CLARITY Act: Senate Banking Committee Sets Mark-Up Date – Details

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-10Last updated on 2026-01-10

Abstract

The US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has scheduled a markup session for the CLARITY Act on January 15, 2026. This bill, passed by the House in July 2025, aims to establish a federal regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies by defining roles for the SEC and CFTC, clarifying asset classifications, and creating compliance pathways. Committee Chairman Tim Scott emphasized the legislation's potential to make the US a global crypto hub, foster innovation, and protect against financial crimes. Reporter Eleanor Terrett predicts the act could be fully approved by March 2026 after further committee merges and congressional votes.

In an exciting development, the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has set a markup date for the CLARITY Act, representing a significant advancement in the creation of a federal regulatory framework for cryptocurrency use and operations in the United States.

Time To Move Crypto Legislation Forward – Sen. Banking Committee Chair

The CLARITY Act was introduced in May 2025 and passed by the House of Representatives in July. It is a landmark US crypto market-structure bill designed to define regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC, clarify asset classifications, and establish compliance pathways for digital asset markets. The bill has since been moved to the US Senate for consideration, commencing with a revision by the relevant Senate Committee.

In an X post on January 10, Fox Reporter Eleanor Terrett stated the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, led by Republican Chairman Tim Scott, has set the markup session for the CLARITY Act at 10 am EST on Thursday, 15 January, 2026. For context, the markup represents a key legislative process whereby the lawmakers in relevant committees review, debate, amend, and rewrite a proposed bill before it is presented to the full chamber.

Commenting on this development, Chairman Tim Scott explained the potential importance of the CLARITY Act, emphasizing its role in transforming the US into the crypto capital of the world.

The Republican said:

This legislation is about making America the crypto capital of the world – so the next generation of jobs and innovation is built here, not overseas. When we set clear rules, we give entrepreneurs the confidence to start companies, hire workers, and grow right here in the United States. We also make it harder for criminals and foreign adversaries to use new technology to rip off Americans or undermine our financial system. After months of serious, bipartisan work, it’s time to move this forward and deliver real results for the American people.

Notably, the Banking Committee’s announcement has received many positive reactions from crypto enthusiasts. This is because the CLARITY Act is expected to bring regulatory clarity and also introduce the needed guardrails that would encourage more mainstream digital asset adoption among individuals and institutions alike.

CLARITY Act To Pass Into Law By March

In other developments, Eleanor Terrett predicts the CLARITY Act could be ratified in the next two months on a conservative basis. The Fox reporter explains the bill will likely be advanced next week, following the slated markup to be merged with the portion of the Agricultural Committee before being read to the Senate floor for voting. Upon approval, it is sent back to the House of Representatives and finally to President Donald Trump’s desk for ascent.

Considering these processes and their respective length, Terrett expects the CLARITY Act to gain full approval by March at the earliest.

Total crypto market cap valued at $3.06 trillion on the daily chart | Source: TOTAL chart on Tradingview.com

Hyperliquid Sued by Two Major Traditional Exchanges

Hyperliquid, a cryptocurrency derivatives platform, is facing formal complaints from two major traditional exchanges, CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) and ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, parent company of the New York Stock Exchange). The firms have jointly approached the U.S. Congress and the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), urging stricter regulatory oversight of Hyperliquid's operations. The action highlights growing tensions between established traditional financial institutions and emerging crypto-native platforms in the derivatives market.

链捕手2h ago

Hyperliquid Sued by Two Major Traditional Exchanges

链捕手2h ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit3h ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit3h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手3h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手3h ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

Bitcoin's recent recovery from February lows is approaching a critical supply cluster between $84,000 and $88,000, which holds the largest concentration of Bitcoin supply on the current chart. This zone represents the cost basis for short-term holders (investors who bought within the last 155 days) and is stacked with "trapped" sellers who bought near those levels and are now at breakeven. Technical analysis suggests the rally faces significant resistance in this area. Two primary scenarios are outlined: a direct push into the $84k-$86k zone followed by a rejection and pullback to $70,000 support, or a more volatile path involving a dip before testing the supply cluster. A weekly close above $84,000 would weaken the bearish rejection case, but a decisive break above $86,900-$88,000 is needed for a stronger bullish confirmation. Bitcoin is currently trading around $80,430.

bitcoinist3h ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

bitcoinist3h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit5h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit5h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures