Palihapitiya holds roughly 15 times that much capacity. His is not leased out yet, so the figure shows the size of his bet, not its value.
However, miners got there first, and already own cheap power, land with grid hookups, and empty sheds. Coinbase chief executive Brian Armstrong disputed the mining warning in July.
What Could Go Wrong
Jordi Visser of 22V Research says easy money is over in AI. He expects about 30% a year now.
The land bet also needs the protests to keep coming. If towns start approving data centers again, the scarcity goes away.
TeraWulf’s $19 billion is a forecast too. Its own filing calls it expected revenue.
CZ is right. The money is out there. The question is whether it buys power lines or comes back to Bitcoin and crypto markets.
The post CZ Says Bear Market Money is Hunting, Social Capital Founder Says Skip AI Chips appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Brendan Hunt On Why ‘Ted Lasso’ Season 4 Changes Everything
Darline Graham makes her political debut in South Carolina
US Justice Department subpoenas New York Times freelancer over North Korea story, paper says
-
Sports6 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business3 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion1 day agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Tech6 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Politics1 day agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics5 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World7 hours agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics5 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos6 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Entertainment4 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Business4 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World7 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Politics6 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos2 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Crypto World15 hours ago
XRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
Entertainment7 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
Crypto World4 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech5 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
-
News Videos4 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics2 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
You must be logged in to post a comment Login