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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Yield Problem

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

 

Banks are not buying that distinction.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The crypto side sees that as overreach.

 

 

Is This About Risk or About Control?

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

 

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

 

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

 

Why eliminate them entirely?

 

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

 

That begins to encroach on traditional banking territory.

 

 

The Competitive Threat

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Legislative Bottleneck

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The tension is not just technical. It is philosophical.

 

 

A Larger Question About Money

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Bottom Line

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

 

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

 

And that leaves an uncomfortable reality.

 

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

 

MrBeast has never been subtle about scale. Giveaways get bigger, productions get more expensive, audiences get larger. So when Jimmy Donaldson starts drifting into financial services, it is probably worth paying attention.

 

Quietly, through his company Beast Industries, MrBeast has acquired Step, a mobile banking app aimed mostly at teenagers and young adults. On its own, that might look like a straightforward fintech acquisition. But paired with recent trademark filings tied to crypto and digital finance and a $200 million investment from Tom Lee's Ethereum investment company, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, it starts to look like something more deliberate.

 

 

 

Why Step Matters More Than It Looks

Step is not a household name, but in fintech circles it has been around for a while. The app was built to help younger users manage money early, offering basic banking features, debit cards, and tools meant to make finance feel less intimidating.

 

Like many consumer fintech startups, Step grew fast when money was cheap and slowed when markets tightened. That made it a candidate for acquisition, especially by a company with a built-in distribution engine the size of MrBeast’s audience.

 

For Beast Industries, Step is a shortcut. It already has users, regulatory relationships, and a working product. MrBeast does not have to start from zero or ask people to trust a brand new financial app. He is buying something real and then putting his brand behind it.

 

That is a very different approach from the usual influencer playbook.

 

 

The Crypto Part Is Not Front and Center, Yet

So far, there is no MrBeast token, no flashy crypto launch, no giveaways tied to wallets or NFTs. That is probably intentional.

 

Instead, trademark filings for “MrBeast Financial” outline a much broader vision. Banking, payments, investing, crypto trading, even decentralized finance concepts are all on the table. It reads less like a meme project and more like a blueprint for a full financial platform.

 

If this eventually launches, crypto would likely sit alongside traditional services rather than replace them. Think less about hype cycles and more about gradual exposure. Users open an account, use it like a normal banking app, and over time gain access to digital assets in a familiar environment.

 

Given how badly celebrity crypto projects have burned users in the past, that restraint may be the smartest part of the strategy.

 

 

A Perfect Fit for His Audience

MrBeast’s audience is young, global, and extremely online. Many of them have never walked into a bank branch. They are comfortable with apps, digital payments, and online money, even if they are still figuring out how finance works.

 

That overlap with Step’s original target market is almost too neat.

 

There is also the education angle. MrBeast has built an entire career on making people pay attention to things they normally would not. Financial literacy is not exciting. But challenges, rewards, and gamified learning are very much his lane.

 

If anyone can make budgeting or saving feel like content instead of homework, it is probably him.

 

 

This Is Where Things Get Complicated

Of course, finance is not YouTube.

 

Banking and crypto both come with heavy regulatory baggage. Expanding Step into something larger would require licenses, compliance teams, partners, and patience. Crypto adds another layer of scrutiny, especially in the US, where regulators are still defining the rules in real time.

 

Trademark filings do not guarantee execution. Plenty of companies file broadly and never ship half of what they outline.

 

Still, the direction is hard to ignore. This is not a casual experiment. Buying a banking app is a commitment.

 

 

The Bottom Line

If MrBeast follows through, this could change how crypto reaches mainstream users. Not through exchanges or speculation, but through everyday financial tools tied to a brand people already trust.

 

It also hints at where the creator economy might be heading next. After ads, merch, food brands, and mobile services, financial products may be the next frontier. They are harder to build, harder to regulate, and much harder to unwind.

 

Which may be exactly why someone like MrBeast is interested.

 

For now, there are more questions than answers. No launch dates, no confirmed features, no official crypto roadmap. But the pieces are starting to line up.

 

MrBeast is stepping into finance, and if he is anything like his past ventures, this will not stay small for long.

 

As a relatively new reporter in the financial space here in Cincinnati, I’m still learning the ropes of these massive markets every day. I’ve pored over charts, read analyst reports, and talked to people who live and breathe this work. The facts right now are clear: gold is on fire, while Bitcoin, often called “digital gold,” is lagging or even pulling back. Gold has surged past $5,000 per ounce amid global tensions and renewed safe-haven buying, while Bitcoin is hovering around $87,000 to $88,000 after dipping from recent highs near $98,000. It is tempting to think gold has won this round outright. But when I look deeper at the data and think about where we are headed, I cannot shake the feeling that Bitcoin is still the head of the future.

 

Let me break down the current picture using real data and major players, then explain why, as someone still green in this industry, I am leaning toward the digital side over the long term.

 

The Numbers Don’t Lie: Gold’s Dominance in Early 2026

Gold’s dominance in early 2026 has been unmistakable. As of January 26, 2026, spot gold is trading roughly between $5,067 and $5,100 per ounce, up about 1.6 percent on the day and nearly 85 percent from a year ago. It recently pushed past $5,100 as investors rushed into safe assets driven by geopolitical flashpoints, a weaker U.S. dollar, and continued central bank accumulation. Analysts at firms such as J.P. Morgan are projecting average prices near $5,055 by the fourth quarter of 2026, with more aggressive scenarios reaching $5,400 or even $6,000 if uncertainty remains elevated.

 

This surge is being driven by familiar forces. Demand for safe havens has intensified amid global risks, including tensions involving Venezuela, Iran, and broader macroeconomic stress. Central banks continue to purchase gold at a strong pace, and expectations for lower interest rates are making non-yielding assets like gold more attractive relative to bonds and cash.

 

Major mining companies are capitalizing on these conditions. Newmont Corp., the world’s largest gold producer, is benefiting from its diversified operations and has seen its shares rise alongside record prices. Barrick Gold continues to deliver strong output from its core assets, while Agnico Eagle is expanding in politically stable jurisdictions. The emphasis these companies place on operational efficiency and ESG-conscious production has helped attract institutional capital, reinforcing gold’s reputation as a reliable hedge in uncertain times.

 

Bitcoin’s Rough Patch: Stagnation Amid the Rally

Bitcoin, meanwhile, is struggling to keep pace. It is trading in the $87,000 to $88,000 range, down from highs near $98,000 earlier this month and well below its 2025 peak. Year-to-date performance has been flat to negative at times, and the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio has fallen to roughly 17 to 18, meaning one Bitcoin now buys significantly fewer ounces of gold than it did previously. Recent outflows from crypto-focused ETFs have added pressure, and Bitcoin has failed to capture the same fear-driven momentum that is powering gold’s rally.

 

Several factors are weighing on sentiment. Regulatory uncertainty and ongoing energy concerns remain unresolved, while broader macro resets are pushing investors toward traditional safe havens first. At the same time, profit-taking by early Bitcoin holders has contributed to selling pressure during rallies.

 

On the mining side, companies such as Marathon Digital and Riot Platforms are facing margin pressure from higher energy costs and the effects of the most recent halving. Some firms, including CleanSpark, are attempting to adapt by shifting portions of their operations toward AI-related infrastructure. Institutional backing through products like BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETFs has helped establish a price floor, but so far it has not been enough to spark a sustained breakout.

 

Ty’s Take: Gold Feels Safe Now, But Bitcoin Is the Future I’m Betting On

I will be upfront: I am new to covering this beat, and the data clearly shows that gold has been the winner so far in 2026. Its thousands of years of history as a store of value, its lower volatility, and its tangible demand during periods of turmoil make it feel especially solid when headlines are filled with uncertainty. From my desk in Cincinnati, where many investors favor steady and familiar assets, gold’s rally makes complete sense. Mining stocks such as Newmont and Barrick look like attractive options for those seeking exposure without extreme swings.

 

But here is where my gut...and what I have learned through deeper research, come into play. Bitcoin is not failing; it is moving through a cyclical pullback while gold does what it has always done best during risk-off environments. Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins, expanding adoption, and potential as borderless, programmable money position it as an evolution in how value is stored and transferred. Gold has history on its side, but Bitcoin brings innovation, including growing institutional participation, the possibility of clearer regulation under current leadership, and continued improvements in efficiency and infrastructure. Forecasts for Bitcoin range from relatively conservative targets of $120,000 to $170,000 by year end, with much higher outcomes possible if momentum returns.

 

As someone still learning this industry, I see gold winning the short-term fear trade, while Bitcoin leads the longer-term shift toward digital assets. For investors building wealth over the next decade, allocating to both can make sense: gold for near-term stability through miners or ETFs, and a heavier tilt toward Bitcoin or its broader ecosystem for long-term growth. The facts show gold shining today, but the future, in my view, remains digital.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Strategy: Blue Chips Only

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

 

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

 

A Shifting Regulatory Tide

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

 

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

 

Ty’s Take: The View from the New Guy

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The World Economic Forum’s annual gathering in Davos didn’t treat crypto like a fringe experiment or a buzzword for the sidelines. In 2026, digital assets were woven into the fabric of mainstream finance discussions, with dedicated sessions, public clashes, and real institutional debate. What stood out wasn’t hype about price charts but serious questions about how blockchain, stablecoins, and tokenization might actually function inside global financial markets.

 

The forum still had the usual Davos theatrics: world leaders, geopolitical angst, and even some absurd headlines. But under that backdrop, crypto’s presence felt more substantive than symbolic.

 

Dedicated Sessions for Crypto’s Practical Questions

This year’s agenda included two clearly labeled sessions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. One was titled “Is Tokenization the Future?” and another “Where Are We on Stablecoins?” These weren’t happy-talk panels. They featured heavy hitters from both the crypto world and traditional finance, and the exchanges got frank and occasionally tense.

 

In the tokenization session, the debate wasn’t about whether tokenization mattered, but how to make it work in real markets. Executives from leading exchanges and tokenization platforms shared the stage with regulators and central bank representatives. Banks and custodians talked about technical issues like governance, custody, and interoperability. The message from financial incumbents was cautious but clear: tokenization is interesting, but it has to fit into existing market infrastructure with clear rules and risk controls.

 

Stablecoins got their own moment too. The session on stablecoins drew some of the biggest names in crypto alongside central bankers and global settlement experts. One of the most explosive moments came when industry CEOs pushed back against regulators on whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay yield to holders. That argument went far beyond textbook economics. On stage, executives argued that interest-bearing stablecoins were essential for consumer utility and global competitiveness, while some central bankers warned that yields could undermine banking systems and monetary sovereignty. Those side conversations revealed just how uneasy regulators still are, even when they acknowledge stablecoins’ potential as settlement rails.

 

These discussions reflected a broader shift. The question at Davos was no longer whether digital assets belong in the financial system, but how they should be regulated, engineered, and governed if they are going to be part of the future of payments, markets, and enterprise infrastructure.

 

Tokenization Takes the Spotlight

Out in the corridors and at side events, almost every conversation came back to one theme: tokenization of real-world assets. Whether you were talking to a sovereign wealth fund advisor or a fintech CEO, the framing was similar. Crypto tech is moving past speculation and into something that could materially change liquidity and access in global finance.

 

The story from a range of institutional participants was that tokenization is no longer an academic idea. There are live projects tokenizing government bonds and traditional funds, and institutional settlement firms are piloting systems that blend blockchain principles with existing financial rails. The buzz was not about replacing banks but about layering new capabilities on top of old systems in ways that reduce friction and increase transparency.

 

One telling difference this year was that tokenization was discussed in terms of liquidity and fractional ownership, not volatility. That shows where the conversation has matured: from digital assets as a wild bet to digital assets as potential plumbing for capital markets.

 

Stablecoins, Regulation, and Real Debate

The stablecoin panel was one of the most watched crypto moments in Davos. People crowded into the room not for price predictions but for substance. Here you had exchange CEOs, stablecoin issuers, and veteran regulators hashing out definitions, safeguards, and the practical role stablecoins could play in cross-border settlement.

 

One point that came up repeatedly was that stablecoins could act as a connective layer between traditional finance and digital markets. Advocates painted a picture where businesses run treasury operations using stablecoins, and global money movement gets more efficient as a result. Critics, especially from central banking circles, countered that allowing stablecoins to pay competitive yields could disrupt bank deposits and challenge monetary policy levers.

 

That tension came out in specific debates on policy design. Industry representatives argued for clearer frameworks that enable innovation while protecting holders and financial stability. Regulators struck back with questions about reserve requirements, audit regimes, and who ultimately backs these digital dollars.

 

This was not Davos speak for broader audiences. The conversation was technical, at times dry, and realistic about where the risks and opportunities lie.

 

Crossroads Between Crypto and Geopolitics

Crypto at Davos didn’t exist in a vacuum. It was wrapped into broader threads of geopolitical competition and economic strategy. Several high-profile talks touched on how digital finance intersects with national priorities. Leaders from the United States framed crypto engagement as part of broader global competitiveness. European regulators emphasized monetary sovereignty and financial stability in ways that indirectly questioned unfettered digital asset growth. These differing philosophies underscored how regulatory fragmentation is almost guaranteed for now.

 

You could see it play out in individual exchanges between CEOs and policymakers. Some firms pushed the narrative that restrictive rules in one region would push innovation offshore. Others pushed back, saying that control and trust are prerequisites for large institutional adoption.

 

Institutional Players, Not Just Crypto Natives

What was remarkable at Davos this year was how many traditional institutions turned up with real substance on digital assets, not just lip service. Big banks, settlement providers, and regulators were on panels alongside crypto founders. Conversations about custody solutions, compliance tools, interoperability standards, and governance models were not niche; they were mainstream finance topics with crypto elements built into them.

 

Some of the most detailed sessions focused on technical integration questions, including how blockchain standards could interoperate with legal and compliance frameworks around the world. That kind of discussion would have felt out of place at Davos only a few years ago.

 

What This All Means for Crypto’s Place in Finance Today

Out of Davos 2026 comes a clear message: crypto is no longer an outsider in global finance. There’s still enormous disagreement about details. Regulators worry, technologists dream, and institutions hedge. But the conversation has shifted toward execution and integration, not justification.

 

Crypto is being talked about not for short-term price moves but for what it could mean for settlement, liquidity, cross-border flows, and asset ownership structures going forward. The debates were real, messy, and imperfect, but they were also grounded and practical in a way they hadn’t been before.

 

For the crypto world, that is a much bigger step forward than any headline about price or bull markets. Davos has made clear that digital assets are now a topic global leaders feel they have to wrestle with, seriously and directly. The question now is not whether crypto belongs in the future of finance. It is how that future gets built, who shapes it, and where the regulatory guardrails ultimately land.

 

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.