Something shifted in Washington on Friday, and the people who have been watching the CLARITY Act back and forth for months could feel it. Two key lawmakers, Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democrat Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, reached an agreement in principle on one of the most stubbornly contested provisions in the bill: stablecoin yield. It is the kind of deal that, when the details finally shake out, may well be remembered as the moment the United States stopped kicking the crypto regulatory can down the road.

 

The news broke late Friday and was first reported by Politico. Senator Alsobrooks confirmed it plainly. "Sen. Tillis and I do have an agreement in principle," she said. "We've come a long way. And I think what it will do is to allow us to protect innovation, but also gives us the opportunity to prevent widespread deposit flight." The White House's crypto executive director, Patrick Witt, called it a "major milestone" and added that more work remains, but that progress toward passing the CLARITY Act was now real and tangible.

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee's crypto subcommittee and has been one of the most tireless advocates for this legislation, marked the occasion in her own way. She posted a photo on X of a "yield" sign. No caption needed.

 

 

The Stablecoin Yield Standoff, Explained

For months, the stablecoin yield question was the immovable object blocking the CLARITY Act from getting its Senate Banking Committee hearing. 

 

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders. The intent was to prevent stablecoins from functioning as de facto bank deposit accounts, which would put them in direct competition with traditional savings products and, as the American Bankers Association argued loudly, threaten deposit flows into community banks. The concern: if Coinbase or another platform could offer users 4% on their dollar-pegged tokens simply for holding them, why would anyone keep money in a checking account?

 

The problem is that the GENIUS Act only covered issuers. It left a gap for third-party platforms that might offer rewards to customers who hold stablecoins on their systems. The ABA saw this as a loophole and spent months in Washington lobbying to close it. Crypto companies, for their part, said those rewards programs were fundamentally different from deposit interest and should be allowed.

 

Section 404 of the Senate Banking Committee's draft tried to thread this needle. It prohibits digital asset service providers from paying interest or yield "solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin," while explicitly allowing "activity-based" rewards tied to transactions, payments, platform use, loyalty programs, liquidity provision, and other behaviors. The distinction is real: a reward for moving money through a system is not the same thing as interest paid for parking money in one.

 

Senator Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican on the Banking Committee, captured the nuance at an ABA summit earlier this month: rewards cannot be simply about how much money sits in an account, but they might reasonably be tied to how active that account is. "We're trying to reflect that in the discussions," he said.

 

Lummis had suggested the final compromise would disallow anything that "sounds like banking product terminology" and bar rewards tied to the size of a user's balance. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, whose withdrawal of support in January helped torpedo a scheduled markup hearing, has been described by Lummis as "really pretty good about being willing to give on this issue."

 

 

From 99% to Done

The past week has been a rapid acceleration. As recently as Thursday, sources familiar with the situation described the stablecoin yield issue as being on the verge of resolution. A closed Senate Republican meeting on Wednesday, attended by White House crypto council director Patrick Witt, produced what Lummis told reporters afterward were significant breakthroughs, with "major light bulbs" switched on among the participants.

 

FinTech Weekly, which has closely tracked the legislative calendar, reported that stablecoin yield negotiations were "99% of the way to resolution" coming out of that meeting. The digital asset provisions of the bill more broadly were described as being in a "good place." The remaining friction, sources said, was not technical but political, specifically around whether community bank deregulation provisions might be attached to the CLARITY Act as part of a broader legislative trade.

 

Then came Friday's agreement. "We've come a long way," Alsobrooks told Politico, with a formality that understated just how much ground has been covered since January, when the scheduled markup hearing collapsed under the weight of over 100 proposed amendments and an industry revolt over the yield language.

 

 

What Comes Next and Why the Timeline Matters

An agreement on yield does not mean the CLARITY Act is done. Several other issues need resolution, decentralized finance remains a live debate, and the bill still needs to clear the Senate Banking Committee before it can go to a full Senate vote. After that, it must be reconciled with the version that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee in January. And before the President can sign it, that combined Senate text has to be reconciled with the House-passed version from July 2025. 

 

But the clock is ticking here. Senate Majority Leader John Thune controls the floor calendar, and it is crowded. Unrelated fights, including the Republican voter-ID bill and ongoing debate over the situation in Iran, are competing for limited floor time. Haun Ventures CEO Katie Haun, in a CNBC interview Friday, put it directly: "The big question on the Clarity Act is, is Congress going to get a bill to the floor on time to vote?"

 

Lummis has said she expects a Banking Committee hearing in the latter half of April, after the Easter recess. Advocates have been hoping for a May resolution. Prediction markets are currently pricing the odds of the CLARITY Act being signed in 2026 at around 72%, according to FinTech Weekly. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described passage as a spring 2026 target. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has put the odds at 80 to 90%.

 

JPMorgan analysts have described CLARITY Act passage by midyear as a positive catalyst for digital assets, pointing to regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth as the key drivers. The crypto industry committed nearly $150 million to the Fairshake political action committee in the current cycle and announced a $193 million war chest around the Agriculture Committee markup in January. The companies behind that spending are waiting.

 

 

What This All Means

The stakes of the CLARITY Act extend well beyond Senate procedure. Markets are waiting. Institutions that have been slowly building out crypto infrastructure, custody solutions, tokenized asset offerings, trading desks, need to know what the rules are before they can fully commit capital and resources. The SEC's interpretation helps, but as Atkins himself acknowledged, it is not a substitute for law.

 

The CLARITY Act, if signed, would give the CFTC clear jurisdiction over most digital asset spot markets, create a path to register exchanges and brokers, establish consumer protections with real enforcement teeth, and provide the kind of statutory framework that companies can build businesses around. It would, in the language of its Senate Banking Committee sponsors, establish the United States as the crypto capital of the world, not just by rhetoric but by law.

 

If the bill fails this year, the status quo continues. Crypto companies operate under regulatory uncertainty. The SEC retains broad discretion to treat digital assets as securities. Institutional adoption continues but without a clear statutory framework. And the crypto lobby, which has made clear it will treat failure as a political liability, turns its $193 million war chest into something that looks a lot more like electoral pressure.

 

Friday's agreement does not guarantee passage. It does something important though. It removes the single biggest substantive obstacle to moving forward. The stablecoin yield question, which derailed a January markup hearing and has consumed months of negotiations, now has a resolution in principle. The path ahead still has obstacles, but for the first time in a while, it looks like an actual path.

 

Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks just handed the crypto industry something it has been asking for since the last bull market: a credible signal that Washington is finally going to do its job. The deal is in principle, the details are not yet public, and there is still legislative work ahead. But after years of false starts, shelved bills, collapsed markup hearings, and agency standoffs, this is the moment the trajectory changed.

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dropped its two-year case against Nader Al-Naji, founder of the blockchain-based social media platform BitClout.

 

The stipulation of dismissal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, according to the US regulator, the dismissal was based on a reassessment of evidentiary records.

 

 

Since the dismissal was issued with prejudice, the SEC will not be able to file the same charges against Al-Naji or any of the relief defendants named in the case, including his wife, mother, or any companies associated with him.

 

However, the SEC cautioned against treating the dismissal as a precedent for other cases. “The Commission’s decision to exercise its discretion and seek dismissal of this litigation is based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case and does not necessarily reflect its position on any other case,” it said.

 

Reacting to the dismissal, Nader Al-Naji, founder of BitClout, described the initial lawsuit as unreasonable. “In the coming days and weeks, I will be hopping on some podcasts to tell the whole story,” Al-Naji said.

 

 

Why the Sec Filed a Lawsuit Against Al-Naji

On July 30, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil lawsuit against Al-Naji. The regulator alleged multiple complaints against him, including offering unregistered securities. According to the SEC, Al-Naji failed to register BTCLT, BitClout’s native token, which he sold to investors, raising over $257 million from its sales.

 

The SEC also accused Al-Naji of fraud and misrepresenting the use of investor funds, claiming he spent more than $7 million on luxury properties in Beverly Hills and extravagant cash gifts for family members.

 

In addition to the SEC’s civil case, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Al-Naji committed wire fraud by misleading investors about the use of their funds, leading to his arrest in July 2024. However, these criminal charges were later dropped.

 

 

An Increase in the Number of Case Dismissals by the SEC

The dismissal of the BitClout case is one of several recent SEC case dismissals, particularly since the start of the Trump administration.

 

In January 2026, the SEC jointly dismissed its lawsuit against Gemini Trust Company and Gemini Earn. The regulator had initially alleged that Gemini Earn offered unregistered securities but dropped the charges without imposing penalties.

 

In 2025, the SEC voluntarily dismissed its case against the blockchain platform Dragoncoin, which it had accused of making misrepresentations. The case was closed with prejudice, and no penalties were imposed.

 

 

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), a crime monitoring and prevention body under South Korea’s Financial Services Commission, fined cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb 36 billion won (about $24.5 million) for anti-money laundering (AML) violations.

 

The fine follows an on-site inspection of the exchange conducted by the regulator in March and April last year, which found that Bithumb had violated the Specific Financial Information Act 6.65 million times. The act requires exchanges to restrict transactions with unregistered virtual asset service providers, block suspicious transactions, and verify their customers.

 

Bithumb was also found to have violated the Act on Reporting and Use of Financial Information by facilitating 45,772 cryptocurrency transactions with 18 unregistered overseas virtual asset service providers and cryptocurrency firms. Despite repeated warnings from the regulator, Bithumb failed to take corrective action.

 

"We have continuously requested Bithumb to stop trading with undeclared overseas virtual asset service providers, but it failed to fulfill its legal compliance obligations and demonstrated a markedly insufficient willingness to comply with the law, such as failing to implement effective blocking measures over an extended period," the FIU explained. 

 

In addition to the $24 million fine imposed by the regulator, Bithumb has been ordered to halt all external crypto transfers for new customers from March 27 to Sept. 26. The ban, however, does not affect existing customers trading on the exchange.

 

Despite facing the largest fine ever imposed on a South Korean exchange, Bithumb said it would address the issues highlighted. "We will resolve the issues identified in this inspection and do our best to create a safe trading environment and protect users," the company said.

 

 

South Korea Cracks Down on Compliance Violators

South Korea has been cracking down on compliance violators, particularly cryptocurrency exchanges that breach Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations. In November 2025, the country fined its largest cryptocurrency exchange, Upbit, 35.2 billion won (approximately $25 million) and imposed a three-month partial suspension after the exchange failed to comply with AML and KYC rules.

 

On December 31, 2025, the FIU fined Korbit 2.73 billion won ($1.9 million) and issued a stern institutional warning to the exchange’s executives following a compliance audit that revealed weaknesses in its anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) procedures.

 

The FIU is currently conducting an on-site review of Coinone, which is expected to conclude later this year. Although there are unconfirmed reports that the agency has already flagged violations, no official report or penalties have been issued.

 

 

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, claiming it has far less value than gold and even Pokémon cards, which he said are more widely recognized.

 

 

 

In a recent Daily Mail article, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme with no real value, saying it relied on a “supply of new and credulous investors.” He also shared the story of a friend who lost about $26,000 in a crypto investment scam.

 

Johnson shared a story about a retired man from a village in Oxfordshire who initially handed over £500 (about $661) to someone who promised to double the money through Bitcoin investments. Johnson said the man went on to invest £20,000 (around $26,450) over three and a half years but ultimately received nothing in return.

 

The former prime minister also questioned the credibility of Bitcoin, calling it “a string of numbers stored in a series of computers.” “Who can we turn to if someone decrypts the crypto?” Johnson asked. “There’s no one except Nakamoto, who might be nothing more than Pikachu or Charmander.”

 

Since the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, lacked institutional backing, Johnson questioned Bitcoin’s credibility as a tradable asset. According to Johnson, Pokémon cards, which fascinated children thirty years ago and still do today, are a more tradable asset than Bitcoin.

 

“These curious little Japanese cartoon beasties hold the same fascination for five-year-olds as they did 30 years ago. The kids are obsessed with them. They boast and squabble about them,” Boris said.

 

“Even if you remain pretty impervious to the charm of Pikachu, you can just about see why a decades-old Pikachu card is still a tradeable asset,” he added.

 

 

The Crypto Community Responded

While many social media users have ridiculed Boris’ understanding of cryptocurrency, some have offered clearer explanations of why Bitcoin cannot be called a Ponzi scheme.

 

Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, also sought to clarify the issue.

 

“Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones,” Saylor wrote on X.

 

“Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand,” he added.

 

 

Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the defunct crypto exchange FTX, filed a motion in February seeking a retrial in his case. However, the request is reportedly being opposed by some U.S. prosecutors.

 

Some U.S. prosecutors have filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to block Bankman-Fried’s latest request for a retrial, Bloomberg reports.

 

According to the prosecutors, Bankman-Fried’s argument that new witnesses could change the outcome of his case does not meet the standard for a retrial. They said the two witnesses he wants to call, Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame, both former FTX executives, do not qualify as new witnesses because they were already known to the defense and could have testified at the original trial.

 

“The defense’s decision not to put the witnesses on his witness list or compel their testimony forecloses any claim that their post-trial views are newly discovered,” prosecutors said.

 

The prosecutors also rejected Bankman Fried's claim that he was being weaponized by the Department of Justice, calling it "incoherent."

 

"The defendant was one of the largest Democratic donors in 2020 and 2022, and his campaign finance crimes were in furtherance of making those contributions, so the notion he was targeted for his Democratic politics by the prior presidential administration is fanciful," prosecutors added.

 

Although the motion has just been filed, the judge has not ruled on whether it will proceed. Nevertheless, this is Bankman-Fried’s third attempt to appeal his case.

 

 

Is a Presidential Pardon in Sight? 

After President Trump granted a presidential pardon to Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, rumors circulated that he might also pardon Sam Bankman-Fried.

 

Trump, however, has dismissed these rumors in several interviews, stating that he has no plans to pardon Bankman-Fried. Despite this, some online groups continue to speculate about a potential, well-funded effort to secure a pardon.

 

Until a pardon is issued, Bankman-Fried’s legal options remain limited to filing appeal motions. Otherwise, he must continue serving his 25-year prison sentence on multiple federal charges, including fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.

 

 

The world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, has appointed Stephen Gregory as the chief executive officer (CEO) of its U.S. affiliate, Binance.US.

 

On Tuesday, March 11, Binance.US announced the appointment of compliance lawyer Stephen Gregory as CEO of the exchange. Stephen will take over from Norman Reed, who, according to the exchange, is stepping down to serve in an advisory role.

 

“I am honored to lead the Binance.US team as we write the next chapter for what we believe is the best platform for U.S. crypto investors to buy, trade, and earn digital assets,” Stephen said. “The Binance.US brand is extremely powerful, with a founder, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), who has continuously advocated for making the U.S. the crypto capital of the world,” he added.

 

Norman, the former Binance.US CEO, also expressed confidence in Stephen. “As we look to the next phase of growth for Binance.US, Stephen brings an entrepreneurial approach to leadership that I am confident will deliver for our customers in a meaningful way,” Norman said.

 

 

About Stephen Gregory

Stephen is a lawyer with nearly two decades of experience in the compliance industry. Before entering the crypto and fintech sectors, he worked in the U.S. Senate as a staff member for Senators Paul G. Kirk and Ted Kennedy and held roles at other government-affiliated agencies.

 

He later transitioned into private practice, working as a litigation and regulatory law expert for several law firms, including D'Ambrosio Brown LLP, McCormick & O'Brien LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Gage Spencer & Fleming LLP.

 

Entering into Crypto

In 2016, Stephen entered the crypto industry as a compliance officer at Gemini, where he helped the exchange navigate regulations and secure licenses for its U.S. crypto operations.

 

He did, however, move up the ranks in the compliance industry, serving as Chief Compliance Officer at crypto exchange CEX.IO, where he led the company’s global compliance program and oversaw its regulatory frameworks, including Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) programs.

 

In 2021, Stephen joined Currency.com as CEO, where he led the exchange’s U.S. operations, oversaw regulatory strategy, and expanded its services in the United States before its acquisition by CXNEST Ltd in May 2025.

 

 

Wells Fargo has filed a trademark application for "WFUSD" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, covering a broad slate of cryptocurrency services.

 

The 'USD" within the filling leads to huge speculation about stablecoins as it follows the same naming convention used by Tether's USDT and Circle's USDC, the two more notable stablecoins account for the vast majority of the roughly $200 billion stablecoin market. Whether Wells Fargo is building toward a consumer-facing stablecoin product, an institutional settlement layer, or something else entirely, is not clear, and all just speculation.

 

The trademark was filed just months after President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law in July 2025, the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins in U.S. history. The law opened a clear path for bank subsidiaries to issue dollar-pegged digital tokens under regulatory oversight, and Wells Fargo's trademark application reads like a bank that intends to walk through that door.

 

 

A Long History, A New Gear
Wells Fargo is not a newcomer to blockchain experimentation. Back in 2019, the bank unveiled Wells Fargo Digital Cash, a dollar-linked stablecoin built on R3's Corda blockchain designed to handle internal book transfers and cross-border settlements within its global network. The pilot worked. The bank successfully ran test transactions between its U.S. and Canadian accounts. But it stayed internal, never touching retail customers or external counterparties.

 

That earlier project had a narrow scope to try to reduce friction in the bank's own back-office transfers. The WFUSD trademark filing feels different. The scope covers cryptocurrency exchange services, digital asset transfers, payment processing, tokenization, blockchain transaction verification, and digital wallet services. That is not a description of an internal settlement tool. It is a description of a full-spectrum digital asset platform.

 

Wells Fargo's own research analysts had been tracking the stablecoin market closely well before the trademark filing surfaced. In a note published in May 2025, analysts led by Andrew Bauch wrote that stablecoin momentum had reached what they called "must-monitor levels," pointing to a 16% jump in total stablecoin market capitalization that year and a 43% rise over the prior twelve months. The report flagged payments companies including Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal as stocks with the most strategic exposure to the stablecoin wave. Whether those analysts knew about internal trademark discussions is unclear, but the research and the filing tell a consistent story about where the bank's thinking may have landed.

Wells Fargo is not acting alone. In May 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo were in early discussions about building a jointly operated U.S. dollar stablecoin, with payment infrastructure providers including Zelle and The Clearing House also at the table. Sources familiar with the matter described the conversations as exploratory, but the ambition was clear: create a bank-backed digital dollar that would compete with the success of crypot-native products.

 

JPMorgan has the most developed track record in this space, having operated JPM Coin since 2019 as an internal settlement instrument for institutional clients. The bank has reportedly settled more than $200 billion in transactions through the system. 

 

The GENIUS Act, which passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 68 to 30 and the House 308 to 122 before Trump signed it on July 18, 2025, created the regulatory framework that banks had been waiting for. Under the law, bank subsidiaries can issue payment stablecoins under the supervision of their primary federal banking regulator.

 

Issuers must maintain one-to-one reserves in highly liquid assets like Treasury bills, submit to regular audits, and comply with anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act requirements. The law also gave stablecoin holders priority claims over other creditors in any insolvency proceeding, a significant consumer protection provision.

 

For a bank like Wells Fargo, that framework essentially legalizes and licenses what its trademark filing envisions. The FDIC has already approved a proposed rulemaking to implement the GENIUS Act's application procedures for supervised institutions seeking to issue stablecoins, moving the machinery toward full implementation by January 2027 as the law prescribes.

 

 

Competition or Collaboration with Crypto?

While the big four banks have been circling the stablecoin market, crypto-native firms have been circling the banking sector. Circle, the issuer of USDC, has been in discussions about obtaining a bank charter. Coinbase, BitGo, and Paxos are all reportedly pursuing various forms of banking licensure that would let them compete more directly with traditional institutions for deposits and payment volumes. And, most notably, Kraken just recentlly received a Federal Reserve master account, gaining direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment infrastructure.

 

That competitive dynamic is partly what has given the joint stablecoin exploration among the major banks its urgency. A dollar-denominated stablecoin backed by federally chartered banks would carry a different kind of institutional weight than products issued by crypto firms, regardless of how well those firms have managed their reserves. 

 

Still, the incumbents face real headwinds. The GENIUS Act, while giving banks a clear path to issue stablecoins, also permits nonbank firms like fintechs and crypto companies to issue them under OCC oversight. Grant Thornton's national blockchain and digital assets practice leader, Markus Veith, noted after the law passed that banks could face serious competition from nonbank entities that don't carry the same regulatory burden or capital requirements. Stablecoins from USDT and USDC already saw their combined market share dip from 89% to under 84% over the past year as newer entrants gained traction.

 

 

What WFUSD Could Become
The trademark itself, of course, is not a product. Banks and large corporations file trademarks for concepts that never reach the market all the time, and a filing covering cryptocurrency services does not obligate Wells Fargo to ship a stablecoin by any particular date. The application does, however, reserve the commercial rights to the WFUSD brand across a spectrum of digital asset services, which is a form of strategic positioning that serious companies do when they intend to eventually use what they are protecting.

 

If Wells Fargo does build out WFUSD into a live product, the most likely initial form would be an institutional-grade settlement and payment layer, mirroring what Wells Fargo Digital Cash did internally but opening it to corporate clients and potentially other financial institutions. Cross-border payments represent the most obvious near-term use case. The market for global cross-border transactions was roughly $44 trillion in 2023 according to McKinsey estimates cited by the bank's own research team, and stablecoins offer demonstrably faster settlement, lower funding costs, and programmability through smart contracts compared to the correspondent banking infrastructure that currently handles most of that volume.

 

A consumer-facing version would require more work and more time. Wells Fargo analysts themselves noted in their May research note that everyday consumer adoption of stablecoins is likely still a decade away. But the infrastructure being built now, the trademarks being registered, the regulatory licenses being sought, the interoperability frameworks being designed, will determine who is positioned to serve that market when it arrives.

 

 

What Comes Next?

For Wells Fargo specifically, WFUSD represents the most concrete public signal of the bank's digital asset intentions to date. 

 

Whether the bank ultimately issues WFUSD as a standalone product, folds it into a larger bank consortium stablecoin, or uses the trademark as a branding vehicle for a custody and trading platform remains to be seen. The competitive pressure from both crypto-native firms building toward bank charters and fellow Wall Street institutions building their own digital dollar products means the bank can't afford to stay in patent-pending limbo for too long.

 

The name was chosen carefully. When the fourth-largest bank in the United States puts its initials on a dollar-pegged ticker and files it with the federal government, it is placing a bet on where finance is going. The question now is how fast it gets there.

 

The room at the Marriott Marquis in Washington was full of community bankers on Tuesday, and Senator Angela Alsobrooks walked straight into the lion's den. Speaking at the American Bankers Association's annual Washington Summit, the Maryland Democrat delivered a message neither side particularly wanted to hear: everyone involved in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is going to have to walk away a little bit unhappy.

 

It was a remarkably candid thing to say in front of 1,400 people who have spent the better part of three months trying to kill the very provision that's been holding up the bill. But Alsobrooks, along with Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, is now the central figure in a late-stage push to get the Clarity Act off the Senate Banking Committee floor and into an actual markup hearing before the legislative window closes for good.

 

The two senators confirmed Tuesday they're actively working on compromise language around stablecoin yield which keeps coming up as the main issue that has stalled what was supposed to be a landmark piece of crypto regulation.

 

A Bill In Limbo

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, was supposed to have its Senate Banking Committee markup in January. That session got pulled at the last minute. The reason was stablecoin yield, specifically, amendments co-sponsored by Alsobrooks and Tillis that would restrict crypto firms from offering interest-like returns to customers who simply hold dollar-pegged digital tokens like USDC or USDT.

 

Banks had been lobbying hard against any provision that allowed that kind of reward. Their argument, which they've pushed loudly and repeatedly, is that stablecoins offering yield would function like bank accounts without the regulatory obligations of bank accounts. Executives at JPMorgan and Bank of America have cited Treasury Department modeling that suggested banks could lose up to $6.6 trillion in deposits if stablecoin yield programs went mainstream. Their argument is that it would starve the lending market and ultimately destabilize smaller regional banks that are particularly dependent on deposit funding.

 

The crypto industry dismisses most of that as fearmongering. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called out the banking lobby publicly for what he characterized as anticompetitive blocking tactics and has pulled his support for the bill. In January at Davos, JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon reportedly told Armstrong he was, in quite colorful terms, wrong. The anecdote leaked out and became something of a symbol for just how personal this fight had gotten.

 

 

The White House Steps In, Then Gets Rejected

By late February, the White House had grown impatient. Administration officials spent weeks brokering what they hoped would be an acceptable middle ground: allow stablecoin yield in limited contexts, particularly for activity tied to payments and transactions, while banning rewards on idle balances that look more like savings accounts. Crypto firms signed off on the framework. The banks did not.

 

On March 3rd, President Trump went public with his frustration. In a Truth Social post, he wrote that banks should not be trying to undercut the GENIUS Act or hold the CLARITY Act hostage, a shot across the bow that was notable both for its directness and for the fact that it did essentially nothing to move the American Bankers Association. Two days later, the ABA formally rejected the White House compromise anyway.

 

The March 1st deadline the White House had set for a resolution passed without published compromise text. Prediction markets, which had briefly priced Clarity Act passage at around 80% odds, fell back toward 55% as the stalemate hardened.

 

What the ABA rejection didn't do, however, is kill the legislation outright. Congress has passed bills over banking lobby opposition before. The question, as analysts and lobbyists have been pointing out all week, is whether there are enough Senate votes to do it again — and whether the calendar allows the time to find out.

 

Can We Get A Compromise?

The emerging deal that Alsobrooks and Tillis are proposing is a slimmed-down version of what the White House tried. Under the framework being discussed, yield on stablecoin holdings that closely resemble bank deposits would remain prohibited. But rewards tied to specific activities, like using stablecoins for payments or transactions on a given platform, could remain eligible for some form of customer incentive.

 

Both senators and many crypto advocates actually agree on the premise that pure holding rewards that look and function like savings account interest are a problem. The dispute is over where exactly to draw the line and how to define the categories well enough that neither side can game them after the fact.

 

Cody Carbone, the CEO of the Digital Chamber, said this week that Tillis has been very receptive to discussions about stablecoin yield and that he's optimistic the industry can get to yes on the bill. Summer Mersinger, the CEO of the Blockchain Association, noted that the White House weighing in on the negotiations and pushing banks to engage in good faith adds important momentum as talks continue.

 

The banks have maintained, publicly at least, that those assurances aren't enough. Their representatives at the ABA summit this week underlined again what they see as the risks of any yield loophole to their business model. The question of whether a markup hearing happens in late March or gets delayed again, depends entirely on whether Alsobrooks and Tillis can produce language the committee will actually vote on.

 

Timing Is An Issue

Behind every conversation about the Clarity Act this week is an unspoken anxiety about time. The Senate calendar is tight. Midterm elections are in November, and lawmakers will start dispersing from meaningful legislating sometime around May or June as campaign season accelerates. Unfortunately it seems, Congress prefers to stop working as they try to convince voters to keep them in their jobs. I know, makes perfect sense. If a markup isn't held and a floor vote isn't scheduled by sometime in April, realistically the bill is looking at the next Congress which could be a completely different party in power. And complicating things even more. Despite which party ends up winning the midterms, this could mean another 12 to 18 months of regulatory uncertainty for an industry that has been waiting years for a clear legal framework.

 

That timeline matters not just for the crypto industry's domestic ambitions, but for its competitive positioning globally. Under the European Union's MiCA framework, stablecoin yield products that are restricted or banned in the U.S. are already legal in European jurisdictions. Coinbase and others have been explicit about the risk that continued regulatory ambiguity in the U.S. will push capital, talent, and product development offshore. Trump made a version of the same argument in his Truth Social post last week, warning that failure would drive the industry to China.

 

There's also a strategic Bitcoin Reserve angle sitting quietly in the background. According to people familiar with the situation, the Trump administration has determined it needs congressional action to operationalize the planned Strategic Bitcoin Reserve that the president signed an executive order for over a year ago. That creates at least some White House motivation to see the broader Clarity Act process succeed.

 

What Happens Next

The Senate Banking Committee is targeting a late-March markup. Whether that happens depends on whether the Alsobrooks-Tillis compromise language satisfies enough members to call the vote. If it does, the bill would then need to be merged with a version that already passed the Senate Agriculture Committee on a party-line vote in late 2025. The combined text would require significant Democratic support to clear a full Senate vote, always a tall ask in the current politcal environment and the fact that seven Democratic senators have separately raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving senior government officials, including the president himself, who have financial ties to the crypto industry.

 

Even if the Senate acts, the bill still needs the House, where an earlier version of the CLARITY Act passed committee last year but has yet to reach the floor. The path to a signed law before November is narrow but not impossible. It requires the Senate Banking Committee to move in the next few weeks, the combined bill to hold together politically, and a Senate floor schedule that is packed with little wiggle room.

 

For the moment, all of it hinges on two senators and a room full of bankers in Washington D.C., trying to decide how much compromise is actually compromise and if they can all agree to leave a bit unhappy about the results for the greater good. Typically the best compromises do make both sides a bit unhappy. In Washington, that usually means the deal is closer than it looks. It also usually means it's harder than it sounds.

 

Flow Foundation is seeking a court order in Seoul to halt the planned delisting of the FLOW token on three South Korean exchanges following an exploit on the protocol in December. 

 

The Flow Foundation and its parent company, Dapper Labs, filed a motion with the Seoul Central District Court on Monday to block the delisting of the FLOW token from three South Korean exchanges.

 

This move is coming months after the Layer 1 blockchain protocol suffered a security incident in December, which led to several exchanges temporarily stopping the trading of the FLOW token at the time. However, three major Korean exchanges; Upbit, Bithumb, and Coinone, have moved to permanently stop the trading of the token on their exchanges on March 16.

 

 

Flow’s Security Incident

On December 27, 2025, Flow suffered a protocol-level exploit that resulted in losses of about $3.9 million. The breach was caused by a flaw in the smart-contract runtime within Flow’s execution layer, which allowed the attacker to exploit vulnerabilities in Cadence. 

 

Cadence is Flow’s smart contract runtime. By exploiting the flaw in Cadence, the attacker was able to duplicate Flow tokens instead of properly minting them. 

 

After duplicating the tokens, the attacker attempted to bridge them out of the protocol using cross-chain bridges such as Celer, deBridge, Relay, and Stargate. However, this abnormal activity was detected by Flow’s validator network, which placed the blockchain in read-only mode, halting further asset transfers. 

 

This incident led to a sharp decline in the price of the FLOW token. Prior to the breach, FLOW was trading at around $0.17, but it fell over 40% to roughly $0.097 within hours of the exploit being announced. 

 

Image credit: Tradingview

 

The incident also affected the token’s market cap. Before the breach, FLOW had a market cap of around $280–284 million. After the breach, it fell to approximately $164–170 million. Although the breach directly resulted in a $3.9 million loss, the protocol’s total market value dropped by over $110 million. 

Image credit: Coingecko

 

Following remediation efforts after the incident, the Flow Foundation claimed that every major global exchange has independently reviewed and restored FLOW token trading on their platforms.

 

According to the foundation, the FLOW token remains fully available and tradeable on major exchanges, including Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, OKX, Gate.io, HTX, and Bybit, with Korbit being the only Korean exchange still supporting the trading of FLOW.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

What is the Senate Bill (SB-314)? 

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

 

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

 

By approving SB 314, the Florida Legislature aims to:

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The State of Crypto in Florida

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds have attracted roughly $1.7 billion in net inflows since February 24, ending a prolonged stretch of redemptions and renewing confidence that institutional buyers are stepping back in.

 

The reversal has been sharp. After months of steady outflows, nearly every major U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF is now recording net positive flows for 2026. That matters because ETF flow data has become, more than any other metric, the closest thing to a real-time read on institutional sentiment toward Bitcoin.

 

BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) is doing most of the heavy lifting. On March 4 alone, IBIT absorbed $306.60 million, roughly 66% of that day's total inflows across all spot Bitcoin products. Since February 24, BlackRock has accumulated a net 21,814 BTC through the fund, valued at approximately $1.55 billion at current prices. Year-to-date, IBIT has added around $300 million in capital even as Bitcoin itself fell about 16% over the same period.

 

The timing is notable. Bitcoin has traded around $72,000 this week, bouncing from lows near $60,000 earlier in the year. That low represented a roughly 52% pullback from its all-time high of $122,000 reached last year — a correction that, by historical standards, was relatively contained. Past cycles saw declines of 80% to 90% from peak. The smaller drawdown this cycle has been widely attributed to the stabilizing influence of institutional ownership through regulated vehicles.

 

The inflow pattern itself tells a story. Exchange balances have stayed relatively flat while ETF custodians accumulate, suggesting the capital flowing in isn't being deployed through spot crypto exchanges. These are investors using traditional brokerage accounts and registered vehicles, the pension funds, registered investment advisors, and wealth managers who entered the market only after last year's ETF approvals made it operationally feasible.

 

Three consecutive days of $1.1 billion in net inflows at the end of February set the pace. IBIT alone captured roughly $652 million over that stretch. Fidelity's FBTC and Ark Invest's ARKB recorded positive flows too, though significantly smaller.

 

Whether the inflow trend holds depends partly on what happens at the Federal Reserve. On March 18, the Fed will announce its latest interest rate decision. Markets have been pricing in at least a pause in rate hikes after the central bank eased its tightening stance in late 2025, and any signal of cuts could accelerate flows into risk assets including crypto.

 

There's also the regulatory backdrop. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which would formally divide crypto assets into SEC-regulated securities and CFTC-regulated commodities, remains stalled in the Senate after a markup was delayed in January with no rescheduled date. Clarity on that front would likely deepen institutional participation further. Until then, ETF flows remain the clearest signal of where the institutional money is going.

 

Right now, it's going into Bitcoin.