Consensys Software Inc., the Ethereum-focused firm behind MetaMask, plans to restructure by splitting its consumer-oriented business from its institutional blockchain infrastructure operations. The company says the separation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, creating two independent companies with distinct leadership and strategic priorities.

According to a Business Wire announcement, Joe Lubin will serve as chairman and CEO of MetaMask while also taking the role of executive chairman of the new Consensys. The institutional business—focused on Ethereum protocols and infrastructure—will be led by Mike Kriak as CEO, with David Cunningham as president.

Key takeaways

• Consensys will separate into two independent firms by the end of 2026: MetaMask (consumer self-custody) and a new Consensys (Ethereum protocols and institutional infrastructure).
• The new Consensys will house Consensys’ protocol and infrastructure portfolio, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.
• MetaMask is positioned to broaden beyond a wallet into payments, savings, investing, and other traditional financial products.
• Consensys says MetaMask has surpassed 100 million downloads across about 190 countries and supported “trillions of dollars” in transaction volume.

From one umbrella to two focused companies

The planned reorganization reflects what the company describes as increasingly different objectives between its consumer-facing and institutional-facing teams. In the announcement, Consensys frames the split as a way to allow each business to pursue its own roadmap without competing for shared priorities.

Under the new structure, MetaMask will remain the centerpiece of the consumer division, with an emphasis on self-custody. Consensys also outlined that MetaMask’s expansion is not limited to crypto holdings and decentralized app access; it is intended to extend into areas such as payments, savings, and investing, as well as “traditional financial products.”

Meanwhile, the institutional infrastructure company will consolidate Consensys’ Ethereum protocol and infrastructure activities. The company says this entity will focus on Ethereum infrastructure while supporting financial institutions looking to deploy blockchain technology for tokenization, stablecoins, and other onchain financial services.

What will live under “MetaMask” vs. “the new Consensys”

Consensys’ announcement is explicit about the portfolio split. The new Consensys entity will house the company’s protocols and institutional infrastructure businesses, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.

While the announcement does not detail whether these products will change in scope after the separation, the strategic direction is clear: an infrastructure-first company designed to work with institutions, where the customer is more likely to value deployment, reliability, and enterprise integration over consumer growth metrics.

In contrast, MetaMask’s mandate centers on consumer self-custody and product-led expansion into finance-adjacent services. The company’s messaging suggests that the consumer operation will continue to evolve from a browser extension into a broader interface for onchain and finance-related experiences, including functionality connected to stablecoins and yield strategies—while remaining within a self-custody framework.

Consensys says MetaMask has been downloaded more than 100 million times across roughly 190 countries and facilitated trillions of dollars in transaction volume.

MetaMask’s push into consumer finance features

Part of the logic behind the split appears tied to how MetaMask has expanded beyond its original “wallet for decentralized applications” role. Launched in 2016 as an Ethereum browser extension, MetaMask has added new product lines over the past year, including tools associated with payments, yield, and access to tokenized real-world assets.

In June, Consensys said MetaMask launched Money Account, which it describes as allowing users to earn up to 4% variable APY on eligible mUSD stablecoin balances. The company also stated that the yield is generated through decentralized finance lending strategies rather than interest paid by MetaMask or by the stablecoin issuer.

Earlier in the year, MetaMask added access to tokenized financial products for certain users. In February, Consensys reported support for 200 tokenized US stocks, exchange-traded funds, and commodities via Ondo Global Markets, limited to eligible users outside the United States.

That same month, MetaMask rolled out a Mastercard-enabled spending card across 49 US states. Consensys said the card expanded a previously available product that had already reached markets including Europe, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.

Taken together, these updates help explain why a consumer-first business might benefit from separation: MetaMask’s expanding feature set increasingly resembles a consumer finance platform—while the institutional protocols business is oriented toward deployment infrastructure for enterprise and regulated use cases.

Why the split matters for builders and investors

Restructuring a major Ethereum software provider can matter beyond internal operations, because it shapes where resources and attention flow. A dedicated institutional infrastructure unit may allow teams behind Linea, Besu, and Teku to focus more narrowly on scaling, tooling, and integration work relevant to financial institutions and enterprise networks.

For investors and market participants, the split also provides clearer lines of accountability: MetaMask’s leadership and product execution can be assessed primarily through consumer adoption and the rollout of finance features, while the new Consensys can be evaluated on the delivery of Ethereum infrastructure services and institutional deployment outcomes.

At the same time, Consensys’ own framing highlights that the separation is not simply organizational—it is strategic. The company says the consumer and institutional businesses have “increasingly different priorities,” and the timeline suggests it expects those differences to become more consequential as each unit pursues its own growth and partnerships.

Readers should watch how Consensys handles continuity during the transition, especially how MetaMask’s expanded financial features and the institutional protocols roadmap will evolve up to the end-of-2026 completion target.

With the split planned but not yet finalized, the key near-term question is whether the product lines will remain consistent for users while each company sharpens its focus—particularly as MetaMask continues moving into payments and tokenized asset access, and the institutional unit deepens its work supporting stablecoin and tokenization initiatives.

World has opened its standalone Solana prediction market platform to more than 1 million waitlisted users after creating over 150,000 markets through its Phantom integration.

World gives waitlisted users direct market access

World said in a Sept. 9 announcement that world.xyz now gives more than 1 million waitlisted users direct access to its prediction markets, extending the service beyond the Phantom wallet where it has operated since July.

The initial selection covers every NFL regular-season game, seven soccer leagues, and Formula 1. Contracts tied to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections and the Federal Reserve’s upcoming policy decision are also available, placing political and economic events alongside sports and crypto markets.

Each market offers “yes” and “no” contracts priced between $0 and $1. Their prices represent the market’s assessment of whether an event will occur, while the final result determines which contract settles at $1 and which expires at $0.

Users settle trades with CASH, the dollar-backed stablecoin used inside Phantom. World operates as a non-custodial protocol, meaning it does not take custody of customer funds, while orders are routed to liquidity providers operating on Solana.

Unlike a conventional brokerage or centralized crypto exchange, World does not require users to open a brokerage account or register with an exchange. Phantom users still need enough funds to cover Solana network fees when opening or closing positions.

World’s service had already supported positions through Phantom before the standalone site went live. According to the company, users have opened positions through the prediction market service since June 1, 2026, while the wallet integration became publicly available in July.

The platform has not disclosed its first-day trading volume, open interest, or fee structure. Without those figures, its initial share of prediction market activity cannot yet be compared with established venues such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

Chainlink automates World market resolution

Chainlink Data Streams and the Chainlink Runtime Environment supply World with market data and automated resolution tools. Once a game finishes or another specified event reaches its deadline, the system can determine the result and settle the related contracts.

Using automated data removes the need for a human resolution panel or a vote among token holders. World said older oracle designs can also include dispute periods that delay settlement, while its Chainlink setup is designed to process outcomes from defined data sources.

Chainlink Labs Chief Business Officer Johann Eid linked World’s waitlist of more than 1 million users to demand for prediction markets built on Solana. According to Eid, Chainlink provides the data and infrastructure needed to resolve markets quickly and efficiently.

A similar model has already appeared elsewhere in the sector. In May, Myriad integrated Chainlink Data Streams and the Runtime Environment to automate the creation, resolution, and settlement of markets tied to BTC, ETH, BNB, and SOL.

Myriad also announced plans to extend its service to stocks, commodities, and other real-world assets. Its adoption showed how Chainlink’s infrastructure can coordinate external data with on-chain settlement without relying on a single manual decision-maker.

For World, the system supports contracts across categories that resolve in different ways. Sports markets require verified final scores, Federal Reserve contracts depend on official policy decisions, and election markets need confirmed results under predetermined settlement rules.

Solana keeps World liquidity onchain

Solana Foundation Head of DeFi Ramzy Ali said World introduces another type of tradable product to the network while keeping its liquidity within Solana’s on-chain economy.

Ali described the platform as “introducing a new asset class to Solana and keeping 100% of the liquidity onchain.”

World routes orders to Solana liquidity providers instead of managing trades through an off-chain order book controlled by the platform. According to the announcement, the arrangement allows capital committed to its markets to remain within the Solana network.

The standalone launch also places World among a growing group of prediction market providers competing for retail activity. Prediction market volume across Kalshi, Polymarket and Polymarket US reached a record $50.59 billion in July, according to data reported in August.

Kalshi accounted for $37.7 billion of the total, while Polymarket’s international and U.S. platforms generated a combined $12.9 billion. The figures represented notional trading volume rather than deposits or exchange revenue because contracts can change hands several times before settlement.

World has not provided comparable turnover data for the more than 150,000 markets created through its service. Its disclosed market count measures the number of contracts launched, not the amount of money traded or the number of active customers.

Access remains available through world.xyz and inside Phantom on iOS, Android, and desktop. Phantom states that prediction markets are offered only in jurisdictions where they are supported, although the launch announcement did not provide a country-by-country availability list.

U.S. access depends on local prediction market rules

World’s inclusion of NFL games and the 2026 midterm elections gives the platform a direct connection to U.S. events, but listing an American event does not establish that users in every U.S. state can trade it.

Prediction market access in the country remains subject to disputes over federal derivatives oversight and state gambling laws. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates designated contract markets, while several state authorities contend that sports and election contracts can fall under their own gaming rules.

In September, conflicting Kalshi rulings had produced different outcomes in federal appellate courts. The Third Circuit allowed an injunction protecting Kalshi from New Jersey enforcement to remain in place, while the Ninth Circuit permitted Nevada regulators to enforce state gaming requirements as litigation continued.

New Jersey subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the Commodity Exchange Act prevents states from applying sports-gambling laws to event contracts listed by a CFTC-regulated exchange. The petition does not mean the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the dispute.

World has not said that it operates a CFTC-registered exchange, nor has it identified which of its contracts are accessible to U.S. residents. Its jurisdiction notice therefore remains important for American users considering markets tied to sports, elections, or Federal Reserve decisions.

After the standalone rollout, World plans to add equity up-and-down contracts. Commodity markets covering gold, silver, oil, natural gas, and computing capacity are also planned, followed by weather contracts tied to major cities.

Turkey’s embrace of a political process—instead of simply pursuing a decisive military path—to end the conflict made it more acceptable to the PKK leadership and the Kurdish movement. Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the PKK, had to persuade his comrades to dissolve their organization, abandon the armed struggle, and choose political struggle. Unfavorable broader regional trends against armed militancy may have helped convince Ocalan and his comrades to make that consequential choice.

The legitimacy of the political solution, in the eyes of the Kurds, determines its sustainability and transformative impact. The current peace process seeks to end the insurgency and transform the struggle for Kurdish rights and aspirations into a nonviolent political one. It could transform Turkey’s relations with its own Kurdish community and the Kurdish communities in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Leaders of the Kurdish movement believe that they can achieve more through politics than through armed struggle, and that it isn’t only they who are transforming, but that the state, political, and legal systems in Turkey can also change. The promise of the future, rather than being beholden to the grievances of the past, is the way forward. 

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane said political and regulatory pressure from the Biden administration drove the crypto-focused lender’s voluntary wind-down in 2023, arguing that the bank remained solvent after weathering a deposit run.

In an inaugural Substack post on Tuesday, Lane said Silvergate could have continued operating after satisfying withdrawals equivalent to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022. He argued that a “coordinated attack by the Biden Administration” ultimately led to the wind-down, saying the bank chose liquidation “in the face of political pressure.”

Lane said Silvergate had held liquid assets that could be sold or pledged as collateral during periods of heavy withdrawals. In a January 2023 business update, the bank reported that digital asset deposits fell 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion during the quarter. Silvergate sold $5.2 billion of debt securities, recording a $718 million loss. The bank said it had $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. 

Lane’s account adds a firsthand claim to the debate over whether US agencies sought to restrict crypto companies’ access to banking. However, it differs from federal findings that attributed the bank’s liquidation to its concentrated deposit base, funding risks and weaknesses in governance and compliance. 

Regulators cited risk management, compliance failures

A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General said Silvergate’s dependence on crypto depositors, rapid growth and multilayered funding risks led to its liquidation. It also cited significant weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management and said examiners could have acted more aggressively and decisively.

Lane said no regulator had proven that Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed. In July 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Silvergate Capital, Lane and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors about the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers. 

The regulator alleged that Silvergate’s automated system failed to monitor more than $1 trillion in transactions and that the bank failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers among FTX entities.

Related: Silvergate’s Fraher breaks silence on settlement with Gensler’s SEC

Lane settled the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the allegations, agreeing to a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar. Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies. 

Lane also cited interagency crypto-risk statements issued in early 2023 as evidence of pressure against the industry. The statements urged banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities, although the Fed said institutions were neither prohibited nor discouraged from serving any specific customer class. In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the statements.

Magazine: Is Bitcoin too volatile to risk your retirement on?

What products will be impacted by the U.S. and Canadian tariffs?

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the lender’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by solvency concerns and more by political pressure tied to the Biden administration. In an inaugural Substack post published Tuesday, Lane argues that Silvergate could have continued operating after meeting large withdrawal demands in late 2022—contradicting the thrust of multiple regulator reviews that pointed to funding, governance, and compliance failures.

The dispute matters beyond Silvergate’s collapse because it sits at the center of a broader, ongoing debate: whether US regulators effectively squeezed crypto-focused banks through risk management scrutiny and supervisory actions, or whether the failures were primarily internal. Lane’s account adds a firsthand perspective to a record that includes Federal Reserve and SEC enforcement actions, as well as official reviews highlighting weaknesses in how the bank managed its concentrated deposit base and compliance obligations.

Key takeaways

• Alan Lane claims Silvergate remained solvent through periods of heavy withdrawals, citing liquid assets that could be sold or pledged.
• Lane attributes the 2023 liquidation decision to “political pressure,” while Federal Reserve-related reviews emphasize funding risks and governance and compliance shortcomings.
• A Federal Reserve Office of Inspector General review in 2023 linked Silvergate’s collapse to its dependence on crypto depositors and multilayered funding risks.
• The SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Lane, and former risk officer Kathleen Fraher in July 2024 over alleged deficiencies in AML-related monitoring and investor disclosures.
• Government agencies later withdrew early-2023 crypto-risk supervisory statements, but regulators’ enforcement actions continued to shape the post-mortem.

Lane argues Silvergate could withstand the withdrawal wave

Lane’s central claim is that Silvergate did not collapse because it lacked liquidity or capital to operate. He wrote that the bank had the capacity to keep running after it satisfied withdrawals equivalent to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022.

In the post, Lane argued that liquidation became the path of least resistance only after political pressure intensified. He described a “coordinated attack by the Biden Administration” as the reason Silvergate chose liquidation “in the face of political pressure.”

Lane also pointed to the bank’s reserves and balance sheet actions during the period. In a January 2023 business update, Silvergate reported that digital asset deposits declined 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter. The bank said it sold $5.2 billion in debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss, while reporting $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s post leans on this picture—liquid assets were available, and funding outflows did not automatically imply insolvency.

Even if Lane’s liquidity framing is accepted, regulators’ accounts differ sharply on what ultimately caused the wind-down. Lane presents a solvency-and-strategy argument; multiple supervisory findings emphasize risk concentration, rapid funding dynamics, and compliance and governance problems.

Regulators’ assessments focus on concentration, governance, and risk controls

A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General examined Silvergate’s failure, citing the bank’s heavy reliance on crypto depositors, rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks as key drivers behind the decision to liquidate. The review also highlighted weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and suggested examiners could have acted more aggressively and decisively.

Lane’s Substack post pushes back on the compliance narrative. He said no regulator had proven that Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed. That assertion sits in tension with the SEC’s later enforcement actions, which specifically targeted AML monitoring practices and related disclosures.

For investors, this difference is not just rhetorical. If regulators’ conclusions primarily reflect internal control failures, then industry access to banking may be constrained mainly by compliance performance. If, instead, supervisory pressure was the decisive factor, the risk lens for lenders and crypto businesses could shift toward how regulators manage institution-level risk tolerance rather than how firms execute monitoring and governance.

SEC enforcement and the AML-monitoring allegations

Lane’s account also intersects with the SEC’s July 2024 charges. According to the SEC’s press release from that time, the agency charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors regarding the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.

In the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system failed to monitor transactions worth more than $1 trillion, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers involving FTX entities.

Lane later settled the SEC case without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC reported that the settlement included a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar. Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies, according to a Federal Reserve enforcement press release dated July 1, 2024.

Taken together, these actions support the core of regulators’ post-mortem: even if deposit withdrawals accelerated stress, supervisory authorities argued the bank’s monitoring and governance posture contributed to its inability to stabilize.

Did the industry face supervisory “pressure”? The withdrawn statements

Lane also cited early-2023 interagency crypto-risk statements as evidence of pressure on the broader industry. The Federal Reserve’s regulatory materials described guidance urging banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. The Fed also stated that institutions were neither prohibited nor discouraged from serving specific customer classes based solely on that guidance.

However, that episode did not remain permanent. In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the earlier statements, according to a Federal Reserve press release about the withdrawal.

That timeline is important for readers trying to weigh Lane’s claims against the regulatory record. The supervisory stance of early 2023 may have influenced how banks managed crypto-related risk; the later withdrawal suggests agencies eventually reassessed how the guidance was framed. Still, the SEC and Federal Reserve actions tied to Silvergate’s own monitoring and risk controls remained part of the enforcement backdrop—suggesting that whatever broader pressure existed, regulators also found failures in how Silvergate operated.

What to watch next for the “regulation vs. solvency” question

Lane’s Substack post will likely intensify the split between those who view Silvergate’s liquidation as a response to external political and supervisory pressure and those who see it as the logical endpoint of internal risk concentration and control failures. The key question now is whether further filings or proceedings clarify which factors were decisive in the wind-down—and how regulators’ changing guidance will be interpreted going forward by crypto-focused lenders.

Japanese Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet’s executive stock pool continues to draw shareholder backlash over stock dilution concerns. 

Multiple shareholders objected across social media to Metaplanet’s 10th Series executive option pool, which was designed as 20% of fully diluted shares and automatically expanded as the company issued new shares to fund its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation.

Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended Metaplanet’s executive stock model, saying that giving the team 20% of the cap table over five years “isn’t some crazy number” and that his company has been invested in Metaplanet since “day zero,” in a Tuesday X post.

Source: David Bailey

Some shareholders are now asking Metaplanet to cancel the additional 273 million shares created from the changes and to provide more transparency on future decisions. Metaplanet said it froze the pool at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18, but critics contend this magnified dilution for existing shareholders, as the pool grew from 46 million shares to 319.5 million.

Pseudonymous Metaplanet shareholder Bitcoin Pharaoh claimed that Bailey personally benefited from Metaplanet’s stock options and received 300,000 options at a 105 Japanese yen strike price, when the stock was trading at 510 yen, as compensation for his role as a strategic board advisor at Metaplanet.

“Set the pool against what the shareholders contributed and the cut is 26% of the bitcoin: of every four coins the shareholders’ money bought, management took one,” wrote Bitcoin Pharaoh in a Wednesday X reply to Bailey.

Related: Metaplanet buys 2,823 BTC, surpasses 43,000 in Bitcoin holdings

Metaplanet CEO addresses MMXX ties 

Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich pledged to review the company’s governance and compensation policies and sought to distance himself from Metaplanet shareholder MMXX Ventures, explaining that he is a significant but non-majority shareholder in MMXX’s parent company and holds no executive role. 

“We are continuing to review our governance and compensation policies and will share any updates when that work is complete,” wrote Gerovich in a Sunday X post.

On Aug. 31, Metaplanet revealed that its CEO exercised 92,000 shares from the 10th Series executive options pool.

VanEck’s head of digital asset research, Matthew Sigel, said that Metaplanet should “freeze” further exercise rights from the 10th Series option pool, have holders voluntarily surrender the excess rights and weigh additional options related to the shares that have already been exercised.

“Finally, replace Series 10 with a shareholder-approved, five-year incentive plan tied primarily to BTC per fully diluted share,” wrote Sigel in a Wednesday X post. 

In an Aug. 18 notice, Metaplanet acknowledged that the decision to expand the share pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders.” 

Cointelegraph has request comment from Metaplanet on whether it would consider freezing the remaining shares in the executive pool.

Metaplanet stock price, five-day chart. Source: Yahoo Finance

Metaplanet’s shares closed up in Wednesday’s Tokyo trading, trimming their five-day decline to roughly 16.3%, according to Yahoo Finance.

Magazine: Bitcoin adoption metrics say one thing, price action says another

With lawmakers in the US Senate set to consider legislation pushed by many in the cryptocurrency industry for regulatory clarity, there’s a limited window for the bill to become law, potentially delaying it into the next session of Congress with different politics in play.

The US Senate is scheduled to return to session on Monday after more than a month in which lawmakers were on state work periods. Senator John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the chamber, has scheduled a cloture vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act for Tuesday, in which his compatriots will need support from a handful of Democrats to meet the 60-vote threshold and overcome a filibuster.

Should the bill fail to advance with a three-fifths supermajority, the Senate will have less than 36 days of business before 2027, when a new session of Congress is scheduled to be sworn in, one where Democrats could be in control, depending on the outcome of November’s midterm elections.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of CLARITY’s biggest supporters, warned on Sept. 6 that the “next real opportunity” for the bill to pass might not be until 2030 if lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement and send it to the president’s desk. She is also not running for reelection in 2026.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 in the Senate are up for grabs in the midterm elections . Event contracts on prediction market platforms currently give Democrats the odds on retaking a majority in the House, while the party’s chances in the Senate are basically a coin flip.

Related: Rushed CLARITY Act vote could set legislation back, Gallego warns

When Republicans took the Senate from Democrats following the 2024 elections, this left the party with a legislative trifecta — control of the Senate, House and the presidency — giving it exceptional influence over passing laws favorable to the crypto industry, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. A reversal of this party control could likewise leave Republicans approaching bills on Democrats’ terms beginning next year.

Crypto money potentially swaying voters in 2026

Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democratic lawmaker who previously chaired the Senate Banking committee, was voted out in 2024 in a race that saw cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake and many others pouring millions of dollars into ads supporting his opponent, Republican Bernie Moreno.

Now, Brown is back, running in a special election against Republican Jon Husted to complete the term won in 2022 by now-Vice President JD Vance.

A PAC like Fairshake, backed by crypto exchange Coinbase and Ripple Labs, is just one way the industry is pushing to get what it calls more “pro-crypto” lawmakers in Congress. Although many candidates, both Democrat and Republican, supported by Fairshake-backed ads, have gone on to win their 2026 primaries, the PAC hasn’t always been successful. 

In March, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Democratic primary for one of the state’s US Senate seats despite being the target of industry-funded attack ads. Many incumbents who have voted in favor of bills like GENIUS or CLARITY while in office have found support from crypto PACs, while challengers or those critical of digital assets are sometimes named in negative ads.

“Rep. Auchincloss voted for the CLARITY ACT, which explains why the crypto industry is heavily supportive of his reelection,” said Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate who ran against Massachusetts Representative Jake Auchincloss in the primary for the state’s 4th congressional district. A Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent about $189,000 on ads supporting Auchincloss. Poulos added:

“The influx of outside crypto industry cash means that these oligarchs have an outsized influence on our representation and federal policies. It is why we need to get big money out of politics […]”

Presidency, regulators unlikely to change before 2029

Whether Democrats retake both chambers of Congress in November, neither, or just one, the result will not change Republican control of the White House until January 2029 and maintaining the power to veto legislation. For example, if the president chooses to veto a Democrat-backed crypto bill, both the House and the Senate would need a two-thirds supermajority vote to override his actions.

In addition, the heads of two of the major financial agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), are unlikely to change while Trump remains in office. The president nominated Paul Atkins to chair the SEC and Michael Selig the CFTC, both of whom have signaled plans to proceed with digital asset regulation if Congress fails to advance CLARITY this year.

Magazine: Is Bitcoin too volatile to risk your retirement on?