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.

Florida Renews Push for a Bitcoin Reserve

 

Florida lawmakers are once again taking up the question of whether the state should hold Bitcoin as part of its long-term financial strategy, reviving a proposal that failed to advance last year but now returns with a revised structure and new momentum.

The effort comes as crypto markets have stabilized after a volatile stretch, with Bitcoin regaining ground and institutional interest continuing to grow. Against that backdrop, Florida’s move places it back into a widening national debate over whether digital assets belong on government balance sheets.

At the center of the push is House Bill 1039, filed during the 2026 legislative session, which would establish a Florida Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve.

 

What the Bill Would Do

House Bill 1039 proposes creating a standalone reserve fund held outside the State Treasury and overseen by Florida’s Chief Financial Officer. The CFO would be granted authority to acquire, hold, sell, or manage digital assets under prudent investment standards, including the ability to contract with third-party custodians and service providers.

While the bill is written broadly, it sets strict eligibility rules for any asset included in the reserve. To qualify, a cryptocurrency must have maintained an average market capitalization of at least $500 billion over the prior two years. Based on current market conditions, that threshold effectively limits the reserve to Bitcoin.

The legislation also establishes a Strategic Cryptocurrency Reserve Advisory Committee, designed to provide guidance and oversight. At least three members would be required to have direct experience investing in digital assets, acknowledging the technical and operational complexity involved in managing crypto at the state level.

If passed, the bill would take effect on July 1, 2026.

 

A Return to an Unfinished Debate

Florida’s renewed push follows the collapse of similar efforts during the 2025 legislative session. Those earlier proposals would have allowed the state to allocate up to 10 percent of certain public funds directly into Bitcoin but were ultimately withdrawn before a final vote.

Another bill introduced around the same time would have gone even further, authorizing the CFO and the State Board of Administration to invest portions of public and pension funds into Bitcoin, crypto exchange-traded products, tokenized securities, and non-fungible tokens. That proposal included detailed custody and compliance provisions but also failed to gain enough traction to advance.

This year’s bill reflects a more cautious approach. By placing the reserve outside the main treasury and narrowing eligible assets, lawmakers appear to be trying to strike a balance between experimentation and risk control.

 

Market Context and State Competition

The timing of Florida’s move is notable. Bitcoin prices have rebounded from earlier lows, and digital assets are increasingly being discussed in the context of long-term portfolio diversification rather than short-term speculation. Exchange-traded products, corporate treasury allocations, and broader institutional adoption have shifted how policymakers frame the asset.

Florida is not alone. Texas moved ahead last year with legislation establishing a state-managed Bitcoin reserve funded with public dollars, making it the most aggressive example so far of a U.S. state embracing Bitcoin at an institutional level. Other states, including Arizona and New Hampshire, have passed narrower frameworks that stop short of direct funding.

Many similar proposals across the country have stalled, underscoring how politically sensitive the issue remains.

 

Supporters and Skeptics Remain Split

Supporters of Florida’s proposal argue that a Bitcoin reserve could help diversify state assets, hedge against inflation, and position Florida as a forward-looking financial hub. They also point to the advisory committee and high eligibility threshold as safeguards against reckless exposure.

Critics continue to raise concerns about volatility, custody risks, and the appropriateness of using public funds for an asset that can swing sharply in value. Questions about accounting standards, security practices, and public accountability are expected to feature prominently as the bill moves through committee hearings.

 

What Happens Next

House Bill 1039 must clear multiple legislative hurdles, including committee review, passage in both chambers, and approval by the governor. While its future remains uncertain, the proposal signals that Florida lawmakers are not ready to abandon the idea of state-level crypto reserves.

 

As more governments revisit Bitcoin through a policy lens rather than a speculative one, Florida’s debate could offer a clearer picture of how digital assets fit into the next phase of public finance.

 

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.

Wyoming Launches the First State-Issued Dollar Stablecoin

 

Wyoming just crossed a line that many in crypto have talked about for years but few thought would happen this soon. The state has announced the official launch its own U.S. dollar stablecoin, live across seven major blockchains, making it the first U.S. state to issue a blockchain-based digital dollar at scale.

The move is not symbolic. It is operational, multi-chain, and designed to be used.

Wyoming just provided one of the strongest validations yet that blockchain technology can be beneficial to the financial system and it is here to stay.

 

What Wyoming actually launched

The new stablecoin, known as the Frontier Stable Token (FRNT), is a dollar-pegged asset issued under Wyoming state authority. Unlike private stablecoins that usually start on a single network, this one launched simultaneously across seven blockchains, including Arbitrum (ARB), Avalanche (AVAX), Base, Ethereum (ETH), Optimism (OP), Polygon (POL), and Solana (SOL) networks.

That decision matters. It signals that Wyoming is not picking winners in the blockchain wars. Instead, it is meeting users and developers where they already are.

The token is backed by U.S. dollar reserves and short-term Treasuries, with a buffer above one hundred percent backing. In plain terms, the state is trying to build something boring, stable, and trustworthy. In stablecoins, that is a feature, not a flaw.

 

Why this is different from every other stablecoin

Until now, every major stablecoin has come from the private sector. USDT, USDC, and others dominate because they were fast, global, and useful, not because they were government-issued.

Wyoming’s move flips that script without turning it into a federal project. This is not a central bank digital currency. It is a state-issued stablecoin built under existing law, with public oversight and clear rules around reserves and transparency.

That distinction is important. It shows there is a middle ground between unregulated private money and a top-down federal digital dollar. Wyoming is effectively saying states can innovate here too.

For crypto, this is a quiet but powerful endorsement. A U.S. state is not just regulating stablecoins. It is issuing one.

 

Why Wyoming was able to do this

This did not come out of nowhere.

Wyoming has spent years building a reputation as the most crypto-forward state in the country. From digital asset custody laws to DAOs and special-purpose depository institutions, the state has consistently taken the approach of learning the technology and writing laws around it, rather than trying to ban it into submission.

The stablecoin project is the logical next step. Instead of just attracting crypto companies, Wyoming is now exporting crypto infrastructure.

It also shows a level of comfort with blockchain that most governments still lack. Launching across multiple chains, managing reserves, and coordinating public and private partners is not trivial. Wyoming treated it like a real financial product, not a pilot experiment.

 

Why this is good for the stablecoin industry

Stablecoins already move more value than most people realize. They are the backbone of crypto trading, global remittances, and on-chain finance. What they have often lacked is public-sector legitimacy.

Wyoming’s stablecoin helps close that gap.

It sends a message that stablecoins are not just tools for exchanges and traders. They are payments infrastructure that governments can use, oversee, and improve. That matters for banks, fintechs, regulators, and institutions that have been watching from the sidelines.

It also strengthens the case that stablecoins are not a threat to the dollar, but an extension of it. This token is explicitly dollar-backed, designed to move dollars faster and more efficiently, not replace them.

 

The bigger picture

The launch itself is only the beginning.

Over time, a state-issued stablecoin opens the door to faster government payments, real-time settlement for contractors, easier cross-border transactions, and new ways to move money without relying on slow banking rails.

Just as importantly, it creates a reference point. Other states now have a working example to study, critique, and potentially copy. That alone raises the odds that stablecoin innovation in the U.S. accelerates rather than stalls.

Adoption will still matter. Liquidity, exchange access, and user experience will determine whether this becomes widely used or remains a niche tool. But the foundation is there, and it is far more serious than anything seen before from a state government.

For years, crypto advocates have argued that blockchains are better infrastructure for money. Faster settlement. Fewer intermediaries. More transparency. More programmability.

Wyoming just put that argument into practice.

By launching a fully backed, multi-chain dollar stablecoin, the state has shown that crypto is not just compatible with public finance, it can improve it. That is a meaningful moment, not just for Wyoming, but for the entire stablecoin ecosystem.

 

This is what progress in crypto often looks like. Quiet, practical, and suddenly very real.

 

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.

Japan’s Move on XRP Could Signal Real Change in How Money Moves Around the World

 

Japan is quietly laying some important groundwork that could make XRP more than just another crypto token. What’s happening now in Tokyo and in the country’s banking corridors could shape the way large pools of capital get sent across borders in the years ahead.

The big idea circulating among traders and institutional tech teams is that Japan is turning its regulatory and financial attention toward programmable settlement rails. XRP fits into that picture because it can move value fast and cheaply. But the real story is about infrastructure, banks, and the rules that let them play without fear of breaking the law.

Here’s what’s going on.

 

Regulation is Shifting from Theory to Reality

For years Japan has talked about clarifying how digital assets should be treated under the law. That conversation has been moving into serious policy change. Regulators in Tokyo are preparing updates that would treat crypto assets more like traditional financial products. That changes the risk profile for big incumbents. It makes it easier for banks and brokers to offer crypto services without special carve-outs or excessive legal gymnastics.

At the same time, Japan’s government has publicly backed projects from major banking groups to issue stablecoins. This is the kind of step that signals policymakers see on-chain settlement as more than a novelty. Stablecoins are the closest thing in crypto to digital cash, and when big banks start experimenting with them, it opens the door for broader adoption.

For XRP specifically, these regulatory shifts matter because they reduce uncertainty. If regulators are saying, “Yes, this is finance. Let’s give clear rules,” then large institutions are closer to saying, “Yes, we can build real products here.”

 

SBI and Ripple: A Relationship That Keeps Delivering

Much of the buzz around XRP in Japan centers on the work between SBI Group and Ripple. These two have been collaborating for years to push payment innovation, remittance services, and now regulated digital asset distribution.

One of the biggest developments to watch is the planned rollout of a regulated stablecoin called RLUSD in Japan. Ripple and SBI’s exchange arm have said they intend to bring it to market soon. While RLUSD isn’t XRP itself, it matters to XRP as part of the ecosystem. More regulated on-chain money means more use cases where a fast settlement asset like XRP can add real value.

If RLUSD gets traction and institutions start using it for real flows, that could create a halo effect for XRP. Liquidity and rails built around regulated tokens help the whole market.

 

What “Integration” Really Means

When the headlines say “Japan is adopting XRP,” it doesn’t literally mean every bank is running XRP nodes tomorrow. What’s actually happening is more nuanced. There are three main layers in play:

1. Remittance and payment rails The work between SBI entities and others to offer faster and cheaper cross-border payments is a base layer. XRP’s speed and low cost make it interesting here.

2. Regulated stablecoin frameworks These open the door for tokenized fiat in ways that Japan’s largest banks can legally touch.

3. Capital markets access If Japanese brokers and banks can offer structured products involving XRP, that could lead to real institutional capital flows.

That last part is what people mean when they talk about “global capital flows.” It’s not just remittance. It’s corporate treasury movement, fund flows, cross-border settlement in amounts that matter to institutional desks.

 

The Bigger Picture on Liquidity

For XRP to truly shine as a bridge asset, liquidity and execution quality have to be reliable around the clock. This isn’t just about regulatory licenses. It’s about markets that don’t freeze up when volatility hits. So while Japan might be creating the conditions for adoption, the rest of the ecosystem has to be ready too.

But here’s the positive spin: the institutional interest in XRP is no longer theoretical. It’s tied to real product plans, real regulatory engagement, and partnerships with major financial groups.

 

Why This Matters Outside Japan

If Japan ends up with a live, regulated stack that includes stablecoins, regulated exchanges, bank participation, and real settlement activity, that becomes a proof point. Other countries watch this stuff. When a major developed market shows it can integrate crypto tech with regulated finance, it marks a shift in global capital infrastructure.

That doesn’t guarantee XRP will win every corridor or every use case. But it does mean that XRP is not sitting on the crypto fringes. Japan’s approach shows it is being considered in serious planning for next-generation settlement rails.

 

What to Watch in the Coming Months

Real adoption doesn’t come from announcements alone. What we want to see is:

• Live throughput on remittance corridors using on-chain settlement.

• Institutional partners offering XRP exposure in regulated products.

• Bank and broker integration that goes beyond pilot mode.

• Stablecoin and regulated token use that actually moves significant value.

If those conditions start showing up in quarterly reports and product launches, then the narrative shifts from potential to performance.

 

Bottom Line

Japan is not shouting at the top of its lungs that XRP is the future money rail. What is happening is more meaningful. The country is building a compliant, regulated framework that makes it possible for assets like XRP to be used in real capital movement at scale.

 

In an industry where regulation and finance often move at glacial pace, this feels like movement. For XRP holders and anyone watching the evolution of cross-border settlement, that is headline-worthy. It might not be the revolution yet, but it could easily be the start of one.

 

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.

What Is The CLARITY Act and Why It Is So Important

 

If you have spent any real time building, trading, or working in crypto in the U.S., you already know the pattern. The rules are never fully clear. Guidance usually comes after the fact. And “compliance” often feels less like a checklist and more like a guessing game.

That is the environment the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, better known as the CLARITY Act, is trying to change.

On January 15, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to hold a critical markup session on the bill. That might sound like inside-baseball legislative procedure, but it is not. A markup is where lawmakers decide what a bill really is. Language gets tightened. Loopholes get closed or widened. Entire sections can disappear.

For crypto, this is one of those moments where the future shape of U.S. regulation is actually being decided.

 

The problem CLARITY is trying to solve

Right now, crypto regulation in the U.S. is reactive.

The laws that exist were written long before blockchains, tokens, or decentralized networks. Regulators have mostly tried to force crypto into frameworks that were never designed for it, often relying on enforcement actions to define the rules retroactively.

CLARITY is an attempt to stop doing that.

The bill starts from a simple premise: not everything in crypto is the same, so it should not all be regulated the same way.

Launching a token to fund a network is not the same as trading that token years later. Writing open-source code is not the same as holding customer funds. Running a wallet is not the same as running an exchange.

Those distinctions sound obvious inside the industry. CLARITY tries to make them explicit in law.

 

Tokens are not frozen in time

One of the most important ideas in the bill is that a token’s legal treatment should not be locked forever to how it was first sold.

Under the current system, if a token was ever distributed in a way that looks like fundraising, it can carry securities risk indefinitely. Even if the network decentralizes. Even if the original team steps away. Even if the token functions more like a commodity than an investment.

CLARITY tries to separate:

• The initial transaction, which may look like an investment contract

• The token itself, once it is broadly distributed and actively used

That distinction matters because it opens the door to secondary markets operating without constant legal uncertainty, while still keeping guardrails around early fundraising.

 

What “mature blockchain” actually means

To make that transition possible, CLARITY introduces the concept of a mature blockchain system.

Stripped of legal language, the question is pretty straightforward: does anyone actually control this thing?

If a small group can still unilaterally change the rules, supply, or governance, regulators get more leverage. If control is meaningfully distributed and no one actor is calling the shots, the regulatory burden can ease.

The bill creates a certification process around this idea, with a defined window for regulators to challenge a claim of maturity.

This is one of the most debated sections of the bill. It is also one of the most important. The standard has to be real, but it also has to be achievable. Senate changes here could dramatically affect how useful the bill ends up being.

 

How token launches could work going forward

CLARITY does not remove oversight from token launches. Instead, it tries to make that oversight fit reality.

The bill allows certain token offerings to proceed under an exemption, but only with meaningful disclosures. Projects would need to explain things like:

• How token supply and issuance work

• What rights, if any, token holders have

• How governance actually functions in practice

• What the project plans to build and what risks exist

The shift here is away from clever legal gymnastics and toward plain-English transparency. For founders, that could mean fewer surprises and a clearer sense of what is expected.

 

Why exchanges are watching this so closely

For U.S. crypto exchanges, CLARITY is largely about secondary markets.

Today, listing a token can feel risky even if that same asset trades freely outside the U.S. The legal line between primary fundraising and secondary trading has never been cleanly drawn.

CLARITY tries to draw that line. If it holds, exchanges would finally have a framework designed specifically for spot crypto markets, instead of trying to fit into rules written for something else.

 

A bigger role for the CFTC

Another major shift is regulatory jurisdiction.

CLARITY gives the CFTC clear authority over spot markets for digital commodities, not just derivatives. It also creates new registration paths for exchanges, brokers, and dealers that are tailored to how crypto markets actually function.

Importantly, the bill pushes for speed. It directs the CFTC to create an expedited registration process, acknowledging that waiting years for clarity is not realistic in fast-moving markets.

 

DeFi, software, and where things get tricky

DeFi is where the bill walks a tightrope.

CLARITY says that people should not be treated as regulated intermediaries just for building or maintaining software, running nodes, providing wallets, or supporting non custodial infrastructure. It also makes clear that participating in certain liquidity pools, by itself, should not automatically trigger exchange-level regulation.

At the same time, fraud and manipulation laws still apply.

Supporters see this as long overdue recognition that infrastructure is not the same as custody or brokerage. Critics worry about edge cases, especially where front ends, admin controls, or governance tokens blur the lines.

This is an area where Senate edits could have outsized impact.

 

Federal rules versus state rules

The bill also leans toward stronger federal oversight and narrower state-by-state requirements in certain areas.

For companies, that means fewer conflicting regimes and lower compliance friction. For critics, it raises concerns about losing fast-moving state enforcement in an industry that still sees its share of bad actors.

That tension is not going away, and it will likely surface again during markup.

 

Self custody, explicitly protected

One of the clearest statements in CLARITY is its protection of self custody.

The bill explicitly affirms the right to hold your own crypto and transact peer to peer for lawful purposes. In an environment where indirect restrictions have been a constant fear, putting this into statute is not symbolic. It is structural.

 

Developers get some breathing room

CLARITY also addresses a long-running concern among builders.

The bill says that non-controlling developers and infrastructure providers should not be treated as money transmitters simply for writing code or publishing software, as long as they do not control user funds or transactions.

For many developers, this removes a quiet but persistent legal cloud that has hung over the industry.

 

Why January 15 is such a big deal

The January 15 markup is where all of this either becomes real or starts to unravel.

This is where lawmakers decide how strict the maturity standards are, how wide the DeFi exclusions go, how much authority regulators actually get, and whether the bill delivers usable clarity or just new gray areas.

If CLARITY moves forward in a recognizable form, it becomes the most serious attempt yet to give crypto a durable U.S. market structure. If it does not, the industry likely stays where it is now, building first and hoping the rules catch up later.

 

How you can get involved?

This is also the moment where voices outside Washington still matter.

Lawmakers are actively weighing feedback. Staffers are reading messages. Offices are tracking where their constituents stand. Silence gets interpreted as indifference, and indifference makes it easier for complex bills to stall or be watered down.

If you believe crypto should have clear rules instead of enforcement-by-surprise, this is the time to say so.

That means contacting your representatives. Find out who your representative is and where they stand on crypto policy. Tell them that market structure clarity matters. Explain why builders, users, and businesses need predictable rules to stay in the U.S. Explain why self custody, open infrastructure, and lawful innovation should be protected, not pushed offshore.

 

It also means supporting organizations that are trying to organize that voice.

One such organization is Rare PAC, a political action committee advocating for regulatory clarity, innovation, and economic opportunity powered by decentralized technologies. Rare PAC works to ensure that the United States remains a global leader in those decentralized technologies and supports candidates who are committed to building A Crypto Forward America.

 

Bills like CLARITY do not pass or fail in a vacuum. They pass because people show up, speak up, and make it clear that getting this right matters.

 

January 15 is not the end of the process, but it is one of the moments that will shape everything that comes after.

Aave Tries to Cool Governance Tensions as Revenue Debate Puts DAO Control in Focus

 

Aave is once again at the center of a familiar DeFi question. Who really controls the protocol, the DAO or the company that builds and maintains it?

 

This week, Aave Labs moved to ease growing tensions with the Aave DAO after backlash over how non-protocol revenue is handled. The dispute has exposed deeper cracks in the relationship between token holders and the development team, and raised uncomfortable questions about decentralization, ownership, and incentives in one of crypto’s largest lending platforms. In a governance post on Friday, Aave founder Stani Kulechov wrote that,

"Given the recent conversations in the community, at Aave Labs we are committed to sharing revenue generated outside the protocol with token holders, alignment is important for us and for AAVE holders, and we’ll follow up soon with a formal proposal that will include specific structures for how this works.”

At issue is revenue generated outside Aave’s core smart contracts. Specifically, fees tied to the protocol’s frontend and swap integrations. While these fees are not produced directly by the lending protocol itself, many DAO members argue they should still benefit token holders, especially when the interface is tightly associated with the Aave brand.

 

The disagreement came into focus after Aave Labs switched its frontend swap provider, a move that redirected fees away from the DAO treasury. Some delegates estimate the change could divert millions of dollars annually that previously flowed to token holders. That sparked immediate criticism, with governance participants accusing Aave Labs of unilaterally monetizing the ecosystem without sufficient community approval.

 

Aave Labs has pushed back on that framing. The team says the frontend is a separate product that requires ongoing development, maintenance, and legal responsibility. From its perspective, monetizing the interface is a reasonable way to fund operations, and not a violation of DAO governance. The protocol itself, they argue, remains fully controlled by token holders.

 

Still, the explanation did little to calm concerns. For many in the DAO, the issue is less about the money and more about precedent. If revenue connected to the Aave user experience can be captured outside governance, it raises questions about how much power token holders actually have.

 

The situation escalated when a proposal surfaced that would move control of Aave’s brand assets into a DAO-controlled legal structure. The vote was rushed to Snapshot, drawing criticism over process and transparency. Some contributors said the proposal appeared without proper consultation, further eroding trust at an already sensitive moment.

 

Market reaction was swift. AAVE’s price slid as traders weighed the uncertainty, adding financial pressure to an already tense governance environment. Longtime delegates warned that unresolved conflicts between Labs and the DAO could weaken Aave’s standing as a leading DeFi protocol.

 

In response, Aave Labs has now signaled a willingness to compromise. The team proposed sharing portions of non-protocol revenue with the DAO, framing it as a goodwill gesture rather than an obligation. The move is intended to reset the conversation and bring governance discussions back to alignment rather than escalation.

 

Whether that will be enough remains unclear. Some DAO members see the offer as a step in the right direction. Others worry it avoids the core issue, which is defining where the DAO’s authority begins and ends.

 

The broader implications stretch well beyond Aave. As DeFi matures, protocols are increasingly forced to reconcile decentralization ideals with the realities of product development, regulation, and sustainable funding. Aave’s governance clash is becoming a case study in what happens when those lines are left blurry.

 

 

For now, both sides appear to be stepping back from the brink. But the debate has made one thing clear. In crypto, decentralization is not a destination, it’s an ongoing negotiation.

2025 Was the Year Crypto Regulation in the US Finally Grew Up

For years, crypto regulation in the United States felt stuck in a loop. Regulators argued over definitions. Courts weighed in after the fact. Companies tried to guess how existing rules might be applied to new technology. Progress was slow, uneven, and often reactive.

In 2025, something changed.

Instead of debating what crypto is, lawmakers and regulators began focusing on how crypto markets actually function. The shift was not loud or dramatic, but it was meaningful. And it made 2025 one of the most consequential years for U.S. crypto regulation so far.

 

From Debate to Infrastructure

The defining feature of crypto regulation in 2025 was its practicality.

Regulators spent the year tackling questions that are not especially flashy but matter enormously for market growth. Who is allowed to issue a digital dollar. What backs a stablecoin in real terms. How quickly exchange traded products can be approved. What custody looks like when ownership is defined by control of a private key.

These are not philosophical debates. They are infrastructure decisions. And infrastructure is what determines whether a market stays niche or becomes part of the financial system.

That shift did not mean regulators became more permissive. It meant they became more operational.

 

A Fragmented System, With Clearer Edges

The U.S. regulatory structure remains fragmented. Congress sets the legal framework, but oversight is split across agencies.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees securities markets.
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates commodities and derivatives.
• The Internal Revenue Service governs tax treatment.
• Banking regulators supervise insured institutions and their subsidiaries.

That structure did not change in 2025. A single digital asset can still fall under multiple regimes depending on how it is traded, marketed, custodied, or used.

What did change is that the parts of crypto that intersect most directly with traditional finance began to get clearer boundaries and processes.

 

Stablecoins Became a Federal Issue

The most significant development of the year was the passage of the GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

Before this law, stablecoins largely operated under state level money transmission rules or informal regulatory expectations. Issuers relied on disclosures and attestations. Banks stayed cautious, unsure how supervisors might view their involvement.

The new framework set expectations around who can issue payment stablecoins, how reserves must be held, and how redemption works under supervision. In practical terms, it began to treat stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

That matters because stablecoins sit at the center of crypto trading, payments, and settlement. Clear federal rules make it easier for banks and regulated firms to engage without risking regulatory surprises.

 

Investment Products Got More Predictable

Crypto investment products also moved forward.

The SEC approved generic listing standards for certain commodity based trust products. That change reduced the need for one off negotiations for every new exchange traded product and made approval timelines more predictable.

Predictability may not generate headlines, but it changes behavior. It lowers legal costs, shortens timelines, and makes firms more willing to launch products beyond the most obvious ones. It also makes advisers and institutions more comfortable allocating capital through standardized structures.

Tax treatment improved as well. The IRS introduced a staking safe harbor for certain trust structures, allowing proof of stake assets to generate yield without automatically breaking tax classification. That adjustment brought tax rules closer to how these networks actually operate.

 

Custody Finally Moved Into Focus

Custody has long been one of crypto’s most difficult issues.

Traditional finance is built around regulated custodians, clear chains of control, and established customer protection rules. Crypto does not fit neatly into that model, since control is defined by private keys rather than physical possession or centralized records.

In late 2025, regulators began addressing this gap more directly. The SEC provided guidance on how broker dealers should approach custody of crypto asset securities. Banking regulators outlined how institutions could apply to issue stablecoins through supervised subsidiaries.

These steps did not eliminate complexity, but they replaced ambiguity with process. In regulated markets, that distinction is crucial.

 

What Was Left Unfinished

Not everything was resolved.

The largest unresolved issue remains market structure, particularly the line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act advanced in Congress but did not become law in 2025. That uncertainty continues to influence how companies list tokens and design compliance programs.

Still, the fact that market structure legislation remained active suggests the debate has moved from whether crypto should be regulated to how best to finish the framework.

 

Why 2025 Mattered

Most of the regulatory changes in 2025 were not about enforcement actions or penalties. They were about building rules that allow institutions to participate without improvisation.

Stablecoins gained a federal framework. Investment products became more standardized. Custody moved closer to supervision rather than theory.

Taken together, these steps made crypto look less like a legal edge case and more like emerging financial infrastructure.

 

Looking Ahead

If 2025 was about laying groundwork, 2026 will be about implementation.

The next phase will involve rulemaking, supervision, and real world deployment. Stablecoin issuers will apply for licenses. Banks will test new payment rails. Product sponsors will launch under clearer standards.

The momentum from 2025 created something the U.S. crypto market has lacked for years: a sense that the rules, while still evolving, are becoming legible.

 

That may not satisfy everyone. But for a market that thrives on scale, clarity is often more valuable than certainty.

 

Where the Conversation Continues

For anyone trying to understand where crypto regulation and policy are actually headed, these conversations are no longer abstract. They are happening in real time, often face to face.

That is part of what makes Rare Evo stand out.

Rare Evo takes place July 28-31, 2026, in Las Vegas at The ARIA Resort & Casino, and has become one of the premier industry event where regulators, policymakers, and blockchain builders share the same room. It is not just a conference about price action or product launches. It is a place to hear directly from the people shaping policy, alongside the teams building the technology those policies will govern.

Panels and discussions at Rare Evo tend to focus on how regulation works in practice, what regulators are actually thinking, and how the industry can engage constructively rather than reactively. For anyone serious about long term adoption, it is one of the more valuable rooms to be in.

You can learn more about the event and purchase tickets at https://rareevo.io/buy-tickets

 

Alongside that conversation is the role of Rare PAC.

Rare PAC focuses on supporting policymakers who understand digital assets and who are willing to engage seriously with the work of building clear, workable rules in the United States. It is not about opposing regulation. It is about avoiding regulation by confusion or enforcement after the fact.

As 2026 approaches, the progress made in 2025 will only matter if it is protected and extended. That requires continued participation, education, and engagement from people who care about the future of crypto in the US.

For those interested in learning more or getting involved, information is available at https://rarepac.io

 

If 2025 was the year crypto regulation became practical, the next phase will depend on whether that momentum is carried forward. Conversations like the ones at Rare Evo, and efforts like Rare PAC, are part of how that happens.