Onchain sleuth ZachXBT has accused stablecoin issuer Circle of improperly freezing 16 hot crypto wallets. The freeze is reportedly linked to an ongoing civil case in the United States, but ZachXBT said the company failed to conduct adequate due diligence before taking action.

 

 

“An analyst with basic tools could have identified, within minutes, that these were operational business wallets from the thousands of transactions they process,” he said.

 

According to ZachXBT, the wallets were used for business purposes. “I reviewed the onchain activity, and the exchanges, casinos, and forex businesses do not appear to be related to one another,” he added.

 

The crypto investigator also criticized the judicial process that approved the freeze, calling it the “most incompetent” he has seen in more than five years of work in the field.

 

“The NY civil case is sealed and they have provided absolutely ZERO basis to freeze all of these business addresses. [...] The expert witness is liable. The judge is liable. Circle is liable,” Zach said. “This is what happens when you outsource your freezing decisions to literally any random federal judge instead of having a process,” he added.

 

Following the callout by the on-chain investigator, Circle reportedly unfroze one of 16 wallets. According to Zach, the wallet with the address "0x61f…e543," which holds 130,966 USDC and is linked to Goated, has been unfrozen. He expects more wallets to be unlocked soon.

 

The Crypto Community Reacted

The crypto community reacted with outrage, with many criticizing centralized stablecoins. “This is your 10th reminder that centrally issued stablecoins are not actually yours. They can be frozen, unlike cash,” said Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Helius Labs.

 

“I still find it hard to believe that token issuers can 'freeze' coins on EVM shitchains and call it a 'normal' feature. The CBDC is already here, and it's called USDC,” said Francis Pouliot, CEO of crypto platform Bull Bitcoin.

 

Circle’s History With Freezes

Like many centralized stablecoin issuers, Circle has a history of freezing crypto assets. In May 2025, it froze approximately $57 million in USDC linked to the memecoin project LIBRA, as well as 2,997,180 USDC held in an Ethereum address flagged for suspicious activity.

 

Most of these freezes were legally justified and are part of Circle's efforts to curb money laundering and other illicit activities on the blockchain. 

 

However, some critics have raised concerns about centralization, noting that centralized stablecoin issuers can freeze users' crypto assets at their discretion, a clear departure from the user control promised by blockchain technology.

 

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee's digital assets subcommittee and has spent the better part of two years shepherding the crypto industry's most ambitious legislative goal, walked into the Digital Chamber's DC Blockchain Summit and told a packed room what a lot of people in the industry had stopped expecting to hear.

"We think we've got it," she said. "We really are going to get it out of the banking committee in April."

That's a bigger deal than it might sound. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the comprehensive crypto framework that cleared the House in a 294-134 bipartisan vote back in July 2025, has been grinding through Senate committees ever since, chewing through months of negotiations, a January markup that collapsed hours before it was scheduled to begin, and a dispute over stablecoin yield that managed to put banking lobbyists, crypto firms, and Democratic senators all at odds simultaneously. For a while, it looked like the whole thing might just quietly die before the 2026 midterms swallowed the calendar.

Apparently not, if Lummis is certain on the new deal being made.

 

The Stablecoin Yield Fight, Explained
To understand how we got here, it helps to understand the fight that almost killed this bill. After the House passed its version, the Senate Banking Committee got to work on its own draft. In January 2026, committee staff released a 278-page bill that took a firm stance: digital asset service providers could not offer interest or yield to users simply for holding stablecoin balances, though rewards or activity-linked incentives were still on the table.

Banking groups hated the carve-out. The American Bankers Association lobbied hard against any yield provision, arguing that if crypto platforms could pay customers to hold stablecoins, those customers might pull deposits from community banks. Coinbase, meanwhile, had built a profitable stablecoin rewards program and wasn't eager to see it legislated away. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong reportedly signaled opposition to an early compromise attempt, and within hours of the January 14 scheduled markup, committee leadership postponed it indefinitely.

That delay rattled markets, contributed to what analysts at CoinShares estimated as nearly $1 billion in crypto market outflows, and sent lobbyists back to their whiteboards.

The White House held at least three separate meetings over the following weeks to try to broker a deal. And now, Lummis says, a compromise has landed. Crypto platforms will not be able to offer rewards programs using language that sounds like banking products, whether that means using terms like "yield," "interest," or anything that ties payouts to how much a user holds rather than what they do.

"Anything that sounds like banking product terminology will not appear," Lummis said. She added that Armstrong had been "really pretty good about being willing to give on this issue," a notable shift from his earlier posture.

Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican on the committee, confirmed the trajectory in a video statement at the same event, saying Senators Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, and Thom Tillis, a Republican, are in the final stages of the stablecoin talks alongside the White House. "Once they all sign off," Moreno said, it's "go time."

 

DeFi Disputes Quietly Shelved
DeFi was the other thing that kept lobbyists up at night. Decentralized finance protocols, which allow users to lend, borrow, and trade digital assets without going through a traditional intermediary, sit in a legal grey zone that both Democrats and Republicans approached with very different instincts.

Democrats wanted oversight that was on par with federally regulated financial firms. The crypto industry, somewhat predictably, wanted software developers and peer-to-peer activity protected from being treated as financial intermediaries. The House version of the bill had already tried to thread this needle by drawing a line between control and code: developers who publish or maintain software without directly handling customer funds would not be classified as financial intermediaries. Centralized entities that interact with DeFi protocols would face tailored requirements.

According to Lummis, those DeFi disagreements have been "put to bed." She didn't go into detail, but Senate Banking Committee materials describe the bill's approach as targeting control rather than code, and requiring risk management and cybersecurity standards for centralized intermediaries that touch DeFi, while leaving non-custodial software development out of scope.

 

The Ethics Problem Won't Go Away
Not everything is resolved. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who has been one of Lummis's most consistent bipartisan partners on crypto legislation over the years, made clear at the same summit that there is still a major outstanding demand from her caucus.

Democrats want the bill to include an explicit ban on senior government officials personally profiting from the crypto industry. The reasoning for this is not very subtle, especially in heated partisanship of Washington these days: President Donald Trump and his family are tied to World Liberty Financial, a crypto platform that launched a stablecoin last year, and Trump's crypto-linked ventures have given Democrats a consistent line of attack.

"It's very important that we include this," Gillibrand said on Wednesday, adding that no government official in Congress or the White House should "get rich off their position and their knowledge base." Including such a restriction, she argued, would "unlock many more votes" from Democrats.

Lummis has previously said she took a compromise ethics provision to the White House and was rebuffed. Trump administration officials have repeatedly stated that the president's family's participation in digital asset businesses does not represent an inappropriate conflict of interests. The practical read from lobbyists: Republicans are unlikely to pass language that targets the leader of their own party.

The House bill, for its part, does include language specifying that existing ethics statutes already bar members of Congress and senior executive branch officials from issuing digital commodities during their time in public service. Whether that satisfies Democrats in the Senate is another matter.

 

Where the Bill Stands Procedurally
The legislative path from here still has a few moving parts. The Senate Agriculture Committee cleared its version of a crypto market structure bill, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, in late January 2026. That bill covers the CFTC-related side of the regulatory picture, including commodity market oversight, exchange registration, and derivatives. It passed over the objections of Democratic members who tried and failed to push through a series of amendments.

The Senate Banking Committee bill, now expected to go through a markup in late April after the Easter recess, would handle the SEC-related provisions: investor protections, securities treatment of digital assets, and stablecoin regulation. Once it clears that committee, both Senate bills need to be reconciled and merged before heading to a full Senate floor vote. That combined version would then need to be aligned with the House-passed CLARITY Act before a single final bill could reach Trump's desk.

That's a lot of steps. Lummis, who announced in December that she will not seek re-election, seems acutely aware of the time pressure. "This may be our only chance to get market structure done," she posted on X on Wednesday. Moreno was even more pointed: "If we don't get the CLARITY Act passed by May, digital asset legislation will not pass for the foreseeable future."

The Senate's 2026 calendar is not working in the bill's favor. The midterm elections in November mean that floor time effectively closes for controversial legislation sometime around August, when lawmakers shift their attention to their races. A Senate majority that currently tilts Republican could flip to Democratic control after the vote, bringing new leadership to key committees and potentially shelving the bill for another cycle.

Making things more unpredictable, both parties are currently tangling over unrelated legislation and the U.S. involvement in the war in Iran, which threatens to consume floor time that crypto advocates would prefer to use for a market structure vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said as recently as last week that he did not expect the Banking Committee to pass the bill quickly. Whether that assessment holds is now up to the negotiators.

Prediction markets have priced the odds of the bill being signed into law in 2026 at around 72%, according to available data. JPMorgan analysts have described passage before midyear as a positive catalyst for digital assets, citing regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth as key drivers. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has put his personal odds estimate even higher, at 80 to 90%.

Industry Money and Political Pressure
The stakes are reflected in the lobbying numbers. Total crypto industry lobbying expenditures topped $80 million in 2025. Fairshake, the industry's primary political action committee, had built a 2026 war chest of $193 million as of January, with Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz each contributing $24 to $25 million in the second half of last year alone. The day before the Senate Agriculture Committee's January markup, Fairshake made that announcement public.

For all the money, the legislative process has been messier than the industry hoped. A bill that many expected to be done before year-end 2025 is now racing a midterm election clock, dependent on a handful of senators reaching agreement on provisions they've been arguing about for months, and navigating a Senate floor schedule that no one fully controls.

Lummis, for her part, sounded more confident than she has in months. "We're going to have this thing done, come hell or high water, before the end of the year," she told the crowd in Washington.

Whether the rest of the Senate, the White House, and the clock agree with her is the only question left.

 

Florida lawmakers have cleared Senate Bill 314 (SB-314), a state-level stablecoin bill, with final approval now pending from the governor.

 

In a recent post on X, Samuel Armes, founder of the Florida Blockchain Association, said the Florida Senate had cleared Senate Bill 314 with a unanimous 37–0 vote. With this clearance, the bill now awaits final approval from Governor Ron DeSantis.

 

 

According to Armes, “the bill has now passed the Senate and the House and will be signed by DeSantis within the next 30 days.” Once signed by DeSantis, SB-314 will become law.

 

What is the Senate Bill (SB-314)? 

Introduced by Senator Bryan Burton on October 31, 2025, Senate Bill 314 (SB 314) creates a state regulatory framework for companies issuing stablecoins in Florida.

 

SB 314 was introduced to ensure clarity in how stablecoins are issued amid ongoing regulatory disparities, particularly at the state level.

 

By approving SB 314, the Florida Legislature aims to:

1. Provide regulatory clarity for crypto businesses operating in the state.

2. Prevent fraud and financial instability. The bill requires stablecoin issuers to hold actual reserves, protecting users’ funds.

3. Position Florida as a crypto-friendly hub, attracting both blockchain and fintech companies.

 

If SB-314 eventually gets signed into law, stablecoin companies would need Florida’s licensing and approval before they can operate.

 

And to get licensed, these companies would need to show proof of 1:1 reserves backing their stablecoins, have their reserves independently audited, and maintain clear redemption policies that allow users to convert stablecoins to dollars. 

 

Remember the TerraUSD collapse, one of the largest stablecoin failures in 2022, which resulted in losses exceeding $40 billion after the UST coin lost its dollar peg? The SB-314 bill aims to prevent similar events by requiring stablecoin issuers to have their reserves regularly audited.

 

 

The State of Crypto in Florida

Unlike some U.S. states that have imposed strict anti-crypto policies, Florida has positioned itself as one of the most crypto-friendly.

 

In January 2023, the Florida Senate amended the state's Money Services Business (MSB) law to include virtual currency, defining it at the state level and reducing regulatory ambiguity for crypto businesses.

 

In October 2025, the Florida Senate filed House Bill 183, concerning crypto investment authority, and House Bill 175, aimed at stablecoin registration flexibility. If signed into law, the bills would allow Florida’s Chief Financial Officer to allocate up to 10% of certain state funds into Bitcoin and other digital assets, while also easing compliance requirements for stablecoin issuers.