World Liberty Financial, the crypto project behind the USD1 stablecoin, has announced a partnership with Spacecoin, a blockchain-native satellite internet company, to bring crypto payments directly into satellite connectivity networks. The goal is simple in theory but ambitious in execution, combine decentralized finance with decentralized internet access, starting in regions where both are limited or nonexistent.

 

The partnership signals a growing shift in crypto away from purely digital experiments and toward physical infrastructure, particularly in space.

 

 

What the Partnership Actually Does

At the core of the deal is the integration of WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin into Spacecoin’s satellite network. The two projects completed a strategic token swap, tying their ecosystems together and aligning incentives long term.

 

USD1 is intended to act as the settlement layer for payments and services across Spacecoin’s network. In practice, that means users who connect to Spacecoin’s satellite internet could also transact financially using a dollar-pegged digital asset, without relying on traditional banks or local payment rails.

 

This is not just about paying for internet access. The broader vision is to enable commerce, remittances, and digital services in areas where stable connectivity and reliable currencies are both hard to come by.

 

Who Is Spacecoin

Spacecoin is part of a growing wave of DePIN projects, or decentralized physical infrastructure networks. Instead of building centralized telecom systems, Spacecoin is deploying low-Earth orbit satellites that interact with blockchain infrastructure on the ground. The company recently launched three satellites into orbit as part of the company's place to exand global internet access.

 

According to Spacecoin, satellite-based connectivity requires an integrated financial layer. The company sees USD1 as a way to allow new users to transact digitally as soon as they gain internet access. While it remains early stage compared to incumbents like Starlink, Spacecoin is positioning itself as a permissionless alternative, one that treats connectivity as an open network rather than a closed service.

 

Why WLFI Is Betting on Satellites

World Liberty Financial has drawn attention in part due to its political associations, but strategically the project is trying to do something familiar in crypto, expand the reach of a stablecoin beyond exchanges and trading desks.

 

USD1 is designed to be a transactional stablecoin, not just a store of value. WLFI has been exploring debit cards, points programs, and onchain incentives. Plugging USD1 into a satellite network takes that logic further, pushing the asset into environments where traditional finance struggles to operate.

 

For WLFI, satellites offer a way to bypass fragile local infrastructure and leap directly into global usage.

 

The Bigger Picture

This deal sits at the intersection of several fast-moving trends.

 

Satellite internet is expanding rapidly as launch costs fall and demand for global connectivity rises. At the same time, stablecoins are quietly becoming one of crypto’s most widely used tools, especially in emerging markets where currency volatility is a daily concern.

 

By combining the two, WLFI and Spacecoin are effectively testing whether crypto can function as a default financial layer in places that skipped earlier generations of banking and broadband.

 

It is a bold idea, but also a risky one.

 

The Challenges Ahead

Satellite-based payments are not trivial. Latency, reliability, and security all become more complex when transactions are routed through orbit. Regulatory uncertainty is another major factor, especially when stablecoins cross borders without clear oversight.

 

There is also competition. Spacecoin is entering a crowded satellite market dominated by well-funded players with existing user bases and proven performance. Convincing users, developers, and governments to adopt a decentralized alternative will take time.

 

And then there is execution. Many crypto-infrastructure partnerships sound compelling on paper but struggle to move from announcement to real-world usage.

 

Why This Still Matters

Even with those risks, the partnership stands out because it points toward a version of crypto that is less abstract and more physical.

 

Instead of arguing about narratives and token prices, this model asks a practical question. What happens when internet access and money are delivered together, from space, without intermediaries?

 

If WLFI and Spacecoin can make even a fraction of that vision work, it could reshape how people think about both connectivity and finance in the most underserved parts of the world.

 

Crypto has always promised to be global. This time, it is trying to prove it literally.

 

 

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.

 

Solayer is making a very deliberate move into the next phase of its life.

 

The Solana-native project has launched the alpha version of its InfiniSVM mainnet and announced a $35 million ecosystem fund to bring builders, capital, and activity onto the network. Taken together, the message is clear. Solayer is no longer just experimenting on the edges of Solana, it is aiming to become a serious piece of high performance financial infrastructure.

 

For a project that started out focused on restaking, this is a notable pivot. And so far, it looks like a well-timed one.

 

From Restaking Experiment to Infrastructure Play

Solayer first entered the picture as a restaking protocol on Solana, offering users a way to put staked SOL to work securing additional services. The idea resonated quickly, especially in a market hungry for capital efficiency.

 

But behind the scenes, the team was already thinking bigger. Restaking was only the starting point. Over time, Solayer began layering in financial products, payments tooling, and quality-of-service concepts tied directly to stake. Each addition pointed in the same direction: building infrastructure, not just yield strategies.

 

InfiniSVM is the clearest expression of that shift.

 

Why InfiniSVM Matters

At a high level, InfiniSVM is Solayer’s take on pushing the Solana Virtual Machine beyond what typical software-only blockchain setups can handle. Instead of relying entirely on standard execution environments, Solayer leans heavily into hardware acceleration and high-speed networking.

 

The goal is not just higher throughput, although the numbers being discussed are eye-catching. The real focus is latency. Solayer wants transactions to feel immediate, finality to be near-instant, and on-chain systems to behave more like traditional financial infrastructure.

 

That matters if you believe the next wave of crypto adoption comes from things like real-time trading, payments, and institutional workflows. These are areas where delays are costly and reliability is non-negotiable.

 

Just as important, InfiniSVM stays fully compatible with the Solana Virtual Machine. Developers building for Solana do not need to rethink their stack to deploy on Solayer, which lowers friction and keeps Solayer tightly connected to Solana’s liquidity and tooling.

 

Mainnet Alpha, Now Live

The InfiniSVM mainnet alpha is live, giving developers a chance to test what this architecture can actually do in production. While alpha networks are, by definition, still evolving, Solayer is already supporting live applications and cross-network connectivity designed to move assets quickly across SVM environments.

 

The team has been careful not to oversell this stage. The alpha is a foundation, not a finish line. Performance tuning, validator expansion, and decentralization will all come over time. Still, getting a live network into the hands of builders is an important milestone, and one many projects never quite reach.

 

Backing the Ecosystem With $35 Million

Alongside the mainnet launch, Solayer introduced a $35 million ecosystem fund aimed squarely at builders. The fund is designed to support teams working across DeFi, payments, real-world assets, and emerging financial applications that need speed and scale.

 

What stands out is the hands-on approach. Solayer is pairing capital with engineering support and accelerator-style programs, signaling that it wants serious builders who plan to push the limits of the network, not just deploy quick forks.

 

The timing feels intentional. With the network live, the next challenge is usage. The fund is meant to shorten the gap between infrastructure and real economic activity.

 

A Crowded, But Promising Landscape

Solayer is entering a space that is getting more competitive by the month. Several teams are exploring new ways to extend the Solana Virtual Machine through app chains, execution layers, and modular designs.

 

Solayer’s angle is clear. It is betting on extreme performance and financial use cases first. That focus sets it apart and plays to Solana’s broader reputation for speed, while pushing the ceiling higher than most existing networks.

 

If real-time on-chain finance becomes a meaningful category, Solayer looks well positioned to benefit.

 

The Road Ahead

There is still plenty of work ahead. Solayer will need to prove that its performance claims hold up under sustained load, that developers stay engaged, and that decentralization keeps pace with growth.

 

But with a live mainnet, meaningful funding behind the ecosystem, and a clear technical vision, Solayer is starting this next chapter from a position of strength.

 

In a market crowded with half-built infrastructure and big promises, Solayer is doing something refreshingly straightforward. It shipped a network, backed it with capital, and invited builders to see what happens next.

 

 

Alchemix has always been built around a simple but powerful idea. Use yield to repay debt over time and let users borrow without the pressure of liquidations. That foundation remains fully intact in Alchemix v3.

 

What v3 introduces is scale, structure, and confidence.

 

With the full protocol migration set for February 6th, 2026, Alchemix is rolling out its most advanced architecture to date, expanding what self-repaying loans can support while keeping the experience familiar to long-time users.

 

v3 Is Built to Do More, Cleanly and Intentionally

Alchemix v3 represents a step forward in how the protocol organizes yield, debt, and user positions.

 

The new system introduces standardized vaults, clearer internal accounting, and a modular design that allows the protocol to support higher capital efficiency and more predictable outcomes. These upgrades do not change how Alchemix works at a conceptual level. They allow it to work at a larger scale, with more flexibility.

 

It is the difference between a system that functions well and one that is designed to support growth.

 

Fixed Redemption Windows Add Structure to the System

A standout feature of v3 is the upgraded Transmuter and the introduction of fixed redemption windows.

 

Synthetic assets like alUSD and alETH can now be redeemed for underlying collateral after defined timeframes. This gives the system a clearer rhythm and strengthens peg behavior, while still relying on yield as the core engine behind redemptions.

 

For users, this means clearer expectations. For the protocol, it means more predictable flows and easier long-term planning.

 

This added structure is a major step forward in making self-repaying loans easier to understand and trust at scale.

 

Mix-Yield Expands Yield’s Role in the Protocol

Yield has always been central to Alchemix, and v3 expands what yield can do through the introduction of the Mix-Yield Token, or MYT.

 

MYT represents aggregated yield exposure managed at the protocol level. Instead of interacting with individual strategies, users gain access to diversified yield through a single mechanism governed by the DAO.

 

This design allows Alchemix to adapt as yield opportunities evolve, without changing the user experience. It also strengthens the protocol’s ability to manage risk and allocate capital efficiently across strategies and environments.

 

It is yield abstraction done with intention.

 

Higher Capital Efficiency, Same Calm Experience

One of the most visible improvements in v3 is the increase in borrowing capacity to up to 90 percent loan-to-value.

 

This unlocks significantly more flexibility for users, allowing capital to work harder while maintaining the defining characteristics of Alchemix. Loans still repay themselves over time. There are still no liquidations. Users are still free from constant position management.

 

The improvement comes from a stronger internal structure and more efficient system design, not from added complexity.

 

Position NFTs Open the Door to Composability

In v3, user positions are represented as NFTs that fully encode collateral, debt, and yield exposure.

This approach makes positions easier to track, transfer, and integrate with other DeFi protocols in the future. It also simplifies the protocol’s internal architecture, making it more modular and easier to extend.

Position NFTs serve as a building block, enabling Alchemix to plug into a wider ecosystem without altering its core mechanics.

 

A Migration Designed for Continuity and Confidence

The move to v3 is being executed through a protocol-level migration that prioritizes continuity.

 

On February 6th, 2026, v2 contracts will be frozen, positions will be snapshotted, and equivalent positions will be recreated in v3. Economic value is preserved, and users are not required to take action unless they choose to.

 

To reinforce alignment, Alchemix is also introducing a Migration Mana Program that rewards users who remain deposited through the transition.

 

The process reflects a careful, deliberate approach to upgrading critical infrastructure.

 

v3 Clarifies Where Alchemix Is Headed

As details around v3 have emerged, the direction of the protocol has become clearer.

 

Alchemix is focusing on predictability, capital efficiency, and long-term composability. The goal is not to chase trends, but to strengthen the foundations of self-repaying finance so it can support broader use cases over time.

 

Alchemix, Expanded

Alchemix v3 does not replace what came before. It expands on it.

 

Self-repaying loans remain the core. Yield remains the engine. Time remains a feature, not a risk.

 

With the v3 migration scheduled for February 6th, 2026, Alchemix is demonstrating how a proven DeFi model can evolve thoughtfully, gaining structure and scale without losing its identity.

 

Sometimes the most powerful upgrades are the ones that simply let a great idea grow into its full potential.

 

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.

 

Cardano has always taken a different path. While much of crypto optimized for speed and experimentation, Cardano focused on getting the fundamentals right... security, correctness, and long-term sustainability. That approach earned trust, especially from engineers and institutions, but it also came with a cost. In a market that moves fast and increasingly spans multiple chains, being careful can sometimes look like being slow.

 

That gap is exactly where Apex Fusion seems to be stepping in. What is interesting about Apex Fusion is how deliberately un-confrontational it is. This is not a “Cardano is broken” story. It is closer to “Cardano works, but builders need more room to operate.”

 

Rather than pitching itself as a competitor or a fork that breaks away from Cardano, Apex Fusion is positioning itself as an extension, a way for Cardano-native builders to move faster and connect more easily to the rest of the ecosystem without abandoning the principles that brought them there in the first place. It is less about rewriting Cardano’s story and more about helping it operate in a market that has changed around it.

 

At the center of that effort is VECTOR, a high-performance execution layer designed for applications that need quicker finality and smoother user experiences. For DeFi teams, this is not an abstract upgrade. Faster confirmations can be the difference between a usable protocol and one that feels clunky under real-world conditions. For teams already building in the Cardano ecosystem, VECTOR is a way to scale without starting over somewhere else. Same philosophy, better responsiveness.

 

What makes this approach feel more grounded is that Apex Fusion is not pretending the rest of crypto does not exist. The old debates around UTxO versus EVM have largely been settled by reality. Builders want flexibility. Liquidity wants to move. Apex Fusion reflects that by embracing interoperability as a baseline requirement, not a future roadmap item, and by not forcing anyone to choose sides.

 

That mindset shows up clearly in the project’s cross-chain strategy. Through its integration with LayerZero, Apex Fusion is building pathways that connect Cardano-aligned execution with EVM environments and a wider network of chains. The goal is not flashy bridge mechanics, but something quieter and more practical, making liquidity and applications portable across ecosystems. That matters for Cardano builders who want exposure to broader markets without abandoning their technical roots.

 

There is also a strong signal around quality and assurance. Apex Fusion’s collaboration with Well-Typed ties VECTOR back to the same engineering culture that shaped Cardano itself. This is not just about speed. It is about speed with guarantees, about building infrastructure that can stand up to audits, institutions, and long-term use. In a space where “institutional-grade” is often more marketing than substance, that connection matters.

 

Zooming out, Apex Fusion also gives the partner-chain idea a clearer shape. Cardano has talked for years about scaling through specialized, aligned chains rather than forcing everything onto a single base layer. VECTOR is the first serious attempt to show how that model can work in practice. The emphasis is not just on launching a chain, but on proving a repeatable pattern that other teams could follow.

 

Taken together, Apex Fusion feels less like a bold gamble and more like a pragmatic response to where crypto is now. Multi-chain is no longer theoretical. Interoperability is no longer optional. The question is how ecosystems adapt without losing what made them distinct.

 

Apex Fusion is betting that Cardano’s strengths, careful engineering, strong assurances, and a clear philosophical foundation, do not have to be sacrificed to stay relevant. With VECTOR, partner-chain infrastructure, and real cross-chain connectivity, it is making the case that Cardano’s next phase is not about catching up, but about plugging in and finally operating at the pace of the broader market. Cardano does not need to compromise its values to compete. It just needs better ways to connect, faster ways to execute, and clearer paths for builders to grow. Apex Fusion brings all of that.

 

A public company best known for holding large amounts of Ethereum is now placing a very different kind of bet, one that sits at the intersection of crypto, finance, and the creator economy.

BitMine Immersion Technologies, a crypto treasury firm chaired by Fundstrat’s Tom Lee, says it plans to invest $200 million into Beast Industries, the company behind YouTube creator MrBeast. The goal, according to executives, is to explore how decentralized finance could play a role in a future financial services platform tied to one of the internet’s largest audiences.

This is not a meme coin launch or a celebrity endorsement deal. It looks more like a strategic attempt to combine capital markets, Ethereum infrastructure, and massive consumer distribution.

 

Why a crypto treasury firm is backing a creator company

BitMine has been repositioning itself as an Ethereum-focused treasury company, following a playbook that investors have seen before in Bitcoin-heavy balance sheet strategies. The difference is scale and ambition.

The firm holds a substantial amount of ETH and has spoken publicly about building staking infrastructure and validator operations. But simply holding crypto is no longer enough to sustain investor interest, especially as enthusiasm around treasury-style trades has cooled.

The next step is finding ways to turn those holdings into something operational. That is where Beast Industries comes in.

MrBeast is not just a YouTuber. His business spans media, merchandise, and consumer brands, and it reaches hundreds of millions of people, many of them young and digitally native. For a company looking to build or support crypto-based financial products, that kind of distribution is hard to ignore.

 

What Beast Industries appears to be exploring

Executives at Beast Industries have been clear that the company is looking at financial services. Trademark filings and past reporting suggest a wide scope, including payments, lending, insurance, and potentially crypto-related offerings.

The key word is explore. There is no product launch yet, and there is no guarantee that every idea becomes reality. Still, the language around incorporating DeFi suggests interest in crypto-native rails rather than simply slapping a brand on traditional products.

In practice, that could mean crypto-powered payments, wallet functionality, token-based rewards, or lending products that lean on blockchain infrastructure behind the scenes. It could also mean partnerships with existing fintech or crypto firms to avoid the heavy regulatory lift of building financial institutions from scratch.

 

DeFi as a distribution play, not a technical flex

In this context, DeFi should probably be read less as a commitment to complex on-chain protocols and more as a distribution strategy.

For years, crypto has struggled to reach mainstream users without relying on exchanges or speculative narratives. A creator-led platform flips that equation. The audience already exists. The challenge becomes offering products that are simple, compliant, and trustworthy enough to meet that audience where it is.

That trust component matters. MrBeast’s brand is built on transparency and goodwill. Any financial product under that banner would be judged harshly if it felt confusing, risky, or exploitative. Crypto’s history with celebrity-adjacent scams only raises the stakes.

 

The risks on both sides of the deal

For Beast Industries, entering finance is not trivial. Even lightweight financial products come with regulatory scrutiny, reputational risk, and long-term obligations to users. A misstep could damage a brand that has taken years to build.

For BitMine, the risk is different. Crypto treasury strategies have gone in and out of favor, often tracking the price of the underlying asset more than business fundamentals. Investors have shown signs of fatigue toward companies whose primary strategy is buying and holding crypto.

Backing a creator-led financial push is an attempt to move beyond that narrative. Whether markets reward that shift remains an open question.

 

Why this matters beyond one deal

This investment fits into a broader trend where crypto companies are looking for real-world distribution and cash-flow-adjacent businesses, while creators are looking for ways to turn attention into durable platforms.

Ethereum sits in the middle of that equation. It provides the infrastructure for staking, tokenization, and programmable finance, all of which appeal to firms trying to rethink how financial products are built and delivered.

The unusual part is seeing a public crypto treasury company and a creator empire meet at that intersection.

 

What to watch next

Several things will determine whether this becomes a defining moment or a footnote.

First is structure. How the investment is deployed, and what BitMine actually receives in return, will shape how investors interpret the move.

Second is execution. A vague commitment to DeFi means little without a clear product vision and compliance strategy.

Third is messaging. Any hint of speculative tokens or unclear financial incentives could quickly undermine trust.

 

The bigger picture

BitMine’s $200 million bet is a sign that crypto treasury firms are searching for their next evolution. Holding Ethereum is one thing. Building products, platforms, and distribution around it is another.

MrBeast brings something crypto rarely has in abundance: mainstream attention paired with trust at scale. Whether that combination can be turned into sustainable financial services without repeating the industry’s past mistakes is the real test.

 

For now, the deal signals that crypto’s next phase may be less about balance sheets and more about who controls distribution.

 

Stay Connected

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

Coinbase Draws a Line in the Sand on Market Structure Bill

 

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

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

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

 

A Bill Meant to End the Gray Area

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

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

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

 

Stablecoin Rewards Become the Flashpoint

For Coinbase, the biggest problem sits with stablecoins.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Why This Matters Beyond Coinbase

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

If Coinbase is out, others may quietly follow.

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

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

 

A Narrow Path Forward in the Senate

The timing is not ideal.

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

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

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

 

No Law vs a Bad Law

Behind the scenes, a familiar argument is playing out.

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

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

For now, the standoff continues.

 

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

 

Stay Connected

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

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.

How Should Crypto Protocols Actually Return Value to Token Holders?

 

Crypto has never been great at answering a simple question: what do token holders actually get?

For a long time, the answer was basically “number go up.” You bought a token because you believed the protocol would matter someday, and if that happened, the token would be worth more. Sometimes much more. And you could sell those tokens to someone else who believed that same as you, just a bit later in the timeline. That was enough in a market driven by growth, hype, and reflexivity.

But, now the industry is older, and presumably more mature. DeFi protocols generate real revenue. Some of them generate a lot of it. And once real money starts flowing through systems, people start asking uncomfortable but reasonable questions. Who benefits from this? Where does the value go? And why should I hold the token instead of just trading it to the next guy?

There are answers that show up again and again: burns, buybacks, and dividend-style payouts.

Each one says something different about how a protocol thinks about ownership.

 

The Good Old Token Burn: Familiar, Clean, and a Little Hollow

Burning tokens is crypto’s comfort food. It is simple, emotionally satisfying, and easy to explain on social media. Fewer tokens, more scarcity, higher price. Well, in theory.

And to be fair, burns can work, especially in strong markets. They create a sense of discipline. They tell holders that supply is being managed, that inflation is not running wild.

But burns do not actually give anyone anything. No cash, no yield, no participation in revenue. You are still relying on the market to do the rest of the work.

That can be fine if demand is strong. It is much less convincing when demand is uncertain. Scarcity alone does not create value, it only amplifies it if something else is already there.

Burns feel like an answer from an earlier era of crypto, when optics mattered more than fundamentals.

 

Token Buybacks: More Serious, Still Indirect

Buybacks feel like crypto growing up and borrowing language from public markets.

Instead of destroying tokens automatically, protocols use revenue or treasury funds to buy their own tokens on the open market. The signal is clear: the protocol believes the token is undervalued and is willing to spend real money to prove it.

That matters. Buybacks introduce actual demand. They are less abstract than burns. They also force protocols to think more carefully about treasury management and sustainability.

But at the end of the day, buybacks still work through price. If the market reacts, holders benefit. If it does not, they do not. There is no guarantee, no direct transfer of value, no moment where a holder can say, “I received this because the protocol performed well.”

In traditional finance, buybacks are often paired with dividends. In crypto, they are usually positioned as the whole story. That gap is something worth paying attention to.

 

Dividends and Revenue Sharing: The Awkward but Honest Option

Dividend-style payouts in crypto tend to make people uncomfortable. They feel a bit too close to traditional finance. And the instinctive reaction is usually something like, aren’t we supposed to be reinventing all of this?

In some ways, yes. There are definitely parts of the financial system that deserve to be challenged or rebuilt entirely. But that does not automatically mean everything old is useless. Some mechanisms stuck around because they solved real problems. Dividends are one of those.

At its core, the idea is pretty simple. If a protocol makes money, some of that money goes back to the people holding the token. Maybe you have to stake. Maybe you have to lock tokens for a while. Maybe the payout changes over time. The specifics can vary, but the relationship is clear enough. When the protocol does well, holders benefit.

That alone changes the dynamic. You are no longer just holding a token and hoping it becomes more desirable later. You are actually participating in the economics of the thing you own.

It also forces a kind of honesty. If revenue drops, payouts drop. If the protocol grows, holders feel it directly. There is not much room to hide behind supply tweaks or clever treasury narratives.

The objections are predictable. Regulation. Complexity. Governance risk. And to be fair, those are not imaginary concerns. Once you start sharing revenue, it starts to look a lot like ownership, and ownership comes with responsibilities that crypto has historically tried to sidestep.

But pretending that reality does not exist does not really help. And once protocols manage capital and distribute value, they are already doing financial work, whether they want to admit it or not.

Dividends do not invent that reality. They just stop dancing around it.

 

This Is Really About Maturity

Burns, buybacks, and dividends are not just technical choices. They are statements about what a protocol wants to be.

Burns prioritize simplicity and narrative. Buybacks prioritize signaling and market mechanics. Dividends prioritize alignment and accountability.

None of them are universally right or wrong. Early-stage protocols probably should not be paying out revenue. Infrastructure layers may prefer reinvestment. Some tokens are governance tools first and economic assets second.

But as DeFi matures, it is becoming harder to justify tokens that never touch the value they help create.

At some point, holders stop asking how clever the tokenomics are and start asking a simpler question: what do I get if this works?

Crypto does not need to become traditional finance. But it probably does need to answer that question more directly. Whether that leads to dividends, something like them, or an entirely new model is still open.

 

But what is beginning to feel increasingly outdated is pretending that question does not matter.

 

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.

Trump-Backed World Liberty Financial Rolls Out DeFi Lending Platform

 

World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture tied to President Donald Trump and his family, has crossed another big milestone in its effort to turn a stablecoin and decentralized finance products into a real business. The firm quietly rolled out World Liberty Markets, a new on-chain borrowing and lending platform built around its flagship stablecoin, USD1, and it’s already pulled in tens of millions in assets from early users.

The launch puts World Liberty right into one of the most competitive and risky corners of crypto: decentralized lending. This is where you can earn interest by supplying assets or borrow against your holdings without going through a bank or broker. It’s the plumbing that makes much of DeFi tick, and it’s also where huge liquidations and smart contract exploits have regularly happened. The difference here is political gravity: this project is backed by one of the most polarizing figures in modern American business and politics.

 

What World Liberty Markets Actually Offers

World Liberty Markets isn’t reinventing DeFi. The way it works is familiar if you’ve used other decentralized money markets: you supply assets to earn interest, and you can borrow against collateral you’ve locked up. At launch, supported assets include the company’s own USD1 stablecoin, its governance token WLFI, Ethereum, tokenized Bitcoin, and major stablecoins like USDC and USDT. Once you deposit, you can take a loan out in any of those supported assets based on how much you’ve put up as collateral.

The platform is built with the infrastructure of an existing DeFi protocol called Dolomite, which means World Liberty didn’t have to write an entire lending stack itself. Think of it as a branded front door and dashboard on top of established smart contract mechanics.

In the first week or so, the protocol showed some early traction, with roughly $20 million in supplied assets moving through it. That number is small compared to big DeFi players, but it’s eye-catching because of how recent the launch was and the fact that USD1 supply is growing quickly.

To jump-start liquidity, World Liberty is dangling a very high yield on USD1 deposits, along with a “reward points” program for larger suppliers. World Liberty was announced on X, writing that “WLFI Markets is built to support the future of tokenized finance by providing access to third party and WLFI-branded real-world asset products, supporting new tokenized assets as they launch, and creating deeper and wider access to USD1 across all WLFI applications. It’s designed to provide future access to WLFI’s broader RWA roadmap.”

 

Betting on USD1

Behind all this is USD1, World Liberty’s dollar-pegged stablecoin that has really become the center of the project’s story. Since its debut in early 2025, the coin has ballooned into one of the larger dollar stablecoins by market capitalization, trading alongside names people actually recognize and use every day. It’s backed by cash, short-term Treasuries, and things like dollar deposits through professional custody arrangements, and it aims to be redeemable at parity with the U.S. dollar.

That backing and that promise of redemption put USD1 in the same product category as USDC and USDT, which dominate the stablecoin market. But stablecoins only become useful when there are places for them to be spent, lent, traded or borrowed, and until now USD1 had mostly been used as a tradable asset with some big institutional deals. The lending launch is the first real step toward making it function like money in crypto’s own financial ecosystem.

World Liberty has been aggressively pushing USD1 into major venues, including listings on big exchanges and use as collateral or settlement assets in large trades. That has helped it grow in circulation fast, and have enough liquidity that a lending market now makes sense. Because USD1 is tied so directly to World Liberty’s broader business, how well the lending product does could be a big factor in whether USD1 becomes sticky in the market or remains a speculative novelty.

 

From On-Chain Products to Traditional Finance

This lending rollout comes at a moment when the company is also trying to pull USD1 and its associated services into the regulated financial world. A subsidiary of World Liberty has applied for a national trust bank charter with U.S. regulators. If approved, that would allow the entity to issue and custody stablecoins and digital assets under federal supervision, provide conversion between fiat and stablecoin, and generally operate more like a regulated institution rather than a pure DeFi startup.

That’s a trend you’re seeing across crypto right now. Regulators have started to outline formal frameworks for stablecoins through new legislation aimed at reducing risk and improving disclosure. Projects that tie themselves to those frameworks stand to get easier access to traditional players like banks, exchanges and institutional clients. But it also subjects them to a lot more scrutiny than the wild west of DeFi.

 

Will it succeed?

Here’s the hard truth: decentralized lending markets are notoriously volatile and complex. You can get liquidation events overnight if collateral values tumble. Smart contracts have flaws and exploits. Incentives can attract short-term capital that leaves as soon as the rewards stop. That’s all before you even factor in political risk, regulatory noise, or questions about reserve transparency.

Then there’s the optics of the thing. World Liberty is connected to Donald Trump and his family, who have been publicly associated with this project since the beginning. That’s drawn critics who say there are conflicts of interest embedded in how the venture promotes itself and how big deals get structured. Whether you see that as a feature or a bug, it certainly makes this different from your run-of-the-mill DeFi launch.

For anyone watching this space, the next few months will answer big questions. Will World Liberty Markets continue to draw real deposits once the initial incentives slow down? Will borrowing activity pick up in ways that look organic rather than promotional? Can USD1 maintain its peg and redemption promise under pressure? And how will regulators respond if this trust charter application moves forward?

One thing is clear: if a political figure’s name is going to be tied to a crypto product that interacts with both decentralized users and regulated finance, people in the market will watch every data point, every rate change, every on-chain metric and every regulatory filing with extra attention.

 

Whether it pans out or not will matter to traders, developers, regulators and probably a whole lot of voters too.

 

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.