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.

 

 

Tokenization has always sounded bigger than it looked.

 

For years, crypto insiders talked about putting stocks, bonds, and real-world assets on blockchains as if it were inevitable. In reality, adoption was slow, liquidity was thin, and most experiments never made it past pilot stage. That gap between narrative and execution is starting to close, and ARK Invest appears to think the timing finally matters.

 

The innovation-focused asset manager has taken a stake in Securitize, a company building the infrastructure to issue and manage tokenized securities. On its own, the investment is modest. In context, it is a clear signal that tokenization is moving out of theory and into serious institutional planning.

 

From a $30 Billion Market to Something Much Bigger

Today, the tokenized real-world asset market sits at roughly $30 billion, depending on how narrowly you define it. That includes tokenized Treasurys, money market funds, private credit, and a small but growing set of other financial instruments.

 

ARK’s long-term outlook is far more ambitious. The firm has pointed to projections that tokenization could scale into an $11 trillion market by 2030. That kind of growth does not come from retail speculation or crypto-native assets alone. It requires deep integration with traditional finance.

 

"In our view, broad based adoption of tokenization is likely to follow the development of regulatory clarity and institutional-grade infrastructure," Ark Invest said in its "Big Ideas 2026" report published Wednesday.

 

Institutional Momentum Is Picking Up Fast

What is changing most quickly is not the technology, but the pace of institutional involvement.

 

In just the past few weeks, some of the largest names in global markets have moved from discussion to execution. Earlier this week, the New York Stock Exchange said it is building a blockchain-based trading venue designed to support around-the-clock trading of tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds. The platform is expected to launch later this year, pending regulatory approval, and would mark one of the most direct integrations of tokenized assets into a major U.S. exchange.

 

That announcement followed a similar move from F/m Investments, the firm behind the $6.3 billion U.S. Treasury 3-Month Bill ETF. The company said it has asked U.S. regulators for permission to record existing ETF shares on a blockchain. Founded in 2018, F/m manages roughly $18 billion in assets, and its approach signals that tokenization is no longer limited to newly issued products. Existing, actively traded funds are now being considered for on-chain recordkeeping.

 

Custody and settlement providers are moving in parallel. Last week, State Street said it is rolling out a digital asset platform aimed at supporting money market funds, ETFs, and cash products, including tokenized deposits and stablecoins. Around the same time, London Stock Exchange Group launched its Digital Settlement House, a system designed to enable near-instant settlement across both blockchain-based rails and traditional payment infrastructure.

 

Taken together, these moves suggest institutions are no longer testing whether tokenization works. They are deciding where it fits.

 

ARK has noted that tokenized markets today are still dominated by sovereign debt, particularly U.S. Treasurys. That is where the clearest efficiency gains exist and where regulatory risk is lowest. Over the next five years, however, the firm expects bank deposits and global public equities to make up a much larger share of tokenized value as institutions move beyond pilot programs and into scaled deployment.

 

If that shift plays out, tokenization stops being a niche product category and starts to look like a new operating layer for global markets.

 

 

 

New York Stock Exchange Wants To Go On-Chain

 

 

Why This Time Feels Different

Tokenization has gone through hype cycles before, usually tied to broader crypto booms. What stands out now is who is building and who is participating.

 

Large asset managers are no longer experimenting on the margins. They are issuing real products, allocating real capital, and treating blockchain settlement as a potential efficiency gain rather than a novelty. Tokenized Treasurys and money market funds are leading adoption because they solve real operational problems like settlement speed and collateral mobility.

 

That is how new financial infrastructure typically gains traction. Slowly, quietly, and through the most boring assets first.

 

ARK’s involvement fits neatly into that pattern.

 

The Challenges Have Not Disappeared

None of this means tokenization is inevitable or frictionless.

 

Liquidity in secondary markets remains limited. Regulatory clarity still varies widely across jurisdictions. Custody, interoperability, and standardization are ongoing challenges. Many tokenized assets trade less frequently than their traditional equivalents, at least for now.

 

But those challenges look more like growing pains than dead ends. The market is early, not stalled.

 

Infrastructure Before Impact

If tokenization does reach anything close to $11 trillion by the end of the decade, it will not arrive with fanfare. Most investors will not notice when the shift happens. Trades will just settle faster. Access will widen. Capital will move more freely across systems that used to be siloed.

 

ARK’s move suggests the firm is less interested in predicting when that happens and more interested in owning the infrastructure that makes it possible.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A Chair With Deep Crypto Roots

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

 

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

 

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

 

What “Future-Proof” Really Means

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Why the Industry Is Paying Attention

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Tennessee Attempts to Block Prediction Markets

 

 

A Broader Political Shift

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

 

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

 

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

 

What Does The Future Hold?

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Ripple and LMAX Push Institutional Stablecoin Adoption

 

 

Ripple’s reported deal with LMAX Group is not really about another exchange listing or a short-term liquidity boost. It is about where stablecoins are finally starting to show up inside institutional finance, and what that shift says about the next phase of crypto market structure.

The headline is simple enough. Ripple and LMAX have struck a $150 million agreement that brings Ripple’s dollar-backed stablecoin, RLUSD, deeper into LMAX’s institutional trading venues. The more interesting part is what comes next: RLUSD is expected to be usable as collateral, margin, and settlement capital by professional trading firms.

That may not sound dramatic at first glance, but inside institutional markets, it is a big deal.

 

From parking asset to working capital

For years, stablecoins have mostly played a supporting role. They were the thing traders sat in between positions or used to move money between exchanges when banks were closed. Retail users cared about convenience and price stability. Institutions cared about something else entirely: whether a stablecoin could actually replace cash in live trading workflows.

Using a stablecoin as collateral changes the conversation. Suddenly, that token is not just sitting idle. It is supporting leveraged positions, absorbing margin requirements, and moving around trading venues without waiting for bank wires or settlement windows.

LMAX is a meaningful place for that shift to happen. The firm has built its reputation on institutional-grade execution in FX and digital assets, serving banks, brokers, hedge funds, and proprietary trading firms. If RLUSD is accepted inside that ecosystem as usable collateral, it moves closer to being treated as functional cash, not just crypto-native liquidity.

 

Why LMAX matters more than a typical exchange

This is not a retail exchange partnership. LMAX’s client base is made up of firms that already manage risk, margin, and balance sheets for a living. These are the players who care about haircut schedules, collateral eligibility, operational reliability, and compliance comfort.

If those firms are willing to post RLUSD as collateral, it suggests confidence not only in the token’s peg, but also in the issuer behind it. That trust is harder to earn than a listing, and far more valuable once it exists.

It also reflects a broader institutional reality. Firms want capital that moves around the clock, across venues, and across asset classes. Cash tied to banking hours and regional settlement systems increasingly feels like a constraint.

 

Ripple’s stablecoin strategy is becoming clearer

RLUSD is not a side project for Ripple. The company has been positioning it as an enterprise-grade stablecoin, backed by segregated reserves and supported by regular attestations. It runs on both XRP Ledger and Ethereum, and Ripple has been explicit about pushing it into real financial workflows rather than letting it exist as a passive asset.

That push has shown up in a few places already. RLUSD has been integrated into Ripple’s payments stack. It has been listed on institutional venues. And now, with LMAX, it is moving into collateral use cases.

Seen together, these steps suggest Ripple is trying to build something closer to an institutional cash layer than a retail stablecoin brand.

 

The collateral flywheel institutions care about

For professional trading firms, collateral is where the real leverage sits. If a stablecoin can be posted as margin, it becomes part of the firm’s core capital stack. That unlocks capital efficiency, especially for firms operating across time zones and asset classes.

Once a stablecoin clears that bar, it can expand into settlement, netting, and treasury operations. It can move between venues over the weekend. It can reduce idle balances. It can simplify how firms manage liquidity across crypto and traditional markets.

This is also why Ripple’s broader institutional moves matter. The company has been building out infrastructure that connects stablecoins, custody, prime brokerage, and payments. The LMAX deal fits neatly into that picture.

 

A crowded market with a narrow institutional lane

RLUSD is entering a stablecoin market dominated by incumbents with massive scale. But market cap is not the only metric that matters in institutional finance. Acceptance as collateral, integration into regulated venues, and operational trust often matter more than raw supply.

Institutions do not ask which stablecoin is biggest. They ask which one their venue will accept, which one clears risk checks, and which one will still work under stress.

Ripple is clearly aiming at that narrow lane, where trust, compliance, and plumbing matter more than retail mindshare.

 

What still needs to be proven

There are still open questions. The exact scope of RLUSD’s collateral eligibility at LMAX matters. Haircuts, product coverage, and custody integration will determine how widely it is actually used.

There is also the question of scale. True institutional adoption shows up in volume, not announcements. It shows up during volatile markets, when liquidity and redemptions are tested.

And as always, jurisdiction matters. Stablecoin availability and usage depend on regulatory boundaries that vary by region and client type.

 

Why this matters now

The broader takeaway is that stablecoins are quietly moving from the edges of crypto markets toward the center of institutional finance. Not through hype cycles, but through plumbing.

If RLUSD becomes a routine piece of collateral inside venues like LMAX, it will be less about Ripple winning a headline and more about stablecoins winning a role they have been chasing for years.

 

In that sense, this deal is less about a token and more about a shift. Stablecoins are no longer just crypto’s cash. They are starting to look like finance’s.

 

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.

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.

Florida Renews Push for a Bitcoin Reserve

 

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

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

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

 

What the Bill Would Do

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

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

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

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

 

A Return to an Unfinished Debate

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

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

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

 

Market Context and State Competition

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

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

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

 

Supporters and Skeptics Remain Split

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

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

 

What Happens Next

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

 

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

 

Stay Connected

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

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

 

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

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

Here’s what’s going on.

 

Regulation is Shifting from Theory to Reality

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

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

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

 

SBI and Ripple: A Relationship That Keeps Delivering

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

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

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

 

What “Integration” Really Means

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Bigger Picture on Liquidity

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

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

 

Why This Matters Outside Japan

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

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

 

What to Watch in the Coming Months

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

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

• Institutional partners offering XRP exposure in regulated products.

• Bank and broker integration that goes beyond pilot mode.

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

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

 

Bottom Line

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

 

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

 

Stay Connected

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

What Is The CLARITY Act and Why It Is So Important

 

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

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

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

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

 

The problem CLARITY is trying to solve

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

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

CLARITY is an attempt to stop doing that.

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

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

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

 

Tokens are not frozen in time

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

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

CLARITY tries to separate:

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

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

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

 

What “mature blockchain” actually means

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

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

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

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

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

 

How token launches could work going forward

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

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

• How token supply and issuance work

• What rights, if any, token holders have

• How governance actually functions in practice

• What the project plans to build and what risks exist

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

 

Why exchanges are watching this so closely

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

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

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

 

A bigger role for the CFTC

Another major shift is regulatory jurisdiction.

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

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

 

DeFi, software, and where things get tricky

DeFi is where the bill walks a tightrope.

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

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

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

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

 

Federal rules versus state rules

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

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

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

 

Self custody, explicitly protected

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

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

 

Developers get some breathing room

CLARITY also addresses a long-running concern among builders.

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

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

 

Why January 15 is such a big deal

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

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

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

 

How you can get involved?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Spot Crypto ETFs Cross $2 Trillion in Trading Volume and It Happened Faster Than Anyone Expected

U.S. spot crypto ETFs have now crossed $2 trillion in cumulative trading volume, and the pace is what stands out. The second trillion arrived in a fraction of the time it took to reach the first, a sign that these products are no longer just a post launch curiosity. They’ve become part of the daily machinery of crypto markets.

This milestone is about usage, not hype. Cumulative volume counts every trade that’s taken place since launch. It’s not a measure of how much money investors have parked in these funds, and it’s not a scorecard for inflows. It simply answers one question: how often are people actually using these ETFs to trade crypto exposure?

The answer now is: a lot.

 

Bitcoin Did the Heavy Lifting, Ethereum Added Fuel

Most of that $2 trillion comes from spot Bitcoin ETFs, which have been trading heavily all year. Bitcoin products built liquidity early and never really gave it back. By the end of 2025, they were doing massive daily volume even on relatively quiet market days.

Ethereum ETFs came later, but once they found their footing, they added a meaningful second leg. As ETH products matured, traders began using them not just for long term exposure, but also for positioning, rotation, and relative value trades against Bitcoin.

Together, they pushed cumulative volume past the $2 trillion mark, and the curve got steeper along the way.

 

Why Trading Picked Up So Quickly

A few things changed over the past year.

First, the plumbing improved. Market makers figured out how to price these products efficiently, spreads tightened, and trading got easier. Once friction drops, volume usually follows.

Second, volatility helped. Crypto spent much of the year moving between risk on and risk off. In those environments, ETFs are an easy switch. They let traders adjust exposure fast without dealing with custody, exchanges, or operational headaches.

Third, liquidity concentrated. A handful of ETFs became clear winners, and traders gravitate to the deepest pools. That concentration pulls even more activity into the same tickers, reinforcing the trend.

And finally, these ETFs stopped feeling “new.” Once something becomes familiar, it starts getting used more casually, for hedges, reallocations, and short term trades that don’t make headlines.

 

This Isn’t Just About New Money

It’s important to separate volume from inflows.

Yes, spot crypto ETFs have pulled in tens of billions in new capital since launch, especially on the Bitcoin side. That shows real demand for regulated crypto exposure. But volume tells a different story. It shows repetition. The same capital moving in and out, sometimes many times over.

That’s actually what makes this milestone interesting. It suggests ETFs are becoming the default execution venue for a growing slice of crypto trading, not just a one way funnel for long term investors.

 

ETFs Are Becoming a Price Discovery Layer

As trading volume piles up, ETFs start to matter more for price formation. On active days, price moves often show up in ETFs first, then ripple into futures and spot markets as arbitrage kicks in.

That doesn’t mean ETFs control crypto prices, but it does mean they’re part of the feedback loop now. For traditional investors especially, the ETF ticker is the market.

This also nudges crypto a bit closer to traditional market behavior. Flows, positioning, and narrative cycles start to matter more, sometimes even more than onchain activity in the short term.

 

What to Watch From Here

Crossing $2 trillion doesn’t mean volume will grow in a straight line forever. Trading activity can cool when volatility drops or when investors get more comfortable holding through cycles.

But a few things will signal whether this trend sticks:

• steady daily volume, not just spikes

• broader participation beyond one or two dominant funds

• continued activity in Ethereum ETFs, not just Bitcoin

• how ETFs behave during the next real market stress test

 

For now, the takeaway is simple. Spot crypto ETFs aren’t an experiment anymore. They’re being used, heavily, and the market is treating them like infrastructure. That $2 trillion figure isn’t just a big number. It’s a sign that crypto trading has quietly picked up a new center of gravity.

 

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.

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

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

In 2025, something changed.

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

 

From Debate to Infrastructure

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

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

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

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

 

A Fragmented System, With Clearer Edges

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

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

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

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

 

Stablecoins Became a Federal Issue

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

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

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

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

 

Investment Products Got More Predictable

Crypto investment products also moved forward.

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

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

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

 

Custody Finally Moved Into Focus

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

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

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

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

 

What Was Left Unfinished

Not everything was resolved.

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

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

 

Why 2025 Mattered

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

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

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

 

Looking Ahead

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

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

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

 

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

 

Where the Conversation Continues

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

That is part of what makes Rare Evo stand out.

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

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

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

 

Alongside that conversation is the role of Rare PAC.

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

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

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

 

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

U.S. FDIC Moves to Define Stablecoin Rules, Bringing Washington Closer to a Real Framework

For years, stablecoins have lived in an uncomfortable gray zone in the U.S. financial system. Big enough to matter, but never quite official enough to be fully welcomed. That may finally be changing.

On December 16, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took a significant step by proposing the first formal rules for stablecoins under the recently passed GENIUS Act. It is the clearest signal yet that Washington intends to treat certain stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

This is not a sweeping overhaul overnight. But it is a meaningful start.

 

What the FDIC Is Actually Proposing

The FDIC’s proposal focuses on process before product. Rather than setting hard capital or reserve requirements immediately, the agency is laying out how banks can apply to issue stablecoins through regulated subsidiaries.

In simple terms, the rule defines how a bank asks permission, what information regulators expect to see, how long the FDIC has to respond, and what happens if an application is rejected.

Under the proposal, banks would submit detailed applications covering governance, risk management, compliance controls, and operational readiness. The FDIC would have set timelines to review submissions, determine whether they are complete, and issue approvals or denials. There is also an appeals process, which is notable in a space where regulatory decisions have often felt opaque.

There is even a temporary safe harbor for early applicants, giving institutions a window to engage before all GENIUS Act requirements fully take effect.

None of this is flashy. That is the point.

 

Why the GENIUS Act Changed the Conversation

The FDIC’s move only makes sense in the context of the GENIUS Act, which passed earlier this year after years of stalled crypto legislation. The law created a new category for payment stablecoins and, crucially, decided who gets to supervise them.

Under the act, stablecoins designed for payments are no longer left floating between agencies. The FDIC is responsible for stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of insured banks, while other regulators handle different corners of the market.

The law also sets the broad expectations. Stablecoins must be fully backed, redeemable at par, and supported by transparent reserves. They are not treated as securities, and they are not left entirely to state regulators either.

That clarity alone has shifted the leading question from “Is this allowed?” to “How does this work in practice?”

 

A Quiet but Important Shift

What stands out about the FDIC proposal is how procedural it is. This is not Washington hyping innovation or trying to pick winners. It is regulators building guardrails, slowly and deliberately.

That may frustrate parts of the crypto industry that hoped for faster approval paths or broader access for nonbank issuers. But for traditional financial institutions, this kind of rulemaking is familiar. It reduces uncertainty, and uncertainty is often the biggest barrier to participation.

Banks have been hesitant to touch stablecoins directly, not because they lacked interest, but because the regulatory consequences were unclear. This proposal begins to close that gap.

 

What Comes Next

The current proposal is only the first layer. The FDIC and other agencies are expected to follow with rules covering capital, liquidity, reserve composition, and ongoing supervision.

Those details will matter. A lot.

Too strict, and stablecoin issuance could remain concentrated among a small number of players. Too loose, and regulators risk recreating the same fragilities they are trying to prevent.

There is also the question of how these U.S. rules will interact with frameworks emerging in Europe and Asia. Stablecoins move across borders easily. Regulation does not.

 

Why This Matters Beyond Crypto

Stablecoins are no longer just a crypto market issue. They sit at the intersection of payments, banking, and monetary policy.

If regulated correctly, they could make settlement faster, cheaper, and more resilient. If handled poorly, they could introduce new forms of run risk into the financial system.

The FDIC’s proposal suggests regulators understand that tension. This is not an endorsement of stablecoins, but it is an acknowledgment that they are not going away.

After years of debate, enforcement actions, and regulatory silence, the U.S. is finally starting to write the rulebook. Slowly. Carefully. And very much on its own terms.

 

That alone marks a turning point.

 

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.