Washington’s long-running effort to write clear rules for crypto is moving forward, but not cleanly.

 

The U.S. Senate has released updated language for a long-anticipated crypto market structure bill, yet deep disagreements remain between lawmakers, committees, and the industry itself. Two separate Senate committees are now pushing different versions of the legislation, and the gaps between them are proving harder to close than many expected.

 

At stake is nothing less than who regulates crypto in the United States, how stablecoins are allowed to operate, and whether decentralized finance can exist without being squeezed into a framework built for Wall Street.

 

A Bill That Is Really Two Bills

The market structure effort is split between the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, each advancing its own vision of how digital assets should be governed.

 

The Agriculture Committee’s draft leans heavily toward expanding the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under this approach, most major cryptocurrencies would be treated as digital commodities, placing them largely outside the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reach.

 

The Banking Committee’s version, often referred to as the CLARITY Act, takes a more cautious and detailed approach. It attempts to draw clearer legal lines between what counts as a security and what does not, while preserving a significant role for the SEC in overseeing parts of the crypto market.

 

Both sides say they want regulatory certainty. The problem is they disagree on what that certainty should look like.

 

The CFTC Versus SEC Fight Is Still the Core Issue

At the heart of the debate is a familiar Washington turf war.

 

Supporters of the Agriculture Committee draft argue that the CFTC is better suited to oversee crypto markets, particularly spot trading for assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. They point to the agency’s lighter touch, its experience with commodities, and its closer alignment with how crypto markets actually function.

 

The Banking Committee sees things differently. Its members are more focused on investor protection and worry that shifting too much power to the CFTC could weaken oversight. Their draft tries to preserve the SEC’s role, especially when tokens are issued in ways that resemble traditional securities offerings.

 

Neither side appears ready to fully back down, which is why the Senate still has not settled on a single unified bill.

 

Stablecoins Become a Flashpoint

Stablecoins, once seen as the least controversial corner of crypto, are now one of the most contentious parts of the bill.

 

One major sticking point is a proposed restriction on stablecoin rewards or yield. Under the Banking Committee’s draft, issuers would face limits on paying users simply for holding stablecoins.

 

Crypto companies argue this would kneecap a core feature of digital dollars and make them less competitive with traditional financial products. Some in the industry say the provision feels less like consumer protection and more like an attempt to shield banks from competition.

 

Lawmakers defending the restriction say they are trying to prevent stablecoins from morphing into unregulated interest-bearing products that could pose risks to consumers and the broader financial system.

 

The disagreement has become symbolic of a larger divide over how much freedom crypto should have to innovate inside a regulated framework.

 

DeFi Still Does Not Fit Neatly Anywhere

Decentralized finance remains one of the hardest issues for lawmakers to solve.

 

Both Senate drafts struggle with how to treat protocols that do not have a central company, executive team, or traditional governance structure. Some lawmakers want stronger rules to prevent DeFi platforms from being used for illicit activity. Others worry that applying centralized compliance models to decentralized systems will effectively ban them.

 

For now, DeFi remains an unresolved problem in the bill, with language that critics say is either too vague or too aggressive, depending on who you ask.

 

Coinbase Draws a Line in the Sand

Industry frustration boiled over when Coinbase publicly withdrew its support for the Banking Committee’s draft.

 

The exchange called the proposal worse than the status quo, pointing to its treatment of DeFi, stablecoin yield restrictions, and limits on tokenized equities. Coinbase’s criticism carried weight in Washington and contributed to the Banking Committee delaying its planned markup hearing.

 

That delay rippled through the market, briefly weighing on crypto prices before sentiment stabilized.

 

Timing Gets Complicated

The Agriculture Committee is moving ahead more quickly, scheduling a markup hearing to debate amendments and advance its version of the bill.

 

The Banking Committee, meanwhile, has pushed its timeline back as lawmakers juggle other priorities, including housing legislation. That has pushed any meaningful progress into late winter or early spring at the earliest.

 

The longer the process drags on, the more uncertain the path becomes. Election season is approaching, and legislative calendars tend to tighten as political pressure increases.

 

A Broader Regulatory Backdrop Is Already in Place

The market structure debate is happening against a backdrop of recent regulatory action.

 

Congress has already passed stablecoin legislation that sets rules around reserves, disclosures, and audits. Earlier House efforts, including last year’s market structure bill, also laid groundwork by outlining how digital assets might be classified under federal law.

 

What the Senate is trying to do now is connect those pieces into a comprehensive framework. That has proven easier said than done.

 

The Next Test

The next major test will be whether the Agriculture and Banking Committees can reconcile their differences or whether one version gains enough momentum to dominate the process.

 

Expect heavy lobbying from crypto companies, financial institutions, and trade groups, particularly around stablecoin yield, DeFi protections, and agency jurisdiction.

 

For now, the Senate’s crypto market structure bill remains a work in progress, ambitious in scope, politically fragile, and still very much unsettled.

 

One thing is clear. The era of regulatory ambiguity is ending, even if the final shape of crypto regulation in the U.S. is still being fought over line by line.

Coinbase Draws a Line in the Sand on Market Structure Bill

 

Coinbase is stepping back from Washington’s biggest crypto push yet.

Just days before a crucial vote in the Senate Banking Committee, the largest US crypto exchange says it will not support the Senate’s sweeping crypto market structure bill in its current form. The message from Coinbase CEO, Brian Armstrong, is blunt. Regulatory clarity matters, but not at any cost.

The move highlights a growing divide between lawmakers eager to lock in federal rules and an industry increasingly wary of legislation that could reshape its business in unintended ways.

 

A Bill Meant to End the Gray Area

The Senate bill, months in the making, is designed to finally spell out how digital assets are regulated in the United States. At its core, the proposal tries to answer long-standing questions about which crypto assets fall under securities law, which should be treated as commodities, and how oversight should be split between regulators.

For years, crypto companies have complained that the lack of clear rules has pushed innovation offshore and left firms vulnerable to enforcement actions after the fact. On paper, this bill is supposed to fix that.

But as the text has taken shape, it has also picked up provisions that some in the industry see as deal-breakers.

 

Stablecoin Rewards Become the Flashpoint

For Coinbase, the biggest problem sits with stablecoins.

The draft legislation includes language that could sharply limit or effectively eliminate rewards paid to users who hold stablecoins on platforms like Coinbase. These rewards are not technically interest paid by issuers, but incentives offered by exchanges and intermediaries. Still, critics argue they look and feel a lot like bank deposits, without bank-style regulation.

Traditional banking groups have pushed hard for tighter rules here. Their concern is straightforward. If consumers can earn yield on dollar-pegged crypto tokens outside the banking system, deposits could drain from insured banks, particularly smaller ones.

Coinbase sees it differently. Stablecoin rewards have become a meaningful part of how crypto platforms compete and how users engage with dollar-based crypto products. Cutting them off, the company argues, would harm consumers and hand an advantage back to traditional finance.

In private and public conversations, Coinbase executives have made it clear that they are unwilling to back a bill that undercuts what they view as a legitimate and already regulated product.

"After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48 hours, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written,” Armstrong said. "This version would be materially worse than the current status quo, we'd rather have no bill than a bad bill."

 

Why This Matters Beyond Coinbase

Coinbase’s stance carries weight. It is one of the most politically active crypto companies in Washington and often serves as a bellwether for broader industry sentiment.

If Coinbase is out, others may quietly follow.

That raises the risk that lawmakers end up with a bill that lacks meaningful industry buy-in, or worse, one that passes but leaves key players unhappy enough to challenge or work around it.

Some firms are already exploring alternatives, including banking charters or trust licenses, as a hedge against restrictive federal rules. Others may simply slow US expansion and look overseas.

 

A Narrow Path Forward in the Senate

The timing is not ideal.

The Senate Banking Committee is expected to vote on the bill imminently, but support remains fragile. Lawmakers are divided not just on stablecoins, but also on how to handle decentralized finance, custody rules, and even ethics provisions tied to political exposure to crypto.

Add in election-year politics, and the window for compromise looks tight.

If the bill stalls or fails in committee, there is a real chance it gets pushed into the next Congress. That would mean at least another year, and likely more, of regulatory uncertainty.

 

No Law vs a Bad Law

Behind the scenes, a familiar argument is playing out.

Some in Washington believe that imperfect legislation is better than none at all. The industry, scarred by years of enforcement-first regulation, is no longer convinced.

Coinbase’s decision reflects a growing view among crypto companies that a flawed law could do more long-term damage than continued ambiguity. Once rules are written into statute, they are far harder to undo.

For now, the standoff continues.

 

Whether lawmakers soften the bill to keep major players on board or push ahead regardless may determine not just the fate of this legislation, but the shape of US crypto regulation for years to come.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

Coinbase has sued Connecticut, Michigan, and Illinois today, but it does not look like a typical regulatory skirmish. On the surface, it was about a few cease-and-desist orders targeting prediction market contracts. In practice, it put a much bigger question on the table. What exactly are prediction markets supposed to be?

Are they casinos in disguise, digital poker rooms with better UX, or a new kind of financial market that belongs under federal oversight?

The answer matters, because the wrong classification could freeze a fast-growing corner of finance in legal limbo.

 

Why Coinbase Is Taking States to Court

The states argue that Coinbase’s prediction markets amount to illegal gambling. Users put money down on outcomes. Some win, some lose. No state gambling license, no approval.

Coinbase sees it very differently. These contracts, the company argues, are event-based derivatives. They look like futures, trade like futures, and are already subject to federal commodities law. The Chief Legal Officer for Coinbase, Paul Grewal, stated in an X post on Friday that the company filed the lawsuits to "confirm what is clear" and that prediction market should fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

If states are allowed to regulate these markets anyway, the logic goes, national liquidity disappears. A market that works in one state but not another stops being a market at all. But, there are comparisons to existing gambling laws and we broke those down for you.

 

The Casino Comparison Only Goes So Far

State regulators tend to reach for the casino analogy first, and it is easy to see why. There is money at risk. Outcomes are uncertain. The optics are not subtle.

But structurally, prediction markets do not behave like casinos. Casinos set the odds. The house always wins over time. The product is entertainment.

Prediction markets do not work that way. Prices are set by participants. New information moves markets. There is no built-in house edge. The value comes from aggregating beliefs into a number that says something useful about the future.

Calling that gambling because it involves money is a shortcut, and not a very precise one.

 

Poker Explains the Skill Argument, and Its Limits

Poker is the comparison that usually comes next. Courts have spent years debating whether poker is mostly luck or mostly skill. Many have concluded that skill dominates over time, even if chance plays a role in the short run.

Yet poker is still regulated as gambling in most places. Not because it lacks skill, but because the law never quite figured out where else to put it.

That history matters. It shows how activities that clearly reward information and decision-making can still end up trapped in gaming frameworks that were built for something else entirely.

Prediction markets risk repeating that mistake. Like poker, they reward skill. Unlike poker, they are not games. They are continuous markets with prices, liquidity, and arbitrage. Treating them like a card room because money changes hands misses the point.

 

Why Prediction Markets Look Like Futures Markets

If you strip away the cultural baggage, prediction markets start to look familiar. They are standardized contracts tied to future outcomes. Prices reflect probability. Traders respond to data.

That is the same basic logic behind futures contracts tied to interest rates, inflation, or commodities. Those markets involve speculation, risk, and uncertainty too. They are regulated, but they are not treated as gambling.

This is where Coinbase’s argument lands. Congress already created a regulator for markets like this. The CFTC exists to oversee contracts that trade future outcomes, including event-based ones. The fact that an outcome is an election or a policy decision does not change the structure of the market.

 

What Changes If Coinbase Wins

If Coinbase wins, the impact goes well beyond these three states.

First, jurisdiction becomes clearer. States would no longer be able to regulate federally governed prediction markets simply by labeling them gambling. That alone would remove one of the biggest sources of uncertainty hanging over the industry.

Second, the casino argument loses legal weight. Courts would be acknowledging that uncertainty plus money does not automatically equal gambling, especially when prices are discovered through open trading rather than set by an operator.

Third, prediction markets would finally escape the poker problem. They would not sit in a gray zone where skill is recognized but regulation never quite fits. Instead, they would fall under a framework designed for markets, not games.

With that clarity, these markets could scale. Liquidity would deepen. Institutional participants could step in. Contracts tied to economic data, climate outcomes, and corporate milestones could expand without the constant risk of state-level shutdowns.

Over time, prediction markets could start to look less like a regulatory headache and more like infrastructure. Another tool, alongside surveys and models, for figuring out what the world might do next.

 

A Bigger Signal About Regulation

This case is not really about Coinbase. It is about whether U.S. regulation can adapt when finance starts to blur into something new, a question that has stifled digital asset growth for years.

Casinos deal in chance. Poker deals in skill inside a gaming framework. Futures markets deal in information. Prediction markets belong in the third category, even if they make people uncomfortable.

If courts agree, it would send a signal that regulation can still be about function rather than analogy. That is not a radical idea. It is how most financial markets came to exist in the first place. Prediction markets are here to stay. We've seen huge partnerships with major media news outlets and exchanges. The regulatory details need to be clearly defined for this emerging industry.

 

And if that happens, prediction markets may finally stop being debated as gambling, and start being treated as what they have been trying to become all along. Markets that trade in probabilities, under rules built for markets, not casinos.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

CFTC Eyes First Leveraged Spot Crypto Products by Next Month

 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is reportedly preparing to allow leveraged spot crypto asset products to launch as early as next month. These products would enable retail and institutional traders to buy and sell cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether on a spot basis with margin or leverage, similar to traditional commodity trading instruments.

This initiative marks a major shift in U.S. crypto regulation. For years, regulators treated spot crypto as largely unregulated or under-enforced. Now, the CFTC is using its existing authority under the Commodity Exchange Act to extend oversight to spot crypto trading, especially trades involving leverage, margin, or financing.

 

What the Proposal Means

Leveraged spot crypto products would work like this: A designated contract market (DCM) or registered futures exchange would list spot crypto contracts that are backed by actual delivery of crypto or tracked via underlying assets. Traders could engage in margin trades on the spot market rather than relying solely on futures or derivatives.

This means platforms regulated under the CFTC could list inventory of crypto assets, allow participants to borrow or finance positions, and require clearing, custody, and risk-management frameworks similar to those in commodities markets.

The CFTC recently launched a “listed spot crypto trading initiative,” inviting comment on how to list these products, including how to handle clearinghouses, custodian arrangements, and whether crypto assets are commodities or securities. That initiative referenced Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which specifically governs retail commodity transactions offered on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis.

The CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have also issued a joint staff statement affirming that current law does not prohibit regulated exchanges from listing certain spot crypto asset products, including those with leverage. Together, these regulatory moves signal a clear shift toward opening margin and leverage trading of spot crypto in the U.S.

 

Why It’s Significant for Crypto Markets

1. Regulatory clarity and scale
   For years, one of the key obstacles in the U.S. crypto market was uncertainty over how spot trading with leverage could function under existing law. By establishing a path for leveraged spot crypto trading under CFTC authority, the industry gains a bridge to larger-scale, regulated activity.

2. Margin and leverage could bring more liquidity
   Allowing spot crypto trading with margin may attract more participants, both retail and institutional, because they can use less capital to gain exposure. That could increase market depth and volatility.

3. Domestic competition with offshore exchanges
   Many existing leveraged crypto products are offered by overseas exchanges that lack full U.S. oversight. A regulated domestic pathway could shift volume from offshore platforms to U.S. venues, improving transparency and investor protection.

4. Integration with futures and derivatives markets
   Because these spot leveraged products could be listed on futures exchanges, the ecosystem of trading, hedging, and settlement may become more integrated. This could bring spot, futures, and options markets into closer alignment for crypto assets.

 

The Regulatory Mechanics and Timeline

The key regulatory anchor is Section 2(c)(2)(D) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which states that retail commodity transactions offered on a leveraged, margined, or financed basis must be conducted on a DCM or foreign board of trade (FBOT). Historically, this applied to futures and certain commodities. The CFTC is now interpreting this to apply to spot crypto if leverage or financing is involved.

On August 4, 2025, the CFTC launched its listed spot crypto trading initiative. Regulators invited public comments on how to implement listing spot crypto asset contracts on designated contract markets. Meanwhile, the CFTC’s acting chair has engaged with regulated exchanges and clearing organizations to prepare the framework.

Separately, the SEC-CFTC joint staff statement issued in early September affirmed that regulated U.S. exchanges may list spot crypto asset products and that margin and leverage are within scope, provided proper registration and oversight exist.

According to multiple reports, the CFTC is in active discussions with major exchanges, including futures venues such as CME, Cboe, and ICE, as well as crypto-native platforms, to list these leveraged spot products possibly by next month. That timeline positions the rollout sooner than many expected, though final approvals and exchange rule submissions remain necessary.

 

Potential Risks and Industry Implications

While this development could scale regulated crypto markets, several risks remain:

• Clearing and custody risk: Spot leveraged contracts require robust clearinghouses and custodians. Any weakness in settlement or collateral arrangements could create systemic stress.

• Market risk: Leverage amplifies both gains and losses. If leveraged retail positions grow without sufficient risk controls, it could increase volatility or trigger sharp liquidations.

• Regulatory arbitrage: As U.S. venues expand these offerings, overseas platforms may still offer different terms. Fragmentation could persist unless the domestic offering is competitive on cost and efficiency.

• Securities law overlap: The CFTC’s effort applies to “commodity” crypto assets. If tokens are deemed securities, the SEC retains oversight. Platforms must ensure proper asset classification and compliance.

 

What to Watch Next

• Exchange rule filings: Watch for futures exchanges or DCMs submitting rule changes or product proposals for leveraged spot crypto contracts.

• Clearinghouse partnerships: Expect new collaborations between clearing organizations and crypto custodians, which are essential for safe margin and settlement operations.

• Public feedback: The CFTC’s open comment process will reveal where industry stakeholders align or disagree on the proposal’s structure.

• Asset inclusion: Bitcoin and Ether are expected to be first, but whether other tokens join early will indicate how broad the regulatory green light truly is.

• Margin parameters: The permitted leverage levels, such as 2x, 5x, or 10x, will determine the potential scale of new trading activity.

 

Final Thoughts

The CFTC’s push to approve leveraged spot crypto products marks a pivotal moment in U.S. digital asset regulation. It moves the market closer to a structure where spot trading of crypto under margin and leverage is not only possible but also regulated in line with traditional commodities.

For the crypto industry, this means deeper liquidity, greater institutional involvement, and a more secure trading environment. Yet it also raises the stakes. Leverage and margin create opportunity but also amplify risk. The success of this initiative will depend on how carefully exchanges, clearinghouses, and regulators manage execution and oversight.

 

If the launch proceeds as early as next month, it could accelerate crypto’s integration into mainstream financial markets and bring a new era of regulated spot trading to the U.S. The next few weeks may determine whether leveraged spot crypto becomes a lasting cornerstone of the industry or remains a tightly controlled experiment.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.