• Hayden Adams, CEO, Uniswap Labs
• Brian Armstrong, CEO, Coinbase
• Shayne Coplan, CEO, Polymarket
• Brad Garlinghouse, CEO, Ripple
• Luke Hoersten, CEO, Bitnomial
• Tarek Mansour, CEO, Kalshi
• Kris Marszalek, CEO, Crypto.com
• Nathan McCauley, CEO, Anchorage Digital
• Peter Mintzberg, CEO, Grayscale
• Sergey Nazarov, CEO, Chainlink Labs
• Arjun Sethi, Co CEO, Kraken
• Peter Smith, CEO, Blockchain.com
• Tyler Winklevoss, CEO, Gemini
• Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO, Solana Labs
• Andrej Bolkovic, CEO, Options Clearing Corporation
• Thomas Chippas, CEO, Rothera Markets
• Professor Harry Crane, Representative
• Chris Dixon, General Partner, a16z Crypto
• Craig Donohue, CEO, Cboe Global Markets
• Terry Duffy, Chair and CEO, CME Group
• Tom Farley, CEO, Bullish
• Adena Friedman, Chair and CEO, Nasdaq
• Christian Genetski, President, FanDuel
• Frank LaSalla, President and CEO, Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
• Walt Lukken, CEO, FIA
• Scott D. O’Malia, CEO, ISDA
• Alana Palmedo, Managing Partner, Paradigm
• Vivek Raman, CEO, Etherealize
• Professor Carla Reyes, Representative
• Jason Robins, CEO, DraftKings
• David Schwimmer, CEO, LSEG
• Vance Spencer, Co founder, Framework Ventures
• Jeff Sprecher, CEO, Intercontinental Exchange
• Vlad Tenev, CEO, Robinhood
• Don Wilson, CEO, DRW

 

 

 

Washington has spent the past several months talking about crypto clarity. What it got this week was something closer to a standoff.

 

At the center of the latest White House meeting between crypto executives and banking lobbyists was a surprisingly narrow issue that has turned into a major fault line: stablecoin yield.

 

On paper, the CLARITY Act is supposed to settle jurisdictional turf wars between regulators and create a workable framework for digital assets in the United States. In practice, negotiations have slowed to a crawl over whether stablecoin holders should be allowed to earn rewards.

 

Crypto companies came to the table expecting to negotiate. Bank representatives arrived with something closer to a red line.

 

 

The Yield Problem

Stablecoin yield sounds simple. Platforms offer incentives, rewards, or returns to users who hold dollar-backed tokens. Sometimes that comes from lending activity. Sometimes it comes from promotional programs. Structurally, it does not always look like a bank deposit.

 

Banks are not buying that distinction.

 

From their perspective, if consumers can hold tokenized dollars and earn a return without stepping inside the banking system, that looks a lot like deposit competition. And not just competition, but competition without the same regulatory burden.

 

Banks operate under capital requirements, liquidity ratios, deposit insurance rules, stress testing frameworks, and layers of federal oversight. Stablecoin issuers, even under proposed legislation, would not be subject to the same regime.

 

So the banking lobby’s position has been blunt. No yield. Not from issuers, not indirectly through affiliated programs, not in ways that replicate interest-bearing accounts.

 

The crypto side sees that as overreach.

 

 

Is This About Risk or About Control?

Publicly, banks frame their opposition as a financial stability issue. If large amounts of capital flow out of insured deposits and into stablecoins offering yield, that could shrink the deposit base that supports lending. In a stress scenario, they argue, the dynamic could amplify volatility.

 

There is logic there. Deposits are the backbone of bank balance sheets. Disintermediation is not a trivial concern.

 

But crypto executives are asking a quieter question. If the issue is really about safety, why push for a blanket prohibition rather than tighter guardrails? Why not cap yield structures, restrict how they are funded, or impose disclosure standards?

 

Why eliminate them entirely?

 

Some in the industry suspect the answer is competitive pressure. Stablecoins have already become critical plumbing for crypto markets, facilitating trading, settlement, and cross-border transfers. Add yield into the equation and they start to look even more like digital savings instruments.

 

That begins to encroach on traditional banking territory.

 

 

The Competitive Threat

Banks have historically tolerated crypto in its speculative corners. Trading tokens is volatile, niche, and largely outside the core consumer banking relationship.

 

Stablecoins are different. They are dollar-denominated. They are increasingly integrated into payment systems. They can move across borders faster than traditional rails. And they are programmable.

 

Now imagine those same tokens offering yield, even modest incentives. The psychological shift for consumers could be meaningful. Why leave idle cash in a checking account earning almost nothing if a tokenized version offers some return and similar liquidity?

 

To bankers, that is not innovation. That is deposit leakage.

 

And in a higher rate environment, where funding costs matter, deposit competition becomes more acute.

 

 

The Legislative Bottleneck

The CLARITY Act was supposed to resolve long-running disputes between regulators and provide certainty for digital asset firms operating in the United States. Instead, stablecoin yield has turned into the sticking point holding up broader progress.

 

White House officials have reportedly pressed both sides to find compromise language. So far, that compromise remains elusive.

 

Crypto firms argue that banning yield outright could push innovation offshore. Jurisdictions in Asia and parts of Europe are moving ahead with stablecoin frameworks that do not automatically prohibit reward structures. The fear in Washington’s crypto circles is that overcorrection could hollow out domestic competitiveness.

 

Banking groups counter that allowing yield would create a parallel banking system without equivalent safeguards.

 

The tension is not just technical. It is philosophical.

 

 

A Larger Question About Money

At its core, this debate is about who gets to intermediate digital dollars.

 

If stablecoins become widely used and allowed to offer returns, they could evolve beyond trading tools into mainstream financial instruments. That challenges the traditional hierarchy where banks sit at the center of deposit-taking and credit creation.

 

Banks are not opposed to digital dollars in theory. Many are experimenting with tokenization and blockchain infrastructure themselves. But they want those innovations inside the regulated banking perimeter, not outside of it.

 

Crypto companies, on the other hand, see decentralization and alternative rails as the point.

 

So when banks push to ban stablecoin yield entirely, the crypto industry reads it as more than prudence. It looks like an attempt to protect market share.

 

 

The Bottom Line

For now, negotiations continue. There is still political appetite in Washington to pass comprehensive crypto legislation, especially as digital asset markets remain a significant part of the financial system.

 

But unless lawmakers can thread the needle between stability concerns and competitive fairness, stablecoin yield could remain the issue that stalls everything else.

 

And that leaves an uncomfortable reality.

 

If the United States cannot decide whether digital dollars are allowed to earn a return, the market may decide elsewhere.

 

Polymarket has gone on the offensive.

 

The crypto-powered prediction market has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts, arguing that state regulators are overstepping their authority as they move to block sports-related prediction markets. The case puts Polymarket on a collision course with state gambling laws and could determine how far U.S. states can go in policing a fast-growing corner of crypto-finance.

 

At stake is a much bigger question than one company’s business model. The lawsuit tests whether prediction markets should be treated as federally regulated financial instruments or as another form of sports betting that states can license, restrict, or ban outright.

 

 

A Growing Clash Between States and Prediction Markets

Prediction markets allow users to trade on the probability of future events. Elections, economic data releases, interest rate decisions, and increasingly, sports outcomes. Traders buy and sell contracts that pay out based on what actually happens, with prices shifting in real time as sentiment changes.

 

Supporters argue these markets are closer to financial derivatives than gambling. Critics, especially state regulators, say sports-based contracts look and feel like wagers, regardless of how they are structured.

 

That tension has been simmering for years, but it boiled over recently when Massachusetts moved to shut down Kalshi’s sports-related markets. Kalshi operates as a federally regulated exchange under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, yet a Massachusetts court sided with the state, granting regulators the power to block those contracts locally.

 

For Polymarket, that ruling was a warning shot.

 

 

Why Massachusetts Matters

Massachusetts has become ground zero for the state-level pushback. The state’s attorney general has argued that sports prediction contracts violate local gambling laws and should not be allowed without a state-issued license. Courts have so far been receptive to that argument, at least on an interim basis.

 

The implications extend far beyond one state. Regulators in Nevada and other jurisdictions have cited the Massachusetts case as justification for their own enforcement actions. If one state can successfully reclassify prediction markets as gambling, others are likely to follow.

 

Polymarket’s lawsuit is designed to stop that domino effect.

 

 

Polymarket’s Core Argument

Polymarket’s legal case is straightforward and ambitious.

 

The company argues that event-based contracts fall squarely under federal commodities law and that the CFTC has exclusive authority to regulate them. If that view holds, states would be barred from using gambling statutes to restrict or ban prediction markets, even when those markets involve sports.

 

In other words, Polymarket is asking the court to draw a hard line between federally regulated markets and state gambling oversight.

 

The lawsuit also reflects a strategic shift. Rather than waiting for a cease-and-desist or injunction, Polymarket is preemptively seeking judicial clarity before Massachusetts or other states can formally block its offerings.

 

 

Sports Markets Are the Flashpoint

Sports contracts sit at the center of the controversy for a reason. Unlike political or economic forecasts, sports betting is already heavily regulated at the state level, with billions in tax revenue flowing through licensed sportsbooks.

 

State officials argue that prediction markets offering contracts on game outcomes undermine that system and create an unlicensed alternative to traditional betting.

 

Prediction market operators counter that their products are fundamentally different. Prices are set by traders, not oddsmakers. Positions can be bought and sold before outcomes are known. Risk is distributed across a market, not absorbed by a house.

 

Courts have not yet settled which interpretation carries more weight.

 

 

The Broader Stakes for Crypto and Finance

The outcome of Polymarket’s lawsuit could shape the future of prediction markets in the U.S. If states prevail, platforms may be forced to geo-block large portions of the country or abandon sports contracts entirely. That would likely slow growth and limit mainstream adoption.

 

If Polymarket wins, it could establish a powerful precedent. Federal preemption would give prediction markets a clearer regulatory runway and could encourage more institutional participation in event-based trading.

 

There is also a competitive angle. Traditional sportsbooks operate under state licenses and strict compliance regimes. Prediction markets that fall outside those systems could disrupt the sports betting industry, which has expanded rapidly since the repeal of PASPA.

 

 

The Bottom Line

The case is still in its early stages, but the direction is clear. Prediction markets are no longer operating in a gray area that regulators are willing to ignore.

 

As states push back and platforms respond with federal lawsuits, the U.S. is heading toward a defining legal moment for event-based markets. Whether they end up regulated like derivatives or treated like gambling will determine not just where these platforms can operate, but what kind of products they can offer at all.

 

For now, Polymarket has drawn its line. The courts will decide how far states can go in crossing it.

 

The White House is preparing to bring crypto executives and banking leaders into the same room again, a sign that Washington’s long running fight over how to regulate digital assets has reached another pressure point.

 

According to reporting citing Reuters, senior figures from the crypto industry and the banking sector are expected to meet with White House officials in early February to discuss a market structure bill that has recently hit a wall in Congress. The meeting comes at a moment when lawmakers have already locked in a stablecoin framework, but cannot seem to agree on the bigger question of who regulates crypto markets and how.

 

Market structure may sound abstract, but it is the foundation of everything else. It determines which agency has authority, how tokens are classified, how exchanges register, and whether new products are built in the United States or somewhere else.

 

The fact that the White House is stepping in suggests the administration believes the debate has moved beyond talking points and into the phase where compromises need to be made, especially between banks and crypto firms that see the future very differently.

 

Why this meeting matters now

When the White House convenes both sides of a financial policy fight, it usually means the normal legislative process is struggling. That is exactly what is happening with crypto market structure.

 

Congress made real progress last year by passing a federal stablecoin law. That victory raised expectations across the industry that broader rules for exchanges, tokens, and decentralized finance would be next. Instead, lawmakers have found themselves bogged down in disagreements that are harder to paper over.

 

At a high level, everyone says they want clarity. In practice, clarity means deciding winners and losers.

 

Banks want to make sure crypto products do not look or behave like deposits without being regulated like deposits. Crypto firms want rules that let them list assets, offer yield, and build new protocols without constant fear of enforcement actions. Regulators want authority that actually matches how the market works.

 

Those goals collide most directly in market structure legislation, which is why it has become the most contentious piece of crypto policy in Washington.

 

 

Where the bill stands today

The House has moved, the Senate is stuck

 

The House of Representatives has already passed a sweeping market structure bill that lays out a framework for classifying digital assets and dividing oversight between the SEC and the CFTC. The basic idea is simple. Tokens that function like securities fall under the SEC. Tokens that operate more like commodities fall under the CFTC, including spot market oversight.

 

That approach has strong support in the crypto industry because it offers a path to compliance that does not rely on years of litigation.

 

The Senate, however, is a different story. Jurisdiction is split between the Banking Committee and the Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC. Each committee has released its own drafts, and neither side has a clear path to unifying them.

 

Markups have been delayed. Amendments are piling up. And the clock is ticking as lawmakers turn their attention to other priorities.

 

Stablecoin rewards have become the flashpoint

One of the biggest reasons the bill is stalled is stablecoin yield.

 

Even though stablecoins already have their own law, they still sit at the center of the market structure debate because they touch the banking system directly. The most controversial issue is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer rewards simply for being held.

 

From the banking perspective, yield bearing stablecoins look uncomfortably close to deposits. Banks argue that if a token offers a return and can be redeemed at par, it competes with insured deposits without being subject to the same rules.

 

From the crypto side, rewards are seen as a feature, not a loophole. Many firms argue that stablecoins backed by cash and short term Treasurys are fundamentally different from bank liabilities, and that banning rewards would freeze innovation and entrench incumbents.

 

Some Senate drafts have tried to split the difference by restricting passive yield while allowing activity based incentives. That compromise has not satisfied everyone, which is why the issue keeps resurfacing.

 

This is also where a White House meeting could make a difference. Any bill that passes will need language banks can accept and crypto firms can actually use.

 

 

DeFi is the second unresolved battle

Decentralized finance is the other major fault line.

 

Lawmakers and regulators agree that DeFi cannot exist entirely outside the law. They disagree on how to draw the boundary. Some Senate proposals push Treasury to define compliance obligations for DeFi platforms, including disclosures and recordkeeping requirements.

 

The challenge is obvious. If the rules treat software like a traditional intermediary, developers will leave or go dark. If the rules are too permissive, lawmakers worry about money laundering, sanctions evasion, and consumer harm.

 

So far, no draft has solved this cleanly. The result is cautious, sometimes vague language that satisfies no one and invites future fights.

 

 

The SEC versus CFTC question is still unresolved

At its core, market structure is about classification.

 

Is a token a security, a commodity, something else, or some hybrid category that does not fit neatly into existing law? That answer determines which regulator takes the lead and how companies design their products.

 

Some Senate drafts introduce concepts like network tokens or ancillary assets to bridge the gap between traditional securities and decentralized systems. These ideas are meant to reduce uncertainty, but they also raise new questions about enforcement and interpretation.

 

For exchanges, custodians, and issuers, this is not academic. Classification determines what can be listed, how staking works, and whether certain products are viable in the US at all.

 

 

The Bottom Line

I am generally positive on the White House holding this meeting. At a minimum, it acknowledges what everyone in the industry already knows, which is that market structure is stuck and normal committee process is not getting it unstuck.

 

Getting banks and crypto firms in the same room matters, even if no one walks out with a breakthrough headline. These conversations tend to shape the edges of legislation more than the core, but in a bill this complex, the edges are often where everything breaks.

 

That said, expectations should stay grounded. A single meeting is not going to magically resolve the stablecoin yield debate, redraw the DeFi compliance perimeter, or settle the SEC versus CFTC turf war. Those fights are structural and political, and they will take time.

 

If anything meaningful comes out of this, it will likely show up quietly in revised draft language weeks from now, not in a press release the next day.

 

Still, the fact that the White House is leaning in is a good sign. It suggests there is real pressure to get something done, and an understanding that half measures or endless delay are no longer acceptable. For an industry that has spent years asking Washington to engage seriously, that alone is progress, even if the final outcome remains very much in flux.

 

U.S. law enforcement is quietly trying to sort through a messy and uncomfortable situation involving seized cryptocurrency, a government contractor, and allegations that tens of millions of dollars were improperly siphoned from wallets controlled by federal authorities.

 

At the center of the case is a claim that more than $40 million in seized crypto was moved out of government-linked wallets without authorization. The U.S. Marshals Service has confirmed it is reviewing the allegations, though no charges have been announced and the investigation remains in its early stages.

 

The claims surfaced publicly after blockchain investigators began flagging unusual on-chain movements tied to wallets believed to be associated with assets seized by the U.S. government in prior criminal cases.

 

Blockchain Trails and a Familiar Name

Much of the attention comes from independent blockchain investigators who traced large transfers from wallets associated with seized funds to addresses allegedly controlled by a single individual. According to multiple blockchain intelligence reports, the individual at the center of this incident is identified as John Daghita, known in crypto circles by the alias “Lick”. Analysts such as ZachXBT, an independent blockchain investigator, publicly tied on-chain movements from government-controlled cryptocurrency addresses to wallets controlled by Daghita.

 

ZachXBT’s investigation reportedly traced back transactions involving tens of millions of dollars to wallet addresses that received $24.9 million from a U.S. government account in March 2024. This particular government account is linked to assets seized after the 2016 Bitfinex hack, one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts in history, where authorities later seized funds connected to that case.

 

“Meet the threat actor John (Lick), who was caught flexing $23M in a wallet address directly tied to $90M+ in suspected thefts from the US Government in 2024 and multiple other unidentified victims from Nov 2025 to Dec 2025”, ZachXBT wrote on X.

 

According to on-chain analysis shared publicly, one wallet received roughly $25 million from a government-controlled address in March 2024. Investigators say the source wallet appears to be tied to cryptocurrency seized in connection with the 2016 Bitfinex hack, a case that has continued to ripple through the crypto industry nearly a decade later.

 

The situation escalated after a dispute in a Telegram group, where the individual allegedly disclosed wallet details that appeared to confirm control over large balances of ether and other digital assets. Once those wallet addresses were public, blockchain analysts quickly began connecting dots.

 

While blockchain data can show where funds move, it cannot on its own establish intent or legality. That distinction has become especially important as the story gains traction.

 

The Contractor Connection

What has made the case particularly sensitive is a reported family link to a government contractor.

 

John Daghita is said to be the son of Dean Daghita, president of Command Services and Support, a Virginia-based firm that holds a federal contract connected to the handling of seized cryptocurrency for the U.S. Marshals Service. The company was awarded that contract in late 2024, following a competitive procurement process that drew objections from rival bidders.

 

The contract reportedly covers the management and liquidation of certain seized digital assets, particularly smaller or less liquid tokens that are not typically handled by large exchanges.

 

There is no public evidence that the contractor itself is under investigation or that the alleged misconduct occurred as part of official company operations. Still, the overlap between government custody, private contractors, and family relationships has raised uncomfortable questions about access controls and oversight.

 

A Broader Problem for Seized Crypto

The allegations land at a time when the U.S. Marshals Service is already under scrutiny for how it manages digital assets. The agency plays a central role in handling property seized in criminal cases, including cryptocurrency tied to fraud, ransomware, darknet markets, and hacking incidents.

 

Over the years, the Marshals Service has accumulated billions of dollars worth of crypto, including large bitcoin holdings seized in high-profile cases. But audits and reporting have repeatedly shown that tracking, accounting, and securing these assets is far from simple.

 

Internal systems were not originally designed for blockchain-based assets, and oversight bodies have previously flagged weaknesses in inventory tracking and custody procedures. In some cases, the agency has struggled to provide a clear accounting of exactly how much crypto it holds at a given time.

 

Those challenges have become more visible as the value of seized crypto has soared and as debates continue in Washington over whether the government should hold, sell, or strategically manage these assets.

 

What Happens Next

For now, the U.S. Marshals Service is keeping its comments limited. Officials have acknowledged the allegations and confirmed that they are being reviewed, but they have not said whether criminal charges are expected or whether any funds have been recovered.

 

Key questions remain unanswered. Investigators will need to determine whether the alleged transfers involved unauthorized access, compromised credentials, or insider misuse of systems tied to crypto custody. Another open issue is whether the case points to individual misconduct or deeper structural weaknesses in how seized digital assets are handled.

 

Until law enforcement provides more clarity, much of the public narrative will continue to be shaped by blockchain analysts and online investigators. As with many crypto-related cases, the transparency of the blockchain offers clues, but not conclusions.

 

What is clear is that the case highlights the growing pains of government agencies adapting to digital assets. As crypto seizures become more common and more valuable, the systems designed to safeguard them are being tested in very real ways.

 

The walls between Wall Street and the "Wild West" of digital assets just got a little thinner.

 

Charles Schwab, the stalwart of retail investing, has officially signaled its intent to join the spot crypto trading fray.

 

CEO Rick Wurster confirmed on Yahoo Finance’s Opening Bid podcast that Schwab plans to roll out spot Bitcoin and Ethereum trading within the next 12 months. The rollout will debut on their high-octane Thinkorswim platform before migrating to the standard Schwab.com and mobile interfaces.

 

The Strategy: Blue Chips Only

While platforms like Robinhood or Coinbase often lean into the viral chaos of "meme coins," Schwab is taking a predictably measured approach. Wurster made it clear that the firm isn't interested in the speculative frenzy of the latest Shiba Inu derivative.

 

"Those are areas we will leave to the side," Wurster stated, emphasizing that Schwab’s focus remains on "everyday investors" looking to integrate crypto into a diversified, long-term portfolio.

 

A Shifting Regulatory Tide

Schwab isn't acting in a vacuum. The move comes as the regulatory environment in Washington undergoes a massive vibe shift. Since the Trump administration took office, the SEC has pivoted from its previously aggressive "regulation by enforcement" stance.

 

With the swearing-in of the pro-crypto Paul Atkins as SEC Chair—replacing the crypto-skeptic Gary Gensler—lawsuits against major exchanges have been dropped, and restrictive accounting rules for banks holding crypto have been scrapped. Morgan Stanley is reportedly following a similar blueprint, with eyes on adding spot trading to E*Trade by 2026.

 

Ty’s Take: The View from the New Guy

As someone who is relatively new to the financial industry, watching this unfold feels like seeing a massive cruise ship finally decide to change course. For years, the "old guard" of finance treated crypto like a radioactive hobby. Now, they're laying out the red carpet.

 

My honest opinion? This is the "Adults in the Room" moment for crypto.

 

I think Schwab’s decision to avoid meme coins is a brilliant move for their brand. It tells their clients: "We aren't here to help you gamble; we're here to help you invest." For a guy like me, seeing these legacy institutions provide a regulated, familiar bridge to Bitcoin makes the space feel less like a casino and more like a legitimate asset class.

 

However, there’s a catch. Part of me wonders if Schwab is a little late to the party. By the time they launch, many retail investors may have already set up shop elsewhere. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my short time here, it’s that you never bet against the convenience of having all your money—stocks, bonds, and now crypto—under one roof.

 

The "crypto winter" is officially over, and the thaw is being led by the very people who once told us to stay away. It’s an exciting time to be entering the industry, even if it means I have a lot more homework to do on blockchain tech.

 

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.

 

When Michael Selig stepped into the role of CFTC chair late last year, the crypto industry was already expecting a change in tone. This week, it got confirmation.

 

On January 20, Selig announced the launch of the CFTC’s new “Future-Proof” initiative, a program designed to rethink how U.S. markets regulate crypto, digital assets, and other fast-moving financial technologies. The message was clear. The old approach is no longer enough.

 

Rather than relying on enforcement actions and retroactive interpretations of decades-old rules, the CFTC wants to build regulatory frameworks that actually reflect how these markets function today.

 

For an industry that has spent years navigating uncertainty, that alone is a notable shift.

 

A Chair With Deep Crypto Roots

Selig is not new to crypto regulation. Before taking the top job at the CFTC, he worked closely with digital asset policy at the SEC and spent time in private practice advising both traditional financial firms and crypto companies. He also previously clerked at the CFTC, giving him an unusually well-rounded view of how regulators and markets interact.

 

That background shows up in his public comments. Since taking office, Selig has repeatedly emphasized predictability, clarity, and rules that market participants can actually follow without guessing how an agency might interpret them years later.

 

The Future-Proof initiative is the clearest expression of that philosophy so far.

 

What “Future-Proof” Really Means

At its core, Future-Proof is about moving away from improvisation. The CFTC wants to stop forcing novel digital products into regulatory boxes built for traditional derivatives and commodities.

 

Instead, the agency plans to pursue purpose-built rules through formal notice-and-comment processes. That means more upfront guidance and fewer surprises delivered through enforcement actions.

 

Selig has described the goal as applying the minimum effective level of regulation. Enough oversight to protect markets and participants, but not so much that innovation is choked off before it has a chance to mature.

 

For crypto firms, that approach could offer something they have long asked for but rarely received, which is regulatory certainty.

 

Why the Industry Is Paying Attention

The timing matters. Crypto markets are more institutional than they were even a few years ago. Large asset managers, trading firms, and infrastructure providers want clearer rules before committing serious capital. Uncertainty around jurisdiction and compliance has been one of the biggest obstacles.

 

If the CFTC follows through, Future-Proof could help define how derivatives, spot markets, and emerging products like prediction markets are treated under U.S. law. That would make it easier for firms to build, invest, and operate without constantly second-guessing regulators.

 

At the same time, clarity cuts both ways. More defined rules could also raise the bar for compliance, especially for smaller startups and decentralized platforms that have operated in legal gray zones.

 

 

Tennessee Attempts to Block Prediction Markets

 

 

A Broader Political Shift

Selig’s initiative does not exist in isolation. It comes as lawmakers in Washington continue debating how to split crypto oversight between the CFTC and the SEC. Several proposed bills aim to draw clearer lines around digital commodities and spot market regulation, potentially expanding the CFTC’s role.

 

Future-Proof appears designed to fit neatly into that broader push. If Congress hands the agency more authority, the CFTC wants to be ready with frameworks that can scale.

 

Still, challenges remain. The commission currently lacks a full slate of confirmed commissioners, raising questions about how durable these policy shifts will be. Coordination with the SEC is another open issue, especially where token classifications blur the line between securities and commodities.

 

What Does The Future Hold?

For now, Future-Proof is more direction than destination. The real test will be how quickly the CFTC turns principles into actual rules, and whether those rules survive political change and legal scrutiny.

 

But the tone alone represents a meaningful break from the past. After years of regulation by enforcement and ambiguity, the agency is signaling that crypto markets are not a temporary problem to be contained, but a permanent part of the financial system that deserves thoughtful governance.

 

Whether that vision becomes reality will shape the next phase of U.S. crypto regulation, and potentially determine whether innovation stays onshore or continues looking elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

Bermuda is taking a swing that very few governments have even talked about seriously, let alone tried.

 

The island nation says it wants to move large parts of its economy directly onto public blockchains, using stablecoins and crypto infrastructure instead of the traditional banking and payments stack. To do that, it has teamed up with Coinbase and Circle, two of the most established companies in the industry.

 

This is not a pilot tucked away in a sandbox. The ambition here is much bigger. Bermuda wants onchain rails to support real economic activity, the kind that happens every day, not just crypto trading.

 

Whether that actually works is still an open question. But the fact that a government is trying at all is notable.

 

How Bermuda Got Here

Bermuda did not wake up one morning and decide to put its economy onchain.

 

For years, the island has been quietly building a reputation as a place where crypto companies can operate without constantly guessing how regulators will react. The rules are clear. Licensing exists. Enforcement is predictable. That alone puts Bermuda ahead of many much larger jurisdictions.

 

Coinbase and Circle both set up regulated operations there long before this announcement. In some ways, this new initiative looks like the next logical step rather than a sudden leap.

 

Officials describe it as modernization. Fewer intermediaries, faster settlement, and lower costs. In plain terms, they think the financial plumbing can work better.

 

What the Crypto Companies Actually Do

Coinbase is mostly about infrastructure here.

 

Think wallets, compliance tooling, and the systems that make it possible for people and businesses to interact with blockchains without needing to understand every technical detail. Coinbase has spent years building that stack, and Bermuda wants to plug into it.

 

Circle’s role is more straightforward. It issues USDC, the dollar backed stablecoin that would act as the money moving through this onchain system. The appeal is obvious. Prices do not swing wildly, and payments can move quickly without touching legacy rails.

 

Together, they provide something that looks less like an experiment and more like a functioning financial system, at least on paper.

 

Regulation Is the Quiet Enabler

None of this happens without regulation that is already in place.

 

Bermuda’s digital asset laws spell out what exchanges, issuers, and custodians can and cannot do. That sounds boring, but it matters. It gives companies confidence to build, and it gives the government leverage to enforce standards.

 

In a global crypto landscape still shaped by uncertainty and court cases, that kind of clarity stands out.

 

For Bermuda, regulation is not about keeping crypto at arm’s length. It is about making it usable at scale.

 

This Is Not The First Test

There have already been small but meaningful trials.

 

Last year, local residents were given stablecoins to spend at participating merchants during a digital finance event. People bought meals, paid for services, and moved money using wallets and QR codes. It was not perfect, but it worked well enough to get attention.

 

Merchants got paid quickly. Users did not have to think too hard about what was happening under the hood. For policymakers, that mattered more than transaction volume.

 

Those early trials helped turn a concept into something more concrete.

 

Bermuda’s approach is anchored in what The Hon. E. David Burt, JP, MP, Premier of Bermuda describes as a collaborative model between government, regulator, and industry designed to enable responsible innovation at scale.

 

“Bermuda has always believed that responsible innovation is best achieved through partnership between government, regulators, and industry, with the support of Circle and Coinbase, two of the world’s most trusted digital finance companies, we are accelerating our vision to enable digital finance at the national level. This initiative is about creating opportunity, lowering costs, and ensuring Bermudians benefit from the future of finance.”

 

Payments Are Really the Point

Strip away the buzzwords and this comes down to payments.

 

Small economies often pay more to move money, especially across borders. Stablecoins promise faster settlement and fewer fees, which can make a real difference for local businesses and government operations alike.

 

If onchain payments become normal in Bermuda, that alone would be a meaningful shift. Everything else, tokenization, smart contracts, broader digital asset services, comes later.

 

Why People Outside Bermuda Care

Bermuda is small, and that is part of the advantage.

 

Rolling out new systems is easier when you are not dealing with hundreds of millions of people and layers of bureaucracy. But success on a small island still sends a signal.

 

If this works, it shows that stablecoins can operate inside a regulated national framework without blowing things up. It also raises uncomfortable questions for countries that are still debating whether crypto belongs anywhere near their financial systems.

 

Other governments are paying attention, even if they are not saying much yet.

 

The Hard Parts Are Still Ahead

Adoption is not automatic.

 

People need to trust the tools they are using. Businesses need to see clear benefits. Regulators need to keep up as technology and global standards change. Any one of those things can slow momentum.

 

There is also the question of what happens when onchain systems meet real economic stress, not just controlled pilots and conferences.

 

That test has not happened yet.

 

What This Really Represents

For most of crypto’s history, the industry has talked about changing finance while mostly building parallel systems that sit off to the side.

 

Bermuda is trying something different. It is asking whether blockchain infrastructure can simply become part of how an economy runs, quietly and without much fanfare.

 

It might work. It might not.

 

Either way, it pushes the conversation forward in a way few announcements do.

New Bipartisan Senate Crypto Bill Targets Developer Liability

 

As the U.S. Senate pushes towards markup for the CLARITY Act, a new bipartisan push in the U.S. Senate is trying to answer another question that has come up again and again in crypto.

When does writing software turn into running a financial business?

At the center of the debate is a bill reintroduced by Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) that aims to clarify when crypto developers, open-source maintainers, and infrastructure providers should, and should not, be treated as money transmitters under federal law. The proposal does not try to deregulate crypto wholesale. Instead, it tries to draw a hard line between publishing code and controlling user funds.

That distinction might sound obvious to engineers. To prosecutors, it has been anything but.

 

Why this suddenly matters so much

For years, the idea of “developer liability” lived mostly in white papers, legal panels, and late-night conference debates. That changed when U.S. authorities began testing aggressive theories that treat certain privacy tools and non-custodial software as unlicensed financial businesses.

Cases involving Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet turned a theoretical concern into a real one. The message many developers heard was simple and chilling: if people use your software to move money, you might be responsible for how they use it, even if you never touched the funds yourself.

That fear has started to shape behavior. Some teams have shut down. Others have avoided building in the U.S. entirely. Many have quietly redesigned products to remove any feature that could be interpreted as “control.”

This Senate bill is a direct response to that climate.

 

The core idea: code is not custody

The proposal, often referred to as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, rests on a single principle. Developers and infrastructure providers should not be treated as money transmitters if they do not have custody of user assets and do not have the unilateral ability to move or control those assets.

In other words, liability should follow control, not authorship.

If you run an exchange, a broker, or a custodial wallet, this bill does nothing for you. You are still squarely in regulated territory. But if you publish open-source software, operate a node, maintain a wallet interface, or provide routing infrastructure without custody, the bill aims to put you outside money transmitter rules.

That matters because money transmitter classification is not a small thing. It can trigger state-by-state licensing, federal registration, AML obligations, and in some cases criminal exposure if regulators decide you crossed the line without permission.

Even if a developer ultimately wins in court, the cost and risk of getting there can be enough to stop innovation cold.

 

Why “control” is the battlefield

The word that does all the work in this bill is “control,” and that is exactly where the fight will be.

In clean cases, the distinction is easy. Exchanges custody funds. Non-custodial wallets do not. But crypto is full of gray areas.

Upgradeable smart contracts with admin keys. Front ends that can block addresses. Protocols with pause buttons. Governance structures that look decentralized on paper but concentrated in practice.

Regulators may argue that these forms of influence amount to control. Developers will argue they do not.

The Senate bill tries to anchor the definition to something narrow and concrete: the legal right or unilateral technical ability to move someone else’s assets. Whether that language survives negotiations intact is an open question.

 

How this fits into the broader crypto regulation fight

This developer liability push is happening alongside a much bigger legislative effort to overhaul U.S. crypto market structure more broadly. That larger framework aims to clarify which assets are securities, which are commodities, and which agencies oversee what.

What is becoming clear is that developer liability has become a quiet pressure point in those negotiations. Many lawmakers may be willing to compromise on market structure details, but fewer are comfortable backing a system that could criminalize software developers for publishing neutral tools.

In that sense, developer protections are no longer a niche issue. They are a prerequisite for passing broader crypto legislation at all.

 

What would change if this becomes law

If enacted, the bill would not end debates about crypto and compliance. But it would shift them.

First, it would give open-source developers and infrastructure providers a clearer legal lane, especially those building non-custodial systems.

Second, it would encourage business models that minimize custody by design. Expect more architectures that deliberately strip out admin powers, key control, and unilateral intervention.

Third, it would push regulators to focus enforcement elsewhere. Centralized onramps, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and brokers would remain the primary choke points for AML and sanctions policy.

That shift may frustrate some policymakers. It will reassure many builders.

 

The bigger question Congress is really answering

Strip away the legal language and the crypto politics, and this debate boils down to something fundamental.

Is publishing financial software more like writing code, or more like running a bank?

The Lummis-Wyden approach says it depends on whether you control the money. That principle is simple, intuitive, and easy to explain. The hard part will be writing it into law tightly enough to protect neutral builders without giving cover to businesses that function as intermediaries in everything but name.

 

That fight is just getting started.

 

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.

Bakkt’s Stablecoin Bet Sparks Stock Surge

 

Bakkt (NYSE: BKKT) shares jumped sharply this week after the company announced plans to acquire stablecoin payments infrastructure firm Distributed Technologies Research Ltd., or DTR. The rally says as much about what investors want Bakkt to become as it does about the deal itself.

The all-stock acquisition is the clearest signal yet that Bakkt is no longer trying to be a broad crypto platform. Instead, it is leaning into a narrower, and arguably more defensible, role as a regulated financial infrastructure company built around stablecoin settlement and payments.

Markets liked the pivot. Bakkt stock closed the day up 18% to $19.21, briefly hitting its highest level in months.

 

What Bakkt is actually buying

DTR is not a consumer brand. It does not run an exchange or wallet that retail users recognize. Instead, it sells payments plumbing. Its technology is designed to move money across borders using stablecoins, while still interfacing with traditional fiat rails.

That positioning matters. Stablecoins have increasingly become the connective tissue between crypto and traditional finance, especially for payments, treasury operations, and international settlement. Owning infrastructure in that layer gives Bakkt something closer to a picks-and-shovels business rather than another trading venue fighting for volume.

For Bakkt, the appeal is straightforward. By bringing stablecoin settlement in-house, the company can reduce reliance on third-party providers, speed up product development, and package a single, integrated stack for institutional clients.

This is not about launching another app. It is about selling rails.

 

The structure of the deal

The transaction is structured as an all-stock acquisition and still needs regulatory and shareholder approval. Based on Bakkt’s disclosures, the deal would result in the issuance of just over nine million new shares, though the final number could change depending on adjustments laid out in prior agreements.

One important detail is governance. DTR is controlled by Akshay Naheta, who has also served as Bakkt’s co-CEO. That relationship introduces obvious questions around conflicts and valuation.

Bakkt appears to have anticipated that scrutiny. The company said the deal was reviewed and approved by an independent special committee of the board. Intercontinental Exchange, which owns a significant stake in Bakkt, has also agreed to vote in favor of the transaction.

Those steps do not eliminate concerns, but they do suggest Bakkt understood the optics and tried to address them early.

 

Why the market reacted so strongly

The stock move was not just about the acquisition. It was about narrative.

Bakkt has spent the past year trying to simplify itself. The company has pulled back from consumer-facing experiments and loyalty products, and has talked more openly about becoming a pure crypto infrastructure provider.

This deal fits that story cleanly.

Stablecoin infrastructure is one of the few areas in crypto where traditional finance firms are quietly increasing engagement. Banks, payment processors, and large enterprises are exploring settlement use cases even as trading volumes fluctuate. Investors see optionality in that shift, especially if regulation continues to clarify rather than clamp down.

There is also a timing element. Bakkt plans to formally change its corporate name later this month and has scheduled an investor day at the New York Stock Exchange in March. Those milestones give the market something to anchor expectations to, and something to trade around.

While the announcement felt abrupt to the market, the relationship between Bakkt and DTR is not new.

The two companies have been commercially aligned for months, with earlier agreements focused on integrating stablecoin payments technology into Bakkt’s platform. From that perspective, the acquisition looks less like a bold leap and more like a second step.

First comes the partnership. Then comes ownership of the core layer once both sides decide the integration matters enough.

 

The risks still on the table

The excitement does not erase real questions.

Dilution is the most immediate one. This is an all-stock deal, and existing shareholders will want clarity on how much value DTR is actually contributing relative to the equity being issued.

Execution risk is another. Payments infrastructure sounds clean on a slide deck, but it is operationally demanding. It requires compliance discipline, bank partnerships, uptime guarantees, and a credible enterprise sales motion. None of that happens automatically.

There is also the issue of revenue concentration. Bakkt has previously lost large clients, and investors will want to know whether this new strategy truly diversifies revenue or simply shifts dependence to a different set of partners.

Those answers are unlikely to come all at once. The March investor day will probably be the first real test of whether Bakkt can explain this strategy in concrete terms.

But, Bakkt’s acquisition of DTR is a bet on where crypto quietly intersects with traditional finance, not where the loudest narratives live. Stablecoins, settlement, and payments are not as flashy as meme coins or ETFs, but they are where real volumes tend to stick.

The stock’s reaction shows investors are willing to believe in that story, at least for now.

 

Whether Bakkt can turn that belief into a durable business will depend on execution in the months ahead.

 

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.

Tennessee Orders Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com to Halt Sports Prediction Contracts

 

Tennessee regulators have ordered Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com to immediately stop offering sports-related prediction contracts to residents of the state, escalating a growing conflict between state gambling authorities and federally regulated prediction markets.

The Tennessee Sports Wagering Council issued cease-and-desist orders on January 9, demanding that the three platforms halt all sports event contracts, void any open positions tied to Tennessee users, and refund customer funds by the end of the month.

State officials argue the products function as unlicensed sports betting under Tennessee law, regardless of how the companies describe them.

The move places Tennessee alongside a growing list of states pushing back against prediction markets that allow users to trade contracts based on the outcomes of sporting events, elections, or real-world events. While the platforms frame these products as financial instruments, state regulators increasingly see them as gambling by another name.

 

What Tennessee Is Demanding

According to the orders, Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com must immediately cease offering sports contracts to Tennessee residents. Any existing sports-related contracts must be canceled, and all funds deposited by users in the state must be returned by January 31.

Failure to comply could expose the companies to civil penalties, injunctions, and possible criminal enforcement under Tennessee’s sports gaming laws.

The council’s position is straightforward. If money is being risked on the outcome of a sporting event, the state considers it sports wagering, which requires a license, tax payments, and adherence to consumer protection rules.

 

The Regulatory Fault Line

At the heart of the dispute is a long-running jurisdictional battle between state gambling regulators and the federal framework governing derivatives and commodities trading.

Kalshi and Polymarket operate under federal oversight tied to commodities regulation, and Crypto.com has positioned its event contracts as a similar financial product. The companies argue that their platforms fall outside traditional sports betting laws and should be regulated at the federal level.

Tennessee, like several other states, rejects that argument. State officials maintain that federal oversight does not override state authority when it comes to gambling conducted within state borders.

This disagreement has become one of the most contentious regulatory issues facing crypto-adjacent markets in the U.S.

 

A Pattern Across the States

Tennessee’s action is not an isolated case. Over the past year, multiple states have issued warnings or cease-and-desist orders targeting prediction markets tied to sports outcomes. Recently, Coinbase filed suit against Connecticut, Michigan, and Illinois. Those states argue that Coinbase's prediction markets amount to illegal gambling and are attempting to ban them there.

Gaming regulators in states such as Nevada, New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio, and Illinois have raised similar concerns, arguing that prediction markets undermine state-regulated sports betting ecosystems while avoiding licensing requirements and taxes.

In some cases, platforms have pulled back voluntarily. In others, companies have opted to fight.

Kalshi has already challenged similar enforcement actions in court, arguing that state gambling laws are being improperly applied to federally regulated markets. The outcome of those cases could shape the future of prediction markets nationwide.

 

Why States Are Pushing Back Now

State regulators say the issue is not just about definitions, but about consumer protection and regulatory consistency.

Licensed sportsbooks are required to meet strict standards related to age verification, responsible gambling tools, fund segregation, and auditing. States argue that prediction markets offering sports contracts operate outside those guardrails while competing for the same customers.

There is also growing concern that prediction markets blur the line between financial trading and gambling in ways existing laws were never designed to address.

For regulators, allowing these products to operate unchecked could weaken the authority of state gaming frameworks that were carefully built following the legalization of sports betting.

 

What Happens Next

The Tennessee order adds new pressure on Kalshi, Polymarket, and Crypto.com at a time when prediction markets are expanding rapidly and attracting increased attention from both traders and policymakers.

The companies could comply and exit the state, challenge the order in court, or push for clearer federal guidance that limits states’ ability to intervene.

Until that happens, the industry remains stuck in a regulatory gray zone, where legality depends less on federal approval and more on how individual states choose to interpret decades-old gambling laws.

 

For crypto-linked prediction markets, Tennessee’s action is another reminder that regulatory risk in the U.S. remains fragmented, unpredictable, and increasingly aggressive.