President Donald Trump has a narrow window of roughly 10 days to decide whether to sign, ignore, or veto a bipartisan housing bill that includes a provision restricting the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and other “substantially similar” digital assets through the end of 2030.

House Speaker Mike Johnson sent the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act” to Trump’s desk on Monday, according to reporting from CNN. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president’s options hinge on a constitutional review period that begins with the bill’s delivery and runs for about 10 days excluding Sundays.

Key takeaways

• The housing bill includes a CBDC ban: the Federal Reserve is barred from issuing or creating a CBDC or “substantially similar” digital assets until the end of 2030.
• Trump has about 10 days to decide whether to sign, veto, or otherwise act on the bill after it reached his desk.
• Trump reportedly dismissed the measure as a “yawn” and cancelled a planned signing ceremony, urging focus on a different voting-related bill.
• The bill passed with bipartisan support, including participation tied to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who backed the CBDC restriction as part of broader legislative bargaining.
• If Trump vetoes the bill, Congress could attempt to override with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

How the CBDC restriction got attached to a housing package

The CBDC language is embedded in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bill that the House passed last week with support from both Democrats and Republicans. The key policy provision bars the Federal Reserve from issuing or creating a CBDC “or any digital asset that is substantially similar” until the end of 2030.

Reports indicate that this restriction was included as part of an effort to attract Republican backing. The bill is described as being sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, suggesting the CBDC clause was used to broaden coalition-building around a major domestic policy goal: housing.

As a result, the question for crypto-focused observers is not only whether the CBDC prohibition survives, but whether lawmakers are willing to keep treating CBDC policy as bargaining material inside unrelated bills—potentially creating unpredictable outcomes for future digital-asset regulation.

Trump’s reported response and the politics around “SAVE America”

Trump’s public posture toward the housing bill appears dismissive and politically conditional. According to reports cited by Cointelegraph, Trump called the legislation a “yawn” and referred to the situation sarcastically as a “big deal.” He also cancelled a signing ceremony scheduled for Wednesday, telling Republicans in Congress, in effect, to focus on passing the SAVE America Act instead.

At the center of the broader legislative fight is a voting measure Trump has emphasized previously. The housing bill’s political linkage matters because it underscores how the White House may prioritize one agenda item over another—even when the other item contains a direct restriction on a CBDC.

The Reuters/CNN-style summary in the source material also notes the housing bill would require voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in person to register. That provision could affect electoral participation in ways that add friction for lawmakers who support housing policy but remain split on voting requirements.

What happens next if Trump vetoes

With the bill now in Trump’s hands, the next 10 days are likely to determine whether the CBDC restriction becomes law. If the president vetoes it, Congress could override that veto with a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, a high bar but one that remains a constitutional pathway.

The source material frames Trump’s decision in the context of his stated priorities for other legislation. Earlier, Trump said in March that he would “not sign other bills” until the SAVE America Act was passed. At the same time, he posted on social media indicating support for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, according to Cointelegraph’s prior reporting—signaling that the White House’s position on digital assets may not be uniformly hostile, even if it chooses to de-prioritize the CBDC language embedded in the housing bill.

Senate calendar pressures: CLARITY timing vs. housing CBDC ban

While the president weighs the housing bill, the Senate is operating on a separate legislative track. The chamber broke on Friday for state work periods, with lawmakers expected to return by July 13, according to the source text. That schedule would leave roughly four weeks for lawmakers to address the CLARITY Act before the Senate shifts again for another state work period in August.

This timing matters because it creates two parallel timelines: one is the immediate presidential decision on the CBDC restriction; the other is the Senate’s near-term window to move forward on broader market-structure and digital asset policy via the CLARITY Act.

In other words, even if the CBDC ban in the housing bill becomes law or dies via veto, the regulatory direction for the sector may still depend heavily on whether the CLARITY Act advances on the Senate’s calendar.

For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that “CBDC policy” and “market structure policy” may be converging in the legislative process but not necessarily in a coordinated way. The next signals to watch are whether Trump signs the housing bill before the constitutional deadline, whether Congress can rally for a veto override if he rejects it, and whether Senate leadership maintains momentum on the CLARITY Act during the July window.

Bitcoin is struggling to regain the $61,000 level, and options markets are reflecting growing demand for downside protection. Traders are now openly debating whether $55,000 could become the next major support test as the market’s hedging behavior turns unusually aggressive.

At the same time, the broader backdrop for risk assets has improved—crude oil has fallen following a US–Iran 60-day ceasefire agreement—and capital appears to be rotating toward US tech, particularly semiconductors. For crypto investors, that divergence between traditional-market momentum and Bitcoin’s options-driven caution is becoming hard to ignore.

Key takeaways

• Deribit data shows put-option premiums are overwhelmingly higher than call premiums, with Friday’s put-to-call imbalance at the highest level in more than 12 months.
• A 19% 30-day delta skew suggests options market makers are not willing to carry downside exposure, implying persistent hedging demand over the past month.
• Strategy’s (formerly MicroStrategy) latest capital actions reduce some near-term dividend and debt concerns, but do not remove market uncertainty around Bitcoin supply dynamics.
• Outside crypto, Bloomberg-linked ETF flows point to heavy inflows into semiconductor funds, while US-listed Bitcoin spot ETFs have experienced seven consecutive weeks of net outflows.

Options traders lean into downside protection

Despite renewed optimism linked to lower crude oil prices after the US and Iran agreed to a 60-day ceasefire, Bitcoin has not been able to reclaim $61,000 since Thursday. The clearest sign of caution is visible in derivatives positioning.

On Deribit, the premium paid for Bitcoin put (sell) options totaled $115 million on Friday, compared with $16 million paid for call (buy) options. This put-call imbalance was reported as the most extreme in over 12 months, indicating unusually low appetite for bullish exposure.

However, the data does not automatically translate into coordinated bearish conviction. A surge in puts can also reflect risk management by investors who want protection without necessarily expecting an immediate collapse. Even so, the broader structure of the options curve reinforces the sense that hedging is in demand rather than speculative upside bets.

That structure is captured by the 30-day delta skew, which stood at 19% on Monday on Deribit. In practical terms, such a skew signals that market makers are unwilling to hold meaningful downside exposure. According to the analysis reflected in the article, this fear has effectively been “the norm” for roughly four weeks, lining up with Bitcoin’s difficulty holding above $60,000.

The market’s reaction matters because it can increase the cost of negative scenarios: more demand for protection typically means higher implied costs to insure positions. Traders watching the $55,000 level may therefore also watch whether the options skew starts to mean-revert—or whether demand for downside hedges continues to rise.

Strategy’s cash moves calm some fears—but don’t resolve supply questions

Another factor shaping sentiment is investor concern about Strategy’s ability to meet obligations. The company’s reaction provides some near-term comfort, even as it raises new questions for Bitcoin’s balance between potential selling and demand.

Earlier coverage noted discomfort around MicroStrategy (now Strategy) regarding dividends and debt maturities in 2027. On Monday, the company announced additional actions tied to liquidity: it disclosed an additional $1.2 billion in cash sourced from recent share sales, and it set aside $1.25 billion in Bitcoin for eventual sale.

From an investor’s perspective, the added cash helps address near-term funding anxiety. The reported logic also suggests bears may feel less pressure from forced issuance of MSTR shares—because, as the article states, the company does not have incentives to issue shares given its reported 17 months of dividend coverage.

Yet the same actions can introduce another layer of uncertainty: any reference to future Bitcoin sales keeps the market focused on supply/demand dynamics. Even if no sales occur in the “next couple of months,” the knowledge that a portion of holdings is earmarked for selling can continue to weigh on sentiment at the margin.

Capital rotation: semiconductors draw inflows while Bitcoin spot ETFs leak

While Bitcoin’s derivatives market shows caution, parts of traditional markets have leaned more constructive. The article points to easing inflationary pressure and the drop in crude oil to its lowest level in four months. It also highlights a Goldman Sachs report projecting 22% annual earnings growth for S&P 500 companies, which helped reduce worries about excessive valuations.

In that environment, retail investors appear to be reallocating toward semiconductors. The analysis cited by “The Kobeissi Letter,” using Bloomberg data, claims more than $20 billion in cumulative inflows into semiconductor exchange-traded funds (ETFs). That activity is said to have helped drive an 81% rally in the iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX) and 60% gains in the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH).

Against this backdrop, Bitcoin is also facing persistent resistance from spot ETF flows. The article notes seven consecutive weeks of net outflows from US-listed Bitcoin spot ETFs, a pattern that has “shattered” hopes for a strong rebound from the reported $58,050 lows on June 25.

Even if some selling pressure is ultimately explained by sector rotation rather than a direct deterioration in Bitcoin fundamentals, the implication for near-term price action is straightforward: sentiment is unlikely to improve while flows remain consistently negative. Traders expecting a bounce may therefore need to see not only macro stabilization but also signs that ETF outflows are easing.

What to watch next as hedging and flows diverge

A retest of $55,000 should not be dismissed given the options market’s demand for downside protection. Still, the same skew that signals fear can also reflect investors hedging rather than betting against Bitcoin’s long-term prospects. The key variables moving forward are whether the options put-call imbalance and 30-day delta skew start to normalize—and whether US spot Bitcoin ETF flows begin to recover from their seven-week streak of net outflows.

Stellar trades near $0.18, but a May 2026 plan for the DTCC to connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with XLM named as the settlement token, could route trillions in traditional securities onto the network. What would that actually mean for the price? Here is the realistic read, separating the landmark from the hype.

Stellar (XLM) is trading near $0.18 as of late June 2026, and it presents one of the sharpest disconnects in crypto: a network with strong and growing fundamentals attached to a token sitting near multi-year lows.

XLM is down from a July 2025 high near $0.52, the Fear and Greed reading is mired in extreme fear, and yet the underlying network is arguably healthier than ever, with tokenized real-world assets on Stellar having climbed past $2.83 billion, stablecoin payment volume around $5.5 billion, developer engagement at record highs, and consensus achieved in under six seconds through its Federated Byzantine Agreement design.

Into that gap between fundamentals and price landed the most consequential development in Stellar’s recent history: in May 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, the institution that sits at the center of United States securities settlement, announced it would connect its tokenization service to Stellar, with XLM named as the settlement token and live assets targeted for the first half of 2027.

The announcement raised an obvious and high-stakes question for anyone watching XLM: if the backbone of traditional securities settlement is routing tokenized assets through Stellar, what does that mean for the price of the token?

This article answers that question as realistically as possible, separating the genuine significance of the deal from the hype that inevitably surrounds it. It works through where Stellar stands now and why the fundamentals-price gap exists, what the DTCC deal actually is, why it could be a landmark, the all-important value-accrual question of whether network volume translates into token demand, the problem of the 2027 timeline, the other catalysts stacking up around XLM, the supply dynamics that complicate the bull case, what the analysts forecast, and three scenarios for the price.

The aim is to give XLM holders and observers a clear-eyed read rather than either dismissive skepticism or breathless promotion, because the DTCC deal is simultaneously a real, high-conviction catalyst and a development whose price impact is years away and structurally uncertain. The forecasts here are information, not advice. And the thread running through the whole analysis is the same question that haunts every payments-token valuation: does the network’s success actually accrue to the token, or can the volume flow through while the token is bypassed? For Stellar, the DTCC deal makes that question concrete and urgent.

Where Stellar stands and the fundamentals gap

Begin with the disconnect that defines XLM right now, because it is the context for everything the DTCC deal might change. Stellar near $0.18 is down significantly from its July 2025 high near $0.52, and the Fear and Greed reading sits in extreme fear, the same deeply pessimistic sentiment weighing on the broader crypto market.

On the charts, XLM has spent 2026 oscillating, with periods of consolidation around the high teens to low twenties in cents and sharp volatility, including swings of substantial magnitude within single months, but the broad trend has left the token near the lower end of its range and below where it traded a year ago. By the standard technical and sentiment measures, XLM looks like what it is: a beaten-down mid-cap altcoin in a fearful market.

What makes Stellar unusual is that its fundamentals tell a very different story from its price. The value of tokenized real-world assets issued on Stellar has surged past $2.83 billion, growing at a rapid clip, and stablecoin payment volume on the network has reached roughly $5.5 billion, both signs of genuine, growing utility rather than mere speculation. The network supports a large base of accounts and a wide array of fiat and crypto on-ramps, achieves fast and cheap settlement through its consensus design, and has added the Soroban smart-contract platform to enable tokenization and decentralized finance.

Developer engagement is at record levels. This is the crux of the Stellar investment debate: a network whose real-world usage and institutional positioning are strengthening, attached to a token whose price has fallen to multi-year lows. Bulls read the gap as a buying opportunity and evidence of accumulation, on the logic that price will eventually catch up to fundamentals. Skeptics read it as evidence that network usage does not reliably accrue value to the XLM token, which is precisely the question the DTCC deal forces to the center. The fundamentals-price gap is the setup; the DTCC deal is the potential catalyst that either closes it or exposes it as permanent.

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published a crypto regulatory framework that brings the regulator’s long-awaited “crypto roadmap” to completion, setting out how digital-asset firms will be authorized and supervised in the country.

In a Tuesday press release shared with Cointelegraph, the FCA said the new regime introduces mandatory licensing for crypto firms, adds capital stress-testing requirements, strengthens rules around market manipulation and insider dealing, and adjusts the capital requirements applicable to stablecoin issuers.

Key takeaways

• UK crypto firms will need FCA authorization to operate, including trading platforms, custodians, stablecoin issuers and staking intermediaries.
• A licensing window runs from September through Feb. 28, 2027, with the regime set to go live Oct. 25, 2027.
• Firms already authorized under UK money laundering regulations will not automatically be converted and must obtain new authorization.
• Stablecoin requirements are being refined, including changes to reserve composition rules and the treatment of reserves held in certain arrangements.
• The FCA plans additional work later this year on DeFi guidance and operational resilience for distributed ledger technology (DLT) users.

When FCA licensing begins—and how the transition will work

The FCA’s framework is designed to replace the current uncertainty around where crypto activities sit within the UK’s regulatory perimeter. According to David Geale, executive director of payments and digital finance at the FCA, the regulator has built a system intended to provide “regulatory certainty” without forcing firms to choose between compliance and innovation.

“We’ve created a framework that doesn’t force firms to choose between regulatory certainty and room to innovate – this regime means they can have both in a stable, competitive home to build and grow.”

Under the new rules, authorization will be required for a range of crypto businesses. The FCA explicitly includes cryptocurrency trading venues, custodial providers, stablecoin issuers, staking firms and other intermediaries that fall within the scope of the regime.

For companies already operating with authorization under the UK’s money laundering regulations, the FCA said those permissions will not be automatically converted. These firms will need to secure the relevant FCA authorization under the new framework.

The FCA also outlined transitional “savings provisions” that allow certain firms to continue specified activities for a limited time while they pursue authorization. It further stated that pre-application support meetings for companies will be available starting next month.

As the licensing process approaches, the regulator plans to publish key policy statements through a webinar on July 17. Separately, it will issue an additional policy statement in September explaining how the regulatory perimeter applies to cryptoasset activities.

Earlier this year, the FCA concluded a consultation on guidelines for the UK’s future crypto regime on June 3, nearly a month before this Tuesday publication.

Authorization standards include capital stress testing and tougher conduct rules

A central feature of the FCA’s framework is a move toward holding crypto firms to standards comparable to other financial service providers in the UK. The FCA said the new regime includes requirements for capital stress-testing, alongside improved rules aimed at market manipulation and insider trading.

For investors and counterparties, the practical importance of these provisions is that they shift compliance from a mostly guidance-led approach toward defined supervisory expectations—particularly around whether firms can withstand adverse conditions and how they are expected to prevent misconduct in market-related activities.

The FCA did not detail figures in the release provided here, but it did emphasize that the framework is meant to establish consistent regulatory expectations for firms operating in the UK crypto market—moving from a period of consultation toward an authorization-led model with clear timelines.

Stablecoin rules: simpler reserve requirements, new safeguards, and user withdrawal rights

The FCA’s framework keeps the core stablecoin approach but makes targeted adjustments to elements that issuers must meet. Among the changes, the regulator simplified the backing asset composition requirement by removing the requirement for estimated redemption forecasts. The FCA also said it will require statutory trust over reserves and will remove unallocated backing fund accounts.

In addition, the FCA’s guidelines will require stablecoin issuers to provide specific withdrawal rights to users and set conditions around reserve holdings. The framework allows a 5% excess to be held in the backing asset pool, and it permits limited intragroup custody arrangements provided that safeguards are in place.

The FCA described the stablecoin approach as establishing a “baseline regime for stablecoin issuance.” It also said it will consult with the Bank of England later this year on how its rules apply to stablecoin issuers that are recognized as systemic by HM Treasury.

For market participants, this matters because stablecoin oversight has direct implications for liquidity and redemption processes. By spelling out user withdrawal rights and reserve structures, the FCA is attempting to reduce uncertainty around how issuers hold and manage the assets intended to back stablecoins.

Next steps: DeFi guidance, operational resilience, and scope limits for “true DeFi”

The FCA’s publishing of the framework does not end the work. The regulator said later this year it will host a separate consultation on decentralized finance (DeFi) guidance and on operational resilience guidelines for firms using distributed ledger technology (DLT).

It also plans to consult on updates to the Financial Crime Guide relevant to crypto asset firms, reflecting the ongoing focus on compliance and risk management as the industry grows.

On DeFi specifically, the FCA indicated it will pursue a case-by-case approach. Matthew Long, director of payments & digital assets at the FCA, said in remarks included in the source material that “true DeFi” scenarios—those with “no identifiable person undertaking the activity”—would fall out of the regulation’s scope.

This distinction is important for builders and users: it suggests that the FCA’s approach may concentrate on identifiable intermediaries and accountable entities, rather than attempting to regulate protocols in an abstract sense where no responsible actor can be identified.

With licensing now set to move from planning into a timed authorization process—plus additional DeFi and operational resilience consultations later this year—market participants should watch how transitional savings provisions are applied, how stablecoin issuers interpret the reserve and withdrawal requirements, and where the FCA draws the line between regulated intermediaries and activities it considers outside the remit of “true DeFi.”

Bitget has launched a two-month global trading league with 240,000 USDT in total prizes as the exchange combines crypto futures and traditional market CFDs in one competition.

According to Bitget, the new UEX Futures League will allow traders to compete across crypto futures and contracts for difference through a single trading account. The tournament is designed around team-based performance, with rankings decided by return on investment.

The competition will run in two separate rounds. Bitget said the crypto futures phase will take place from June 1 to June 30, while the CFD phase will run from July 1 to July 31. Each round carries a 120,000 USDT prize pool.

The exchange said the top eight teams from each stage will qualify for the UEX Global Alpha Tournament, a live invitation-only final for the best-performing teams. Bitget plans to bring 16 teams from around the world into the final stage, with the top three traders from each team taking part.

Finalists will receive an all-expenses-paid trip to an undisclosed location, where they will compete in live trading sessions for the championship, according to Bitget.

Bitget is using competition to promote multi-asset trading

The UEX Futures League comes as Bitget promotes its Universal Exchange model, which brings crypto, commodities, forex, indices and other financial products into one trading environment.

Bitget said the league is not built around simulations or classroom-style learning. Instead, participants will trade in real market conditions while representing their teams and communities.

Commenting on the launch, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said:

“Trading has always been competitive, but it’s also one of the most social parts of our industry. The UEX Futures League brings those elements together by turning trading into a team experience where users can collaborate and represent their communities.”

Chen added that combining crypto and traditional markets in one competition creates an event focused not only on performance, but also on the people and communities involved in trading.

The format follows Bitget’s recent push to expand beyond crypto-only products. In a separate update, the exchange said its Stock+ feature under Stocks 2.0 allows eligible users to buy real U.S. stocks using crypto.

According to Bitget, users can fund Stock+ trades with digital assets, which are converted into Circle’s USDC stablecoin before the stock purchase is completed.

Stock+ and MiCA plans add context to Bitget’s expansion

Bitget said Stock+ differs from synthetic stock products and derivatives because eligible users gain ownership of the underlying U.S. shares through regulated brokers. The company added that holders may receive cash dividends and stock split adjustments tied to their positions.

The exchange also said Stock+ supports U.S. pre-market, regular market and after-hours sessions, giving crypto holders access to U.S.-listed companies without moving funds through separate banking and brokerage systems.

Alongside product expansion, Bitget EU has also moved on the regulatory front. In a June 17 update, Bitget said its European unit had submitted an application to Austria’s Financial Market Authority for authorization as a crypto-asset service provider under MiCAR.

The company said the application remains under regulatory review. Bitget also told users that existing access to Bitget Global products and services continues under current contractual and legal arrangements posted online.

Taken together, Bitget’s UEX Futures League, Stock+ launch and MiCAR application show the exchange building around multi-market access, team-based trading and regulated regional growth, while keeping crypto at the center of its platform.