A Senate cloture vote, a Federal Reserve decision where hike odds just jumped to 86.5%, Pi Network’s final planned upgrade, and the Bank of Japan. Three of the four are scheduled. The one driving everything was not on anyone’s calendar two weeks ago.

Crypto spends most of its time waiting for things that never quite happen. This week is the opposite problem. Between Tuesday and Friday, the Senate votes on whether to begin debating the bill that would define every digital asset in America, Pi Network ships the last upgrade on its published roadmap, the Federal Reserve announces a decision that markets have suddenly repriced toward a rate hike, and the Bank of Japan meets. Four events, five days, and each of them capable of moving prices on its own. What makes the week unusual is not the density. It is that the three events everyone has been watching for months are probably less consequential than the one that appeared out of nowhere: a jump in hike expectations from 69.4% on Friday to 86.5% on Monday, driven substantially by an oil spike following attacks on Saudi infrastructure. Crypto has never traded through a Federal Reserve tightening cycle as an institutional asset class. It is about to find out what that looks like, and it is looking the wrong way.

Tuesday: the vote that is not a vote

The CLARITY Act cloture vote lands at 2:15 p.m. Eastern, and precision about what it is prevents a great deal of misreading.

This is cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. It requires sixty votes. Passing it means the Senate begins debating the bill. It does not enact anything, and success would leave a second cloture vote, an amendment process, and House concurrence still ahead.

The arithmetic has not moved. Republicans hold 53 seats with at least two defections expected, which requires seven or more Democrats to cross. The Democrats who negotiated through the summer walked away in July over the ethics provision, and what has changed since is a reported White House concession on expanded conflict-of-interest rules and state-level enforcement powers, which addresses their specific objection.

Senate Republicans also released a revised text hours before the vote, expanding the bill from roughly 616 pages to 635, including a definition that would classify XRP as a commodity in secondary markets regardless of Ripple’s holdings.

Estimates of eventual passage sit between ten and twenty percent depending on the source, with prediction markets at the higher end and research desks at the lower. Our status page tracks where the bill stands.

Tuesday: Pi ships its last planned upgrade

The same day, Pi Network activates Protocol 27 on mainnet, the final upgrade on its published core roadmap, adding flexible smart contract authentication and groundwork for a native decentralised exchange. Node operators must reach version 27.1 or fall out of sync with the network.

The context is what makes it interesting. PI trades near $0.098 with a market capitalisation around $1.09 billion and daily volume of roughly $7.85 million, which is thin against that capitalisation. The token sits roughly 96.7% below its $2.99 high. Total value locked in Pi’s decentralised finance ecosystem is zero dollars.

Its testnet launchpad drew 242,000 participants and 15.92 million in test commitments, which is genuine engagement. Against that, roughly 16.6 million of a claimed 60 million engaged users have migrated to mainnet, a conversion rate near 27.6%, and approximately 6.5 million PI unlock daily against a network that has never burned a token.

So an upgrade delivering decentralised exchange infrastructure arrives at a chain with no decentralised finance activity, where roughly three quarters of the userbase cannot reach what it delivers. Our coverage of that gap examined the economics underneath it.

Wednesday: the one that actually matters

Here is where the week turns, and it is the event nobody was positioned for.

Market-implied odds of a 25 basis point rate increase at Wednesday’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting jumped to 86.5% on Monday, from 69.4% the previous Friday. That is a substantial repricing inside one trading session.

The driver was geopolitical. Attacks on Saudi pipeline infrastructure, including reported strikes on residential areas and a mosque, pushed oil roughly 11% higher over five days. Higher energy prices feed directly into inflation expectations, and inflation expectations feed directly into the case for tightening.

Two things about this deserve emphasis.

Crypto has no experience of this. Bitcoin existed through the 2022 tightening cycle, but as a considerably smaller, less institutionally held asset. Spot ETFs did not exist. Treasury companies held a fraction of what they hold now. Pension and endowment allocations were negligible. The asset class that faces a hike on Wednesday is structurally different from the one that faced the last cycle, with far more of its holder base subject to conventional portfolio construction rules that respond mechanically to rate moves.

And the market is watching the wrong thing. Crypto coverage this week has been dominated by the cloture vote. A cloture vote determines whether a legislative process continues. A rate decision determines the discount rate applied to every risk asset on earth, including this one. If the Fed hikes and crypto falls, the coverage will search for a crypto explanation, and the explanation will be in the dollar.

Friday: Japan closes the week

The Bank of Japan’s decision on September 18 completes the set, and it matters for a reason that is indirect and historically underestimated.

Japanese policy has been the anchor of global carry trades for years. When the BOJ moves, leveraged positions funded in yen get repriced, and the unwinding that follows reaches assets with no obvious connection to Japan. August 2024 provided the demonstration: a BOJ adjustment triggered a global deleveraging in which crypto fell sharply alongside equities, for reasons that had nothing to do with anything happening in crypto.

That is the tail risk in this week. Not that any single event is catastrophic, but that a hawkish Fed on Wednesday followed by a BOJ move on Friday compounds into a funding-conditions shift, and funding conditions are what leveraged crypto positions are made of.

What is actually priced

Reading the market’s positioning matters more than the calendar, and the signals are mixed in an informative way.

Total crypto market capitalisation sits near $2.69 trillion, down roughly 0.9%. Bitcoin trades around $77,453 with dominance at 57.9%, ether near $2,502, XRP at $1.40, and Solana at $101.92.

The Fear and Greed Index reads 57, down from 61 the previous day and 71 a week earlier. That is a market drifting from greed toward neutral, which is a positioning signal, not a panic one.

Bitcoin dominance near 58% is the more informative number. Rising dominance in a flat-to-down market means capital rotating toward the largest asset, which is what participants do when they expect volatility and want liquidity. The market is not selling; it is consolidating into the position it wants to hold through an uncertain week.

What that pricing does not obviously reflect is the Fed. The hike repricing happened Monday. Crypto’s move was modest. Either the market has concluded a 25 basis point increase is already absorbed, or it has not finished processing a repricing that occurred less than a day ago. Those are very different conclusions and only one of them is comfortable.

The asymmetry in each event

Worth separating, because the four are not equivalent in how they can move things.

CLARITY is asymmetric to the upside and small in both directions. Failure changes nothing operationally; the framework governing crypto today is a joint SEC-CFTC interpretive release that continues regardless. Success starts a process. The token most exposed is XRP, which has rallied on procedural CLARITY news twice this year and given both moves back.

Protocol 27 is contained. A Pi-specific event affecting a $1.09 billion token with $7.85 million in daily volume. It matters enormously to Pi holders and barely registers elsewhere.

The Fed is asymmetric to the downside and large. A hike is now the expected outcome, so the hike itself is partly priced. What is not priced is the guidance: whether this is the start of a cycle or a one-off response to an energy shock. A hawkish path repriced on Wednesday reaches every asset.

And the BOJ is a tail. Most likely nothing. Occasionally the thing that unwinds global leverage in seventy-two hours.

Ranked by expected impact, the order is almost exactly the inverse of the attention each is receiving in crypto media this week.

The scenario table

Because the events interact, the useful exercise is not forecasting each one but mapping how the combinations land. Four rough configurations cover most of the probability.

Cloture fails, Fed hikes hawkishly. The worst combination and not the least likely. Crypto loses a narrative catalyst it had partly priced and takes a discount-rate hit in the same week, with the coverage attributing the whole move to the vote because the vote is the crypto-native story. Bitcoin dominance would likely rise further as capital consolidates, and the assets most exposed are the ones that rallied on legislative hope, XRP foremost among them.

Cloture fails, Fed hikes with dovish guidance. The energy shock is framed as transitory, the path stays shallow, and the legislative disappointment is absorbed within days because nothing operational changed. This is the most probable configuration by most readings and the least dramatic.

Cloture succeeds, Fed hikes hawkishly. The confusing one. A crypto-positive procedural outcome into a tightening signal, producing a market that cannot decide which input dominates. Expect a sharp move in either direction followed by a reversal, which is what markets do when two large signals conflict.

Cloture succeeds, Fed hikes with dovish guidance. The favourable case, and the one where the risk is overreaction. A cloture vote is a procedural step toward a bill that still needs a second cloture vote, an amendment process, and House concurrence. XRP has priced legislative progress as legislative success twice this year and given both moves back.

The Bank of Japan sits across all four as a multiplier. In three of them it is probably irrelevant. In the first, a hawkish BOJ on Friday turns a bad week into a deleveraging event.

What the table is for is not prediction. It is to have decided in advance what each combination means, because the one thing guaranteed this week is that the explanations offered in real time will be wrong at least half the time.

Why this week is a test of the institutional thesis

Underneath the calendar sits a question the sector has been arguing about since the ETFs launched, and this week supplies unusually clean evidence.

The institutional thesis holds that crypto has matured into an asset class held by allocators with mandates, risk frameworks, and portfolio construction rules. The implication, usually left unstated, is that this makes the market more stable, because professional holders do not panic the way retail does.

The counter-thesis is that institutionalisation changes the correlation instead of reducing the volatility. Allocators with mandates respond to macro inputs mechanically. When the discount rate rises, risk assets get repriced across the board, and an asset held inside conventional portfolios gets repriced with them regardless of its own fundamentals.

This week distinguishes between them. If crypto absorbs a hawkish Fed with limited damage while crypto-specific news drives the tape, the first thesis has evidence. If a rate decision moves crypto more than a Senate vote on the bill defining its legal existence, the second one does.

The structural change since the last tightening cycle makes the test meaningful. Spot ETFs now hold substantial assets. Treasury companies hold hundreds of thousands of bitcoin, and as our coverage of the largest one documented, several have stopped accumulating. Pension and endowment allocations exist where they did not. Each of those is a holder whose behaviour is governed by something other than conviction about the asset.

The honest expectation is that the second thesis wins this week, because it has won every comparable week since the ETFs launched. What would be genuinely informative is if it did not.

What a hike would actually do to crypto

Worth being concrete, because “rates up, risk assets down” is a slogan, not a mechanism, and the mechanism has several distinct channels.

The discount rate channel. Every asset with cash flows far in the future gets valued by discounting them, and a higher rate makes distant cash flows worth less today. Bitcoin has no cash flows, which sounds like immunity and is the opposite: an asset valued entirely on expectations of future adoption is pure duration, and pure duration is what a rate move hits hardest.

The opportunity cost channel. When Treasury bills pay a meaningful risk-free rate, the bar an alternative asset must clear rises. This is the channel that reaches allocators most directly, because a portfolio construction model with a higher risk-free input mechanically reduces the weight assigned to volatile assets without anyone forming an opinion about crypto.

The funding channel. Leveraged positions cost more to carry when rates rise. In crypto this compounds because perpetual futures funding, margin lending, and the basis trade all reprice together, and a large share of open interest exists specifically to harvest spreads that narrow when funding costs rise.

And the dollar channel. Tightening generally strengthens the dollar, and a stronger dollar is a headwind for anything priced in it. This channel is why crypto frequently moves inversely to the dollar index on days with no crypto news at all.

Four channels, all pointing the same direction, none of them requiring any participant to change their view of the technology. That is why the Fed matters more than the Senate this week, and it is also why the coverage will miss it: none of these channels produces a headline with a crypto noun in it.

The events nobody scheduled

Three of this week’s four were on the calendar months ago. The one driving the repricing was not, and that asymmetry is the durable lesson rather than anything specific to September.

Attacks on Saudi pipeline infrastructure pushed oil roughly 11% higher over five days, and that move did more to change market expectations than anything on the crypto calendar. Nobody’s positioning accounted for it, because nobody’s positioning could.

This happens with some regularity and crypto handles it badly, for a structural reason. The sector maintains an extensive calendar of its own: unlock schedules, upgrade dates, ETF decision deadlines, regulatory milestones, conference keynotes. That calendar is genuinely useful and it creates a habit of attention that points inward. A market conditioned to watch its own schedule is poorly positioned for the events that arrive from outside it.

The August 2024 episode is the cleanest example. A Bank of Japan adjustment triggered a global deleveraging and crypto fell sharply, and for two days the sector searched for a crypto-native explanation because the actual cause was a central bank most crypto participants had never thought about.

The practical adjustment is not to abandon the crypto calendar, which contains real information. It is to hold it alongside the macro one and to recognise which is more likely to move prices on any given week. This week, three scheduled crypto events sit alongside two central bank decisions and one geopolitical shock, and the ranking by expected impact runs almost exactly opposite to the ranking by coverage volume.

That inversion is not unusual. It is the normal state of the sector’s attention, visible this week because the calendar happens to make it obvious.

The week after

Whatever happens between Tuesday and Friday, the following week is where the consequences actually appear, and three of them are worth anticipating now.

The CLARITY aftermath resolves fast. If cloture succeeds, the amendment process begins immediately and the newest provisions in the 635-page text become targets. If it fails, leadership makes a statement within a day about refiling, restructuring, or moving on, and that statement is more informative than the vote itself. Either way, the question is answered by roughly Thursday.

The Fed’s effect takes longer to read. A single day’s price reaction to a rate decision is mostly noise, because positioning unwinds and rebuilds over several sessions. The meaningful signal is where funding rates, open interest, and the futures basis sit a week later, since those describe whether leverage is being rebuilt or has actually left. Watching the price on Wednesday afternoon tells you very little.

And Pi’s upgrade is measurable on a different clock entirely. Total value locked at zero is the baseline, and whether decentralised exchange infrastructure produces any activity is a question answered over weeks, not days. Node operator compliance with version 27.1 is the immediate test; ecosystem usage is the real one.

One further thing worth holding. Weeks like this generate an enormous volume of explanation, and most of it is written within hours of events by people who have not seen the second-order effects. The 635-page bill has not been read by anyone describing it. The Fed’s guidance has not been parsed. The interaction between a hawkish Fed and a BOJ decision three days later cannot be assessed until both have happened.

The useful posture is to decide in advance what each outcome would mean, which is what the scenario section above is for, and then to check the interpretation against what actually happens instead of against what the coverage says happened. In a week with this much scheduled noise, the gap between those two is where most of the mistakes get made.

What to watch

The CLARITY roll call, not the result. Which Democrats vote yes determines whether a second attempt is viable and what it would cost.

Fed guidance, not the decision. A 25 basis point increase is now the base case at 86.5%. The dot plot and the press conference determine whether this is one move or a path, and the path is what gets repriced.

Oil. The proximate cause of the hike repricing. If the Saudi disruption resolves and crude retreats, the rate expectation follows it down, and the entire framing of the week changes.

Bitcoin dominance through the week. Rising dominance into events signals defensive positioning. If it keeps climbing after Wednesday, the market is expecting more volatility rather than less.

Pi’s on-chain activity after Protocol 27. Total value locked at zero is the baseline. Whether an upgrade delivering decentralised exchange infrastructure produces any is answerable within weeks and is the only real test of whether the roadmap mattered.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Market data, rate expectations, and scheduled events reflect information available at the time of writing and change continuously. Nothing here predicts any outcome. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of September 15, 2026.

Key takeaways

• Dogecoin is trading near $0.083 after finding support around its key moving averages.
• Spot DOGE ETF activity remains quiet, signaling weak institutional conviction.
• DOGE’s long-to-short ratio has fallen to a one-month low of 0.66, reflecting bearish positioning.
• Positive funding of 0.0010% provides a modest bullish signal but does not eliminate downside risks.

Dogecoin (DOGE) traded below $0.083 on Tuesday after finding support around a crucial technical zone during the previous session.

The meme coin remains above its 50-day and 100-day exponential moving averages, providing a foundation for a potential recovery. However, subdued institutional demand, bearish long-to-short positioning, and cautious on-chain signals indicate that buyers have yet to regain strong conviction.

DOGE is now at a make-or-break level. Holding above its nearby moving averages could support another advance, while a breakdown may expose the token to a deeper correction.

Dogecoin ETF demand remains subdued

SoSoValue data shows that US spot Dogecoin exchange-traded funds have recorded little activity since last week.

The lack of meaningful inflows suggests institutional investors remain hesitant to increase exposure despite DOGE’s recovery from approximately $0.070.

Continued stagnation would deprive the token of an important source of demand. If ETF flows turn negative, selling pressure could increase and undermine Dogecoin’s attempt to establish a short-term bottom.

Dogecoin’s derivatives market offers conflicting indications about trader sentiment. CoinGlass data shows that DOGE’s long-to-short ratio fell to 0.84 on Tuesday, its lowest level in more than a month. 

A reading below 1 means short positions outnumber longs, indicating that more traders expect the price to decline.

Funding rates paint a slightly more optimistic picture. Dogecoin’s open interest-weighted funding rate turned positive on September 9 and stood at 0.0010% on Tuesday.

A positive funding rate means long-position holders are paying short sellers, reflecting some demand for bullish leveraged positions. However, the rate remains modest and does not fully offset the bearish message from the long-to-short ratio.

CryptoQuant’s market summary also points to a mildly bearish outlook. Large whale orders are appearing in Dogecoin’s futures market, but sell-side activity remains dominant. Spot-market conditions are heating up, while several other indicators remain neutral.

Together, these readings suggest that larger traders are active but are not necessarily accumulating DOGE aggressively. The market remains vulnerable to further weakness unless buying pressure strengthens.

DOGE holds above short-term moving averages

Dogecoin is trading above its 50-day EMA at $0.081 and its 100-day EMA at $0.082. This cluster forms the token’s immediate support zone.

However, DOGE remains below the 200-day EMA at $0.092, keeping its broader technical structure neutral to bearish.

The Relative Strength Index sits near 47, indicating balanced momentum between buyers and sellers. Meanwhile, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence line remains slightly below zero, showing that bullish momentum is still limited.

DOGE’s first notable resistance sits near $0.088. A breakout above that level could allow buyers to challenge the 200-day EMA at $0.092. If that barrier is cleared, the next significant supply zone would emerge around $0.102.

On the downside, losing the $0.081–$0.082 EMA cluster would weaken the short-term recovery. The next major support lies at $0.070, and a daily close below that level could trigger a more substantial retracement.

Solana raised its maximum transaction size from 1,232 bytes to 4,096 bytes to allow developers to fit more complex operations into a single transaction, including zero-knowledge proofs and new onchain signature schemes.

The upgrade was activated on mainnet on Tuesday at the start of epoch 1,035 around 1:00 am UTC, according to blockchain data shared by the Solana Foundation.

The upgrade also introduced the v1 transaction format, which maintains full backward compatibility with legacy transactions. Existing transaction formats continue working for applications and wallet providers, but protocols that want to benefit from the size increase need to update to v1 transactions.

A spokesperson for the Solana Foundation told Cointelegraph that the upgrade mainly aims to help developers “do more” with applications such as zero-knowledge proofs, transactions requiring multiple signatures and new onchain signature schemes, by unlocking workloads that previously couldn’t fit inside a single transaction.

In August, Solana reduced its slot time from 400 milliseconds to 350ms. In June, the Solana Foundation shared plans to reduce slot times from 400ms to 200ms, arguing that it would improve latency and accelerate confirmations on the blockchain network.

Solana validators approved on Aug. 28 a proposal to double the network’s annual disinflation rate, reducing future issuance of Solana (SOL), the network’s native token.

Related: Solana sees record 263K tokens issued in a single day

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

Revolut has notified 680 customers after cybercriminals used a legitimate government email account to obtain sensitive identity, banking and Bitcoin-related records.

The Financial Times reported that the fintech contacted 680 people identified during its initial investigation, while Revolut itself has publicly described the affected group only as a “very limited” number of customers. The company has not released an official numerical count.

Revolut confirmed that an unauthorized third party submitted fraudulent information requests from an email account using a legitimate government agency domain. The company treated the requests as genuine before discovering the impersonation scheme.

Revolut data breach came through a legitimate government domain

Unlike an intrusion into Revolut’s own network, the incident involved information being released after deceptive requests reached the company through an apparently authentic government channel. Revolut described the episode as a “sophisticated external impersonation scam.”

A customer notice reviewed by TechCrunch said the communication carried valid domain-authentication credentials, which led Revolut to believe it had received a genuine government request. The company has not named the agency involved or explained publicly how the third party gained control of the government email account.

Revolut said it blocked the address once the fraud was detected and contacted the government agency concerned, law enforcement, data-protection authorities and financial regulators. A spokesperson maintained that “Revolut systems and customer funds are unaffected.”

Advertisement

The company’s public page for official information requests directs competent authorities and legal representatives to a dedicated court-orders address. It asks authorities to submit one email for each case, although Revolut has not publicly described which verification steps were applied to the fraudulent requests involved in the breach.

As crypto.news reported when the incident first emerged, on-chain investigator ZachXBT circulated a copy of a customer notification and said the incident appeared limited in size and potentially focused on high-net-worth users. Revolut has not confirmed that assessment.

Exposed data included identity files and Bitcoin activity

Customer notices reviewed by multiple outlets listed a large range of personal information that may have been disclosed. The records included full names, dates of birth, occupations, home addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers.

Copies of passports or driver’s licenses and the selfies submitted during identity verification were among the listed records. Revolut’s notice distinguished those verification images from biometric facial telemetry, which it said was not part of the information involved.

Advertisement

Financial information went beyond basic account details. Customer statements could contain IBANs, account-opening dates, account status, withdrawal records and complete transaction histories. For crypto customers, the material included Bitcoin transactions and wallet reference numbers shown in account records.

The notice did not state that private keys, account passwords or full payment-card credentials were supplied to the unauthorized requester. It listed categories of records that may have been disclosed, meaning the available evidence does not establish that every affected person had every listed category exposed.

The Financial Times later reported that former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès was among the affected customers. Karpelès said Revolut emailed him at 5:25 a.m. on Sept. 12 warning that his information may have been compromised.

Karpelès questioned why the fintech released the records even though the request came from a verified government address. His criticism represents his assessment of Revolut’s handling of the request and not a regulatory finding against the company.

Advertisement

Crypto.news has detailed Karpelès’ history as the former operator of Mt. Gox, the Bitcoin exchange that collapsed in 2014 following the loss of customer cryptocurrency.

Extortion claims emerge as customer files surface

People claiming responsibility for the incident have threatened to release customer information unless Revolut pays an extortion demand, according to the Financial Times and Recorded Future News. Revolut declined to comment to Recorded Future News on whether it had received or was responding to an extortion demand.

Recorded Future News reported that material circulated through a Telegram account claiming involvement in the incident. One customer whose information appeared in the material did not dispute its authenticity, while cryptocurrency entrepreneur Marc Zeller separately said information belonging to him had been exposed.

Parts of the attackers’ story remain unverified. The Telegram account suggested that the government email came from an Italian domain, but Recorded Future News said it could not confirm all details in the account’s posts. Italian authorities contacted by the publication had not responded, and the Telegram account was later suspended.

Advertisement

Revolut has not publicly identified the government agency whose email system was used. No official statement located as of Sept. 15 establishes how the account was compromised, whether credentials were stolen, or whether the same government email access was used against other financial institutions.

The FBI has previously warned companies about criminals obtaining access to law-enforcement and government email accounts and using them to submit fraudulent emergency data requests. Recorded Future News noted that similar tactics were used against technology companies during earlier attacks involving compromised law-enforcement accounts.

UK privacy regulator is investigating the disclosure

Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office has opened an investigation after Revolut reported the incident, the Financial Times reported Monday. An investigation does not by itself establish that Revolut breached UK data-protection law.

Under ICO guidance, organizations generally must notify the regulator within 72 hours of becoming aware of a reportable personal-data breach. Where an incident creates a high risk to individuals’ rights and freedoms, affected people must be informed without undue delay.

Advertisement

Revolut said it directly contacted the customers it believed were affected. Its public statement says it notified the relevant government agency, enforcement bodies, data-protection authorities and financial regulators after identifying the fraudulent requests.

The case arrives months after Revolut received approval to operate a full UK bank. As crypto.news reported in March, Prudential Regulation Authority approval allowed Revolut Bank UK to begin operating with banking status and deposit protection for eligible customer deposits. Crypto trading remains outside that deposit-protection structure.

Revolut serves more than 80 million customers worldwide, according to the company figure cited by TechCrunch and Recorded Future News. The 680 people identified by the Financial Times represent the current reported count from the investigation and should not be treated as a final figure unless Revolut or regulators publish an updated total.

The ICO’s published guidance says investigators may examine the type of data exposed, the number of people involved, potential harm and the technical or organizational safeguards used before deciding whether regulatory action is warranted.

Advertisement

What’s different about today’s AI?

Momentum for the CLARITY Act in the US Senate has cooled sharply after a brief optimism spike on Polymarket. Odds that the bill would become law this year climbed the day before, then fell again on Monday as Democrats raised concerns that the latest Republican proposal still does not satisfy their conditions—particularly around ethics enforcement.

Republicans have reportedly offered revised language that expands ethics provisions, and Polymarket had earlier reflected that shift with odds rising to around 35%. By Monday, however, traders saw the prospects weaken, with the odds dropping as low as 16%. The outcome matters not just for legislative timing: the CLARITY Act would influence how the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) divide oversight responsibilities across the crypto market.

Key takeaways

• Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year fell sharply again on Monday, after having spiked earlier.
• Democrats involved in negotiations reportedly said the revised Republican ethics language is still insufficient.
• Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill; a failed vote could delay legislation that affects SEC–CFTC jurisdiction.
• Separate opposition is coming from tribal gaming interests and multiple banking trade groups, citing both prediction-market concerns and stablecoin loopholes.

Why Polymarket’s odds reversed

Polymarket traders initially responded positively to a newly revised Republican proposal, viewing added ethics provisions as a step toward agreement. The event page tied to the claim that the act would be signed into law in 2026 showed odds reaching about 35% following the disclosure of the updated text, as covered earlier by Cointelegraph in reporting on “US Republicans send final CLARITY Act offer to Democrats” (https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-republicans-send-final-clarity-act-offer-to-democrats).

But as reservations about that revised language surfaced among Democrats, confidence cooled. The Polymarket odds slid again during Monday trading, indicating that market participants began pricing in a lower probability that the bill could clear the procedural hurdle required to move toward a floor vote.

Senator Mark Warner—who is described in negotiations coverage as being involved in the talks—reportedly indicated that the revised ethics provision did not go far enough. Separately, reporting referenced in the original coverage points to Democrats preparing a counterproposal on Monday, suggesting that talks had not yet reached the kind of consensus needed to lock down support.

Ethics provisions remain the sticking point

Much of Monday’s shift appears tied to how Democrats interpret the revised ethics terms. Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen reported that Senator Raphael Warnock said Democrats should not advance legislation that fails to address corruption risks happening “in real time,” a formulation that underscores a broad enforcement concern rather than a narrow drafting dispute.

Pedersen also reported remarks from Senator Ruben Gallego that the latest ethics offer left “much to be desired,” and that he intended to work on a counterproposal. In addition, the reporting cited that staff for Senator Elizabeth Warren circulated talking points arguing that the proposed state attorney general enforcement mechanism could be overridden by a determination from White House ethics officials.

According to Politico’s Jasper Goodman, Democrats sent their counterproposal to Republican negotiators, citing three people with knowledge of the matter. At the same time, the negotiations do not have unanimous Democratic buy-in: Politico reported that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand privately urged colleagues to support the procedural motion, implying that while opposition is growing, there may still be enough support among certain members to prevent the measure from collapsing outright—unless the wider math fails.

On the other side, Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis said President Donald Trump had accepted two significant ethics provisions and claimed there was “nothing left to give.” This sets up a familiar tension in legislative bargaining: Democrats may view the remaining gaps as core to enforcement credibility, while Republicans may view further changes as unnecessary or politically costly.

Opposition broadens beyond party lines

The uncertainty around procedural success is compounded by objections from groups outside Congress. The original coverage highlighted opposition from a coalition of 18 state attorneys general, adding another layer of political risk around the bill’s ethics and enforcement framework.

Tribal gaming interests are also weighing in. The Indian Gaming Association urged member tribes to press senators to vote against the bill, arguing that its proposed decentralized finance changes do not address Indian Country’s concerns regarding prediction markets. The association’s key request was explicit language clarifying that federal commodities law does not preempt tribal or state gaming laws, including protections under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The call was issued through an alert urging senators to vote “no” on the CLARITY Act (https://indiangaming.org/urgent-tribal-action-alert-call-your-senators-today-vote-no-on-the-clarity-act/).

Banking trade groups also criticized the revised text. Eight banking groups said the latest version did not close what they described as loopholes enabling stablecoin rewards that function like deposit interest. They further argued that the proposed regulatory “circuit breaker” would activate only after substantial deposit flight from community banks had already occurred—an objection that frames the mechanism as too slow to prevent harm rather than too strict to be workable.

Meanwhile, crypto industry advocacy groups pressed senators to move the bill forward. In a statement released Monday, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger argued that the industry had made significant concessions to build bipartisan support and urged a yes vote. Her reasoning, as reflected in the source coverage, emphasized clearer rules, consumer protections, and deterrence of illicit activity, along with concerns that uncertainty could push jobs and innovation abroad.

What happens next for Senate voting

The next test is whether Republicans can secure the 60 votes needed to advance the bill. If that support falls short on Tuesday, the legislation could stall, extending the timeline for any SEC–CFTC jurisdiction framework that the CLARITY Act would establish. That makes Monday’s negotiations signals particularly important: when Democrats describe the ethics package as still inadequate, it can rapidly undermine the coalition needed to reach the procedural threshold.

For now, readers should watch two developments closely: whether Democrats’ counterproposal gains traction with Republicans, and whether external opposition—from state attorney general groups, tribal organizations, and banking trade groups—translates into additional voting pressure. If the ethics dispute continues to widen rather than narrow, Polymarket’s swing suggests traders will likely keep treating passage as less likely, even if supporters argue that a final push is still possible.