Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl said on Aug. 8 that the CLARITY Act now appears unlikely to become law this year, pointing to a crowded Senate calendar and election year politics. 

Yet the bill has not been shelved. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on H.R. 3633, creating a concrete procedural test when lawmakers return in September.

The development leaves U.S. crypto policy on two tracks. Congress still has an opportunity to establish a permanent market structure framework, while the Securities and Exchange Commission is moving ahead with its own crypto agenda covering issuance, custody, trading and onchain securities. Grayscale argues that crypto markets can continue operating without CLARITY, but warns that the absence of legislation could make the U.S. less attractive for some new investment and development.

Grayscale: CLARITY Act Unlikely to Pass This Year, but Crypto Can Still Move Forward

Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl said the chances of the CLARITY Act passing this year now appear low due to the Senate calendar and election-year politics. He argued that failure to pass… pic.twitter.com/PGcIcYemjt

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 9, 2026

CLARITY Act now has a Sept. 15 Senate test

The U.S. Senate Daily Press record shows that Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act before the Senate adjourned. The chamber is scheduled to return for regular business on Sept. 14.

More importantly, the Senate schedule says the cloture motion for H.R. 3633 will ripen at 2:15 p.m. on Sept. 15. The step concerns whether senators will proceed to consideration of the legislation. It is not a final passage vote, and the bill would still face debate, amendments and another vote if the Senate agrees to move forward. As crypto.news reported, the legislation needs enough bipartisan support to clear the Senate’s 60 vote cloture threshold.

The bill already has a bipartisan record. The House approved the earlier version 294 to 134 in July 2025, with 78 Democrats supporting it. The Senate Banking Committee then advanced its portion 15 to 9 in May 2026. Democratic senators joined Republicans during that committee vote.

Grayscale sees a narrowing path through Congress

Pandl’s assessment is less optimistic about the remaining legislative window. In Grayscale’s Aug. 8 research note, he wrote that the “chances of passage this year now appear low.” He attributed that view to the Senate calendar and election year politics rather than to an immediate threat to blockchain networks themselves.

Grayscale said failure to enact the bill would not immediately change how Bitcoin functions, halt major blockchain networks or stop the expansion of stablecoin payments. The firm’s concern instead centers on capital formation, tokenized securities, intermediary oversight and developer protections that would receive a more durable statutory basis under comprehensive legislation. Those conclusions are Grayscale’s policy assessment, not a guarantee of how investment would respond.

The firm also warned that “a greater share of new investment may occur overseas” without a federal market structure framework. Pandl argued that jurisdictions offering clearer token issuance rules and stronger developer protections could attract activity that might otherwise take place in the U.S. The forecast remains uncertain and depends on future policy decisions as well as industry behavior.

SEC rulemaking could fill part of the regulatory gap

Congress is not the only source of U.S. crypto policy. In March, the SEC issued a formal interpretation addressing several categories of crypto assets and explaining how federal securities laws apply to activities including staking, mining, airdrops and asset wrapping. It also addressed when a nonsecurity crypto asset may become tied to an investment contract.

The agency’s 2026 regulatory agenda goes further. It lists possible rules for crypto asset offerings and safe harbors, changes to accommodate crypto trading on alternative trading systems and national exchanges, and updates to custody requirements. The SEC also says its framework needs to account for onchain securities. In related coverage, regulatory action was already emerging as an alternative path if Congress failed to complete CLARITY.

Agency action, however, is not identical to legislation. SEC rules operate within authority Congress has already given the regulator and can be altered by later commissions, challenged in court or revised through future rulemaking. A statute can instead establish responsibilities across agencies and impose requirements Congress chooses to write directly into law.

What happens next for the CLARITY Act

Attention now turns to Sept. 15. The procedural filing prevents the August recess from becoming the immediate end of the bill’s 2026 effort, but it does not show that lawmakers have resolved the disputes that delayed action before the break. Senators have continued debating ethics provisions, stablecoin rewards, enforcement authority, consumer protections and illicit finance rules.

Those divisions remain visible within the Senate Banking Committee. Chairman Tim Scott and other Republican sponsors argue that the framework would provide clearer rules while keeping digital asset development in the U.S. Meanwhile, committee minority staff released a fresh analysis on Aug. 5 arguing that the current text contains weaknesses involving investor protection, national security and ethics. Those are competing legislative positions rather than settled findings about the final bill.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis released updated text on July 22 combining work from the Banking and Agriculture committees. Even if senators clear the September procedural hurdle and eventually approve a revised bill, differences with the House passed version would still have to be resolved before legislation could reach the president.a

As of then, Grayscale’s broader argument remains testable rather than settled. Congress has given CLARITY another route forward in September, while the SEC has demonstrated that regulatory changes can continue independently. The Sept. 15 vote will provide the next measurable indication of whether those two paths continue in parallel or whether Congress can still produce a comprehensive U.S. crypto market structure law in 2026.

BTCPay Server has taken a defensive step for Bitcoin Lightning users, temporarily blocking public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running LND after attackers reportedly exploited a critical vulnerability to steal credentials and move funds.

The project said Lightning payments can still be processed, but external wallets—such as Zeus—will be unable to connect via a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker-based deployments until BTCPay decides it is safe to re-enable that remote access pathway.

Key takeaways

• BTCPay Server has temporarily restricted public remote access to LND nodes in Docker deployments to reduce the chance of further credential misuse.
• Version 2.4.2 installs LND 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates Lightning “macaroon” credentials for standard BTCPay installations.
• Operators are urged to look for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and mismatches between onchain/Lightning balances.
• Deployments that expose LND through routes outside BTCPay—such as a user-managed reverse proxy, Tor service, or forwarded ports—must rotate credentials separately.

Why BTCPay is limiting remote access

In a statement shared by BTCPay Server on X, the team said the restriction is designed to prevent external wallets from reaching affected Lightning nodes through BTCPay’s publicly exposed endpoints. The immediate concern is not the Lightning protocol itself, but how remote access can be abused when attackers gain control over the credentials that authorize actions on an LND node.

BTCPay emphasized that the change is intended to be temporary. It also indicated its plan is to bring remote access back once it determines it is safe—an important operational detail for service providers that rely on broad wallet connectivity for day-to-day payments.

What version 2.4.2 changes in LND authentication

BTCPay’s fix centers on credential rotation. According to the project’s security guidance, attackers were able to obtain “macaroon” credential files without proper authentication. Macaroons are the authorization artifacts LND uses to control access to node capabilities. If an attacker acquires them, the potential outcome is full take-over of the LND node and the ability to move funds.

BTCPay said version 2.4.2 addresses the issue by installing LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerating macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay setups. For operators, this is significant because it reduces the likelihood of lingering compromised credentials after an update—though it does not eliminate the need for active incident checks.

The project advised operators to verify whether compromise attempts occurred by reviewing several common indicators: unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and discrepancies between their records and either onchain or Lightning balances.

Actions operators must take beyond updating BTCPay

BTCPay’s instructions also draw an important line between what the software controls and what an operator configures. The team stated that installing the update does not automatically close access routes managed independently by the operator. If an LND node is exposed through other paths—such as a reverse proxy configured by the operator, a Tor service not run through BTCPay, or a forwarded port—then credential rotation may need to happen separately.

That distinction matters because it changes the practical remediation workflow. Updating BTCPay may fix the credential lifecycle for standard deployments, but it may not fully protect a node that is independently reachable. For operators, the key is to inventory how their LND node is reachable and ensure authorization material is rotated everywhere that the node can be accessed.

Reported impacts from operators

BTCPay’s warning is not theoretical. At least two operators publicly reported that their Lightning nodes were drained after the incident.

Foundation CEO Zach Herbert said the Lightning node associated with the hardware-wallet company’s setup was drained overnight. He later clarified that the company’s hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and funds were swept. The operators did not disclose the amount lost.

Bitcoin publication Citadel21 also reported that its Lightning node had been swept, without specifying the size of the loss.

While these reports are limited, they underline the risk that credential compromise can translate into direct fund movement via Lightning channels—reinforcing why BTCPay is restricting public remote access and why operators are being asked to check channel and peer activity closely.

Broader security implications for Bitcoin users

BTCPay’s incident comes amid a wider pattern of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. The BTCPay breach is described as part of the most recent wave of vulnerabilities impacting Bitcoin-adjacent tooling, following a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw that was linked to more than $100 million in confirmed losses, as referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.

In other words, the underlying Bitcoin network is not the target; the failures occur in the surrounding systems—wallets, custody interfaces, and node management software—that users depend on to interact with the protocol.

For Lightning operators, the immediate next steps are clear: update to BTCPay Server version 2.4.2 (or apply the relevant fixes), verify that macaroon credentials are rotated as expected, and actively audit for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel behavior, unfamiliar peers, and balance mismatches. As BTCPay evaluates when to restore remote access, operators should also monitor how their own exposure routes outside BTCPay are configured—because those may determine whether the risk has truly been eliminated.

BTCPay Server has temporarily blocked public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running the Lightning Network Daemon (LND) after attackers exploited a critical vulnerability to obtain credentials and move funds. The project says Lightning payments can still proceed, while it works to make remote access safe again.

In a security-driven update, BTCPay Server announced that version 2.4.2 installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates the “macaroon” credential files used to control LND on standard deployments. Operators are also urged to inspect their nodes for signs of compromise, including unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, suspicious peers, and mismatches between recorded balances and what’s actually present onchain or in Lightning.

Key takeaways

• BTCPay Server 2.4.2 restricts public remote connections to LND on Docker deployments, preventing external wallets from connecting via BTCPay domains or Tor onion addresses.
• The update automatically installs LND 0.21.1 and regenerates LND macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.
• Operators should monitor for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers, and balance discrepancies as indicators of theft.
• If an operator exposes LND through their own reverse proxy, Tor service, port forwarding, or other routes outside BTCPay, credentials must be rotated separately.

Why BTCPay moved to block remote LND access

BTCPay Server’s advisory centers on a specific failure mode: a critical vulnerability that, according to BTCPay, allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain the macaroon credential files that authorize control of an LND node.

Those credentials are effectively the key material that lets a party manage or act on behalf of the node. BTCPay warned that exposed credentials could enable attackers to take control of the LND instance and move funds.

To reduce the attack surface while remediation is rolled out, BTCPay temporarily restricted public remote connections to Lightning nodes running LND software through BTCPay-managed endpoints. In its statement, BTCPay highlighted that the change blocks external wallets—including Zeus—from connecting through a BTCPay Server domain or a Tor onion address in Docker deployments.

Importantly for day-to-day operators, BTCPay said Lightning payments can continue. The restriction is framed as a stopgap measure until the project believes it is safe to restore the prior remote-access functionality.

What the 2.4.2 update changes for operators

BTCPay’s fix is delivered through version 2.4.2. The project says this release installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations.

That automatic rotation is designed to address the core risk identified in the security advisory: attackers who acquired credentials could use them after the fact unless the underlying authorization artifacts are replaced. By updating both the LND version and the credentials used for control, BTCPay is effectively forcing the authorization state to reset for typical deployments.

Alongside the software changes, BTCPay provided a targeted checklist for operators to validate that compromise has not occurred. The project advised checking for:

• Unauthorized payments, which would indicate someone managed the node outside the operator’s intent.
• Unexpected channel closures, which can signal hostile channel management or forced routing behavior.
• Unfamiliar peers, which may reveal that an attacker established connections to the node.
• Discrepancies between what operators expect and what appears in their onchain or Lightning balances.

Crucially, BTCPay also addressed a deployment reality: not every operator exposes LND only through BTCPay’s own routing. For those running their own reverse proxy, Tor service, forwarded port, or alternative access path, BTCPay said installing the update does not close access routes managed independently. In those cases, operators must rotate credentials separately for any LND exposure outside BTCPay-controlled endpoints.

Public reports of losses, without disclosed amounts

After the vulnerability and remediation became part of the public conversation, at least two operators reported losses linked to their Lightning nodes being swept, though neither disclosed the amount taken.

Foundation CEO Zach Herbert stated that the hardware-wallet company’s Lightning node was drained overnight. He later clarified that its hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and the funds were swept—suggesting the compromise was confined to Lightning-channel controls rather than broader wallet infrastructure.

Separately, Bitcoin publication Citadel21 reported that its Lightning node had been swept. Like Herbert’s comments, the publication did not provide figures for how much was lost.

While the reports do not establish the scale of the incident across all BTCPay users, they do reinforce the advisory’s practical implication: credential exposure can translate into actionable control over Lightning funds, and remediation needs to happen quickly and thoroughly.

Security incidents keep targeting Bitcoin infrastructure around the network

BTCPay’s incident is the latest in a run of security problems affecting popular Bitcoin products. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw associated with more than $100 million in confirmed losses, underscoring that the targets have tended to be software and infrastructure components built around Bitcoin—not the Bitcoin protocol itself.

This pattern matters because it shifts risk away from “Bitcoin as a network” and toward the systems people use to interact with it: wallets, node operators, payment servers, and bridging software between users and blockchain operations. In practice, that means the most valuable defenses are often operational—timely patching, correct credential rotation, careful exposure management, and continuous monitoring for anomalies.

BTCPay’s temporary restriction of remote access can be read as another step in that operational defense model: reduce inbound paths that could allow credential abuse, even as updates roll out and operators harden their setups.

For now, the most important thing for BTCPay operators is to apply version 2.4.2 and verify their exposure paths, then audit their nodes for the specific compromise indicators BTCPay listed. Readers should also watch for whether BTCPay restores remote-access features once it determines the remaining risk has been fully mitigated for the relevant deployment types.

BTCPay Server has temporarily restricted public remote connections to Lightning Network nodes running Lightning Network Daemon (LND) software after attackers exploited a critical vulnerability to obtain credentials and move funds. 

BTCPay said the restriction prevents external wallets such as Zeus from connecting through a BTCPay Server domain or Tor onion address on Docker deployments. BTCPay said Lightning payments can continue and that it plans to restore the remote-access option when it considers it safe. 

Version 2.4.2 installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates the macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations. The project advised operators to check for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers and discrepancies in their onchain or Lightning balances.

The BTCPay breach is the latest security incident involving widely used Bitcoin products, following a Coldcard hardware-wallet flaw linked to more than $100 million in confirmed losses. The separate incidents affected software surrounding Bitcoin rather than the network’s underlying protocol.

Update automatically rotates Lightning credentials

BTCPay said the vulnerability allowed an unauthenticated remote attacker to obtain “macaroon” credential files used to control LND, an implementation of the Lightning Network. The project said the exposed credentials could allow attackers to take control of an LND node and move its funds.

According to the project’s security advisory, version 2.4.2 installs LND version 0.21.1 and automatically regenerates macaroon credentials on standard BTCPay installations. It advised operators to check for unauthorized payments, unexpected channel closures, unfamiliar peers and discrepancies between their records and onchain or Lightning balances. 

Related: Coldcard exploit pushes July losses to $247M as second-worst month of 2026

BTCPay also said operators exposing LND through their own reverse proxy, Tor service, forwarded port, or another route outside BTCPay must rotate their credentials separately. The project said installing the update does not close access routes managed independently by the operator. 

At least two operators publicly reported losses. Foundation CEO Zach Herbert said the hardware-wallet company’s Lightning node was drained overnight. He later clarified that its hot wallet was unaffected, while its Lightning channels were closed and the funds swept. 

Bitcoin publication Citadel21 also reported that its Lightning node had been swept. Neither operator disclosed the amount lost. 

Magazine: 10 weirdest things ever tokenized… including farts

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.

Bitcoin mining firm AntPool mined the first non-signalling block, which the rest of the network accepted and BIP-110 nodes rejected, and a miner using Ocean produced the alternative that the breakaway chain followed instead. (A miner is an entity that uses massive computing resources to maintain bitcoin and process its transactions, earning newly issued bitcoin and fees for the work.)

AntPool and Ocean are mining pools, where many operators combine their machines and share the rewards.

The stall has a mechanical cause that is hard to escape. Bitcoin recalculates how difficult mining is every 2,016 blocks, aiming to keep blocks arriving roughly every ten minutes.

The breakaway chain inherited bitcoin’s current setting but has a tiny share of the machines, so its blocks arrive at long intervals. It cannot make mining easier until it completes 2,016 blocks at that pace. The monitor puts that at 350 days away, against 14 days for bitcoin.

Support was never there. Only 2.53% of blocks signalled for BIP-110 over the past two weeks, against the 55% needed to activate it without a split.

That leaves the fork coin in an awkward position for anyone hoping to sell it. Both chains still accept identical transactions, so a signed transaction sending fork coins also works on bitcoin, and a buyer can rebroadcast it there and collect real BTC from the same seller — opening up the chances of a novel attack method that users should keep track of.

The Biden family’s history with cancer