Crypto World
What is a digital commodity? CLARITY Act explained
Whether a token is a security or a commodity decides almost everything about how it can be traded, listed, and held in the U.S. In March 2026 regulators called sixteen major tokens “digital commodities,” but only on interpretive footing a future administration could undo. The CLARITY Act would turn that label into law. Here is what a digital commodity actually is, and how the bill would reclassify crypto.
Summary
- A digital commodity is a crypto asset whose value comes from the workings of a functional blockchain and from supply and demand, not from the expectation of profit from a company’s managerial efforts.
- The distinction matters enormously: a security falls under the securities regulator’s heavy registration and disclosure regime, while a commodity falls under the commodities regulator’s lighter-touch oversight.
- In March 2026 the SEC and CFTC jointly classified sixteen major tokens, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, and Solana, as digital commodities, but that was an interpretation, not a law, and a future administration could reverse it.
- The CLARITY Act would write the digital-commodity category into federal statute, making the classification durable, and create a maturity test that lets a token move from security to commodity as its network decentralizes.
- Reclassification changes what products can be built, especially exchange-traded funds, how exchanges list assets, how institutions hold them, and how much investor protection applies.
A digital commodity is a crypto asset whose value comes from the workings of its blockchain and from supply and demand, rather than from the promised efforts of a company or team, which is the legal distinction that places it under the lighter-touch oversight of the commodities regulator instead of the heavier hand of the securities regulator. That sentence contains the entire stakes of one of the most consequential questions in crypto: for any given token, is it a security or a commodity. The answer determines which federal agency has authority over it, what financial products can be built around it, how exchanges can list it, whether large institutions can comfortably hold it, and how aggressively the government can act against the people who issue and trade it. For more than a decade, the U.S. had no clear way to answer that question for most tokens, leaving the entire industry in a gray zone, and the fight over how to draw the line, and who gets to draw it, has shaped the regulation of crypto in America more than any other issue.
In 2026 that long-running question reached a turning point on two fronts at once, and understanding both is essential to understanding what a digital commodity is and why it matters. On the regulatory front, the two relevant agencies, the securities regulator and the commodities regulator, took the unprecedented step of jointly declaring sixteen major tokens to be digital commodities, ending years of ambiguity for those specific assets. On the legislative front, Congress has been working on the CLARITY Act, a bill that would take the digital-commodity concept and write it into permanent federal law, with a mechanism for deciding which tokens qualify and how a token can move from one category to another over time. This guide explains what a digital commodity actually is, why the security-versus-commodity distinction decides so much, the test at the heart of classification, what the 2026 regulatory interpretation did and why it was not enough on its own, how the CLARITY Act would reclassify crypto by statute, the clever maturity mechanism that lets a token change categories, what reclassification practically changes, and the real limits and risks that remain.
What a digital commodity actually is
Start with the precise definition, because the legal language is doing specific work. A digital commodity, in the formulation regulators have adopted, is a crypto asset that is intrinsically linked to and derives its value from the programmatic operation of a functional crypto system, as well as from supply and demand dynamics, rather than from the expectation of profits from the essential managerial efforts of others. That is a dense sentence, so it helps to unpack it: the key idea is the source of the asset’s value. A digital commodity is valuable because of how its blockchain works and because of ordinary market forces of supply and demand, not because some company is promising to do work that will make the token go up.
Crucially, regulators have added that a digital commodity does not carry intrinsic economic rights such as generating a passive yield or conveying a claim on the future income, profits, or assets of a business, which is exactly the kind of feature that would make something look like a security. The contrast that makes this concrete is the traditional commodity. Think of oil, wheat, or gold: these are produced by many different parties around the world, not issued by a single company to raise money for itself, and one unit is interchangeable with another, so one barrel of a given grade of oil is worth the same as any other. Their value comes from supply and demand and from their inherent usefulness, not from anyone’s promise of profit.
Regulators have long treated Bitcoin the same way, reasoning that it is produced by many disparate miners around the world, is fungible, and has no central issuer making promises, which makes it commodity-like rather than security-like. The digital-commodity category extends that logic to other tokens whose networks are sufficiently decentralized and functional that no central enterprise is driving their value through promised efforts. A digital commodity, then, is the crypto equivalent of gold or oil instead of the crypto equivalent of a company’s stock. That single distinction is what determines how it is regulated.
Security or commodity: the question that decides everything
To see why this classification carries such weight, you have to understand how differently the two categories are regulated. Securities, which include stocks and bonds, fall under the securities regulator, whose regime is built around investor protection through heavy obligations: companies issuing securities must register their offerings, provide extensive ongoing disclosures, and operate within a tightly controlled system of registered broker-dealers and exchanges, all backed by the threat of enforcement for non-compliance. The logic is that when people invest money expecting profit from someone else’s efforts, they need protection and information, so the law imposes a demanding framework. Commodities, by contrast, fall under the commodities regulator, whose regime is far lighter.
The commodities regulator oversees the derivatives markets for commodities, such as futures and options, and can pursue fraud and manipulation, but it does not impose the same registration-and-disclosure burden on the underlying asset. It also has limited direct authority over spot markets where commodities are bought and sold for immediate delivery, which is why the jurisdictional split codified by the CLARITY Act matters so much. The practical consequences of which bucket a token lands in are enormous, which is why the industry has fought over classification for years. If a token is a security, its issuer faces registration and disclosure requirements, the exchanges listing it face securities-law obligations, and institutions weighing whether to hold it confront the heavier compliance and restrictions that come with securities.
If the same token is a commodity, those burdens largely lift: listing is easier, compliance is lighter, and the path to building products around it, especially exchange-traded funds, becomes far more direct. Classification also determines which regulator writes the rules, who pays which fees, how custody is handled, and how much room institutions have to participate. Calling a token a security or a commodity is not a technicality; it is a decision that shapes whether a project can operate smoothly in the U.S. or faces a wall of regulatory friction. It also influences the token’s accessibility to the institutional capital that can move its price, which is why the definition of a digital commodity, and the process for deciding which tokens qualify, became one of the central battles in crypto policy.
The Howey test and the efforts of others
At the heart of the security-versus-commodity question sits a legal test that has governed it for decades: the Howey test. Derived from a Supreme Court case, the Howey test defines an investment contract, which is a type of security, as an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profits derived from the efforts of others. That last phrase, the efforts of others, is the crux. If you buy a token primarily because you expect a company or team to do work that will increase its value, the arrangement looks like a security, because your profit depends on their efforts.
If, instead, the token’s value comes from a decentralized network and market forces with no central party whose efforts you are relying on, it looks more like a commodity. The Howey test is why the same token can be treated differently depending on how it is sold and how mature its network is. This is also where one of the most important and confusing features of crypto classification comes from: a token’s status is not necessarily permanent. The Howey analysis depends on facts that can change as a project evolves.
A token might begin its life as a security, sold by a founding team to raise money for a network that does not yet exist, where buyers are clearly relying on the team’s efforts. Over time, if the network becomes genuinely functional and decentralized, with no central team driving its value, the same token can stop looking like a security and start looking like a commodity, because the efforts-of-others element fades away. This transition is the key conceptual move that everything else builds on, and it explains why regulators and lawmakers have struggled to draw clean lines: the line itself moves as a project matures. The 2026 regulatory interpretation adjusted the Howey analysis for crypto by requiring that an issuer affirmatively make representations or promises about its essential managerial efforts for there to be an investment contract, which sharpened the test in a way favorable to treating mature, decentralized tokens as commodities.
The March 2026 interpretation: a label, not a law
In March 2026 the security-versus-commodity question got its most significant answer yet, though an incomplete one. The securities regulator and the commodities regulator, which had spent years disagreeing over jurisdiction, jointly issued a formal interpretation that, for the first time, set out an agreed framework for classifying crypto assets. The interpretation sorted crypto into a taxonomy of categories, most of which are not securities: digital commodities, digital collectibles such as certain non-fungible tokens, digital tools that perform a utility function like membership or access, stablecoins, which sit in their own lane governed by separate stablecoin legislation, and digital securities, the one category that clearly is a security. Within that framework, the agencies named sixteen major tokens as examples of digital commodities, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP, alongside others such as Cardano, Litecoin, and even some memecoins, explicitly declaring that these assets are not securities and that their spot trading falls primarily under the commodities regulator.
This was a landmark moment, the first time the two top financial regulators agreed in writing on how to treat these assets, and it brought real clarity to the named tokens. But it carried a critical limitation that defines why the story does not end there. The interpretation is exactly that, an interpretation: a statement of how the agencies read existing law, binding on the agencies themselves in how they administer the law, but not a new statute passed by Congress. That distinction matters enormously, because an interpretation issued by agencies can be modified or reversed by those same agencies under a future administration.
The clarity it provides is real but conditional, resting on the current regulators’ chosen reading instead of on durable law. This is precisely why, even as the industry welcomed the interpretation, many participants, and even one of the regulators involved, called for Congress to act, because only legislation can turn a reversible interpretation into permanent law. Stablecoins sit in their own separate lane, which is why the law governing the stablecoin category matters alongside the CLARITY Act rather than inside the same commodity bucket. Digital securities, meanwhile, remain a separate class, and the rise of the digital-securities category shows why not every on-chain asset belongs under commodity-style treatment.
How the CLARITY Act reclassifies crypto
The CLARITY Act, formally the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, is the legislative effort to take the digital-commodity concept and write it into federal statute, giving it the permanence the 2026 interpretation lacks. The bill would create a statutory framework that sorts digital assets into categories and assigns them to regulators, with digital commodities placed under the commodities regulator and securities remaining with the securities regulator. In doing so, it would codify the jurisdictional split that the interpretation expressed, so that the division of authority between the two agencies rests on law instead of on an agreement that could be undone. A companion measure moving through the agriculture committee, sometimes called the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, would give the commodities regulator formal jurisdiction over the spot markets for digital commodities, addressing the long-standing gap in which that regulator could oversee derivatives but had limited authority over everyday spot trading.
The conceptual heart of how the CLARITY Act reclassifies crypto is a principle of separating the asset from the way it is offered and sold. Under this approach, the act recognizes that a token can be sold in a transaction that is an investment contract, and therefore a security at the point of that sale, while the underlying token itself can be a digital commodity. This separation is what allows the law to handle the awkward reality that the same token can look like a security in one context and a commodity in another. It means the securities regulator retains authority over primary-market fundraising, when a project first sells tokens to raise capital and buyers are relying on the team’s efforts, as well as over assets that truly function as investment contracts, while the commodities regulator takes over the secondary-market trading of digital commodities once a token’s network is mature.
By writing this structure into statute, the CLARITY Act would replace the case-by-case, lawsuit-driven approach of the past, in which classification was fought out one enforcement action at a time, with a predictable framework that issuers and exchanges can read in advance. That shift, from regulation by enforcement to regulation by clear rule, is what the industry treats as the bill’s central promise. It is also why the bill’s contested path matters so much: until the bill becomes law, the digital-commodity framework remains partly dependent on agency interpretation rather than statutory permanence. The category may now be easier to understand, but it still needs Congress to make it durable.
The maturity test: how a token moves from security to commodity
The cleverest and most important mechanism in the CLARITY Act is the one that lets a token change categories as its network matures, because it directly addresses the moving-line problem that Howey created. The bill creates a maturity test, a set of criteria for determining when a blockchain system has become decentralized and functional enough that its token should be treated as a digital commodity instead of as part of a securities offering. The underlying idea follows directly from the efforts-of-others principle: a token sold early in a project’s life, when a central team is building the network and buyers are betting on that team’s success, fits the securities framework. Once the network is truly up and running and no longer dependent on a central group’s managerial efforts, the justification for securities treatment fades, and the token can graduate to commodity status.
This creates what is sometimes called a maturity on-ramp, a path by which a token can begin under securities oversight and, as its network decentralizes and meets the maturity criteria, transition to commodity oversight. The criteria for maturity center on decentralization: roughly, whether the system operates without any single person or affiliated group exercising outsized control over the network or its value, whether it is functional, and whether its governance and operation are truly distributed. A blockchain that meets the test is treated as mature, and its native token is treated as a digital commodity. This mechanism is what makes the CLARITY Act more sophisticated than a simple fixed list of which tokens are commodities.
Instead of freezing classifications in place, it provides a rule for how a token earns commodity status by becoming the kind of decentralized network that commodity treatment is meant for. It is also, as the limits section notes, one of the most contested parts of the bill, because deciding exactly how decentralized is decentralized enough is truly difficult, and the definition the bill uses has been criticized from multiple directions. But the basic design, a test that lets status follow the reality of a network’s maturity instead of being fixed at launch, is the conceptual engine of how the CLARITY Act would reclassify crypto. It gives projects a legal path from fundraising-stage oversight to mature-network treatment, rather than forcing every dispute into the courts.
What reclassification actually changes
For everyday holders and for the market, the abstract question of classification translates into concrete consequences, so it is worth being specific about what changes when a token is treated as a digital commodity. The most immediate effect is on financial products, above all exchange-traded funds. An asset classified as a commodity follows a far more direct regulatory path to a spot ETF than a security does, which is why the digital-commodity designation has been linked to a surge of pending ETF applications across many tokens. For an investor, this matters because spot ETFs are often the most convenient and trusted way for both retail and institutional money to gain exposure to an asset, so commodity status can widen access and bring in new demand.
Reclassification also eases how exchanges list a token, since listing a commodity does not carry the securities-law obligations that listing a security does, and it lowers the compliance burden across the board. The change extends to institutions and to specific crypto activities. Large institutions, including asset managers and pension funds, generally face fewer restrictions holding commodity-classified assets than security-classified ones, so commodity status can unlock institutional participation that securities treatment would discourage. The 2026 interpretation also clarified that certain activities long shadowed by securities-law uncertainty, including protocol staking and the wrapping of tokens, are not in themselves securities transactions when conducted within defined boundaries, which removed legal risk that had pushed some platforms to suspend staking services.
To make the journey concrete, consider a token’s path under this framework: it might launch through a sale that is an investment contract, a security at that moment, with its issuer subject to securities obligations. Then, as its network grows decentralized and functional and meets the maturity test, the token itself comes to be treated as a digital commodity, its spot trading moves under the commodities regulator, exchanges can list it more easily, an ETF becomes feasible, and institutions grow more comfortable holding it. That arc, from security at birth to commodity at maturity, is the practical shape of what the CLARITY Act’s reclassification is designed to enable. It is why the industry views statutory clarity as the gateway to the next phase of adoption.
Limits, risks, and what is still unsettled
For all its significance, the digital-commodity framework comes with real limits and unresolved tensions that an honest account must address. The first and most important is the gap between interpretation and law. The 2026 classification of sixteen tokens as digital commodities is an agency interpretation, binding on the agencies but reversible by a future administration, which means the clarity it provides is conditional instead of permanent until Congress acts. And the legislation meant to make it durable, the CLARITY Act, has not become law; it has advanced through the House and a Senate committee but still faces a contested path, so the statutory permanence the industry wants is not yet secured.
Beyond the interpretation-versus-statute problem, several substantive concerns persist. The definition of decentralization at the core of the maturity test is truly hard to pin down, and critics argue the version in play is too narrow or too vague, which could lead to inconsistent or contestable classifications. There is a meaningful investor-protection tradeoff: moving an asset out of the securities regime and into the commodity regime means lighter disclosure requirements and fewer of the protections securities law provides, which supporters see as appropriate for decentralized assets but critics warn could leave holders more exposed, particularly because crypto can be more susceptible to manipulation than registered securities and direct crypto holdings do not carry the same regulatory safeguards. Classification can also remain context-dependent: even a token treated as a commodity in secondary trading could be part of a securities transaction if it is later sold subject to an investment-contract arrangement promising profits.
The whole area remains politically contested, with the CLARITY Act facing objections over its decentralized-finance provisions, its treatment of stablecoin yield, and ethics questions, any of which could reshape or stall it. The honest summary is that the digital-commodity category represents real and welcome progress toward clarity, but it currently stands on reversible interpretive ground, depends on legislation that has not passed, relies on a maturity test that is hard to define, and carries genuine investor-protection tradeoffs. It is a meaningful step in defining how crypto is regulated, not a finished or settled answer.
Frequently asked questions
What is a digital commodity in simple terms?
A digital commodity is a crypto asset whose value comes from how its blockchain works and from ordinary supply and demand, instead of from a company promising to do work that makes the token go up. That makes it the crypto equivalent of gold or oil instead of a company’s stock. Because no central enterprise is driving its value through promised efforts, it is treated like a commodity under the lighter-touch commodities regulator instead of as a security under the heavier securities regulator. Regulators have long treated Bitcoin this way and, in 2026, extended the label to other sufficiently decentralized tokens such as Ethereum, XRP, and Solana.
Why does it matter whether a token is a security or a commodity?
Because the two are regulated completely differently, and the difference shapes nearly everything. A security falls under the securities regulator’s heavy regime of registration, disclosure, and trading restrictions designed to protect investors. A commodity falls under the commodities regulator’s far lighter regime, which oversees derivatives and pursues fraud but imposes much less burden on the underlying asset. Commodity status makes a token easier to list, lighter to comply with, more accessible to institutions, and far closer to qualifying for a spot exchange-traded fund.
Which cryptocurrencies are digital commodities?
In March 2026 the securities and commodities regulators jointly named sixteen major tokens as examples of digital commodities, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP, along with others such as Cardano, Litecoin, Stellar, and some memecoins. The list was described as not closed, meaning other assets could qualify. The common thread is that these tokens derive their value from decentralized, functional networks instead of from a central team’s promised efforts. It is important to note this came from an agency interpretation instead of a law, so while it gave real clarity to those tokens, the classification rests on interpretive footing that could change until Congress passes durable legislation.
How does the CLARITY Act reclassify crypto?
The CLARITY Act would write the digital-commodity category into federal statute, placing digital commodities under the commodities regulator and securities under the securities regulator, codifying the jurisdictional split so it rests on law instead of a reversible interpretation. Its key mechanism is separating the asset from how it is sold: a token can be sold in a securities transaction while the underlying token is a digital commodity. The securities regulator keeps authority over fundraising and genuine investment contracts, while the commodities regulator takes over secondary trading of mature digital commodities. This replaces the old case-by-case enforcement approach with a predictable, statutory framework.
What is the maturity test?
The maturity test is the CLARITY Act’s mechanism for letting a token move from security to commodity as its network matures. The idea follows from the principle that a token sold early, when a central team is building the network and buyers rely on that team’s efforts, fits the securities framework, but once the network is truly decentralized and functional, no longer dependent on a central group, the token can graduate to digital-commodity status. The criteria center on decentralization: whether any single person or group exercises outsized control, whether the system is functional, and whether its operation is truly distributed. It creates a maturity on-ramp instead of freezing a token’s status at launch, though defining decentralization precisely remains contested.
Is a digital commodity safer or less regulated than a security?
It is less heavily regulated, which cuts both ways. Commodity status means lighter compliance, easier listing, and broader access, which the industry views as appropriate for decentralized assets and a driver of adoption. But it also means fewer of the disclosure requirements and investor protections that securities law provides, so holders may be more exposed, particularly because crypto can be more susceptible to manipulation than registered securities and direct crypto holdings lack the same safeguards. Commodity status is also not a permanent, blanket shield, since a token could still be part of a securities transaction if later sold with profit promises.
This article is educational information, not legal, financial, or tax advice. The classification of crypto assets, the status of the 2026 regulatory interpretation, and the progress of the CLARITY Act reflect information available as of June 28, 2026, and can change. Regulatory classifications can be modified, and the legal treatment of any specific token may differ by context and jurisdiction. Verify current details from primary sources and consult a qualified professional before making any decision.
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.
Trading volume for tokenized stocks and ETFs surged 288% to a record $11.3 billion in July, though most of the increase came from a single Binance-linked token.
Binance bStocks accounted for $9.41 billion, or 83.3% of the total, according to CoinDesk Data’s latest Stablecoins & Tokenized Assets report. A bStocks token, QQQB, tracking Invesco’s QQQ ETF, generated $9.27 billion alone, equivalent to roughly 82% of all tokenized-equity volume.
Excluding QQQB, July volume was roughly $2.03 billion, about 30% below the market’s implied June total of $2.91 billion. xStocks volume dropped to $335 million from $1.55 billion, while Ondo recorded $792 million and Backpack $479 million, the report details.
QQQB began trading on Binance on June 30 with zero maker fees through Aug. 31. Binance also began counting stocks and bStocks volume at three times its traded value for some users seeking higher VIP tiers on July 23, though the multiplier does not alter actual trading volume.
York Mosque welcomes community after man arrested outside
Thirteen die in tourist plane crash over Peru’s Nazca Lines, TVPeru says
Goldman traders are on pace for a record year. A close-up look at how they’re doing it
-
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
-
Politics23 hours agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics5 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World5 hours agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics4 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 World14 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