Crypto Bill Gets A Boost As US Senator Pulls Card Fees Measure

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-28Last updated on 2026-01-28

Abstract

US Senator Roger Marshall proposed an amendment to a crypto market structure bill that would require large banks to allow at least two unaffiliated networks to process debit and credit card transactions. The measure aims to increase competition and lower swipe fees for merchants, which typically range from 1.5% to 3.5%. While supported by retailers and consumer advocates for potentially reducing costs, banks and card networks warn it could increase fraud risks and implementation expenses. The amendment, which could also affect crypto debit card networks, was temporarily set aside during committee discussions due to concerns about complicating the broader bill. Support and opposition cross party lines, leaving the outcome uncertain.

Senator Roger Marshall moved to add a swipe fee rule to a crypto market structure bill last week, a step that briefly put card fees back in the spotlight as lawmakers weigh how to rein in rising costs for small sellers.

The change would push banks and payment networks to allow more than one route for processing card payments, giving merchants a choice that could drive down swipe fees. Some analysts also say it could have implications for crypto payment solutions in the US.

Marshall Files Swipe Fee Amendment

According to reports, the amendment filed by the Republican lawmaker would require large banks to let at least two unaffiliated networks handle debit and credit transactions.

That is meant to let merchants pick the cheapest route. Swipe fees, also called interchange fees, are usually in the 1.5%-3.5% range on most purchases.

Small stores say those charges add up fast. Reports say some retailers supported the idea because it could lower their costs and help them keep prices steady for shoppers. The amendment could even affect crypto debit card networks that process payments for digital currencies.

Senator Roger Marshall addressing the committee during a hearing earlier this January. Source: YouTube

What The Measure Would Change

The plan echoes a long-running effort known as the Credit Card Competition Act. Under that law, the aim is to break the near-exclusive hold that a couple of big networks have on transaction routing.

Supporters argue that adding competition would force fees down. Banks and card firms warn that changing the rules might raise fraud risks and could make new rules costly to implement.

The tradeoffs are plain. Competition could mean savings for stores. It could also mean changes to how banks protect customers. Some lawmakers worry that forcing changes might unintentionally affect crypto platforms integrated with traditional payment networks.

BTCUSD now trading at 87,816. Chart: TradingView

On Crypto, Politics And Pushback

Reports have disclosed that the swipe fee idea did not make it onto the final agenda at a recent committee markup. Marshall reportedly agreed not to press the amendment at that stage, after talks with other senators and concerns from various groups.

Some lawmakers were wary of adding a high-stakes fight to a bill they want to keep moving. The White House and some senators were said to be uneasy that the swipe fee fight might derail broader market rules being debated. Support and opposition cross party lines, which makes any final outcome uncertain.

Who Stakes Claim

Merchants and retail groups are vocal. They want lower costs now. Consumer advocates back measures that aim to lower everyday prices.

On the other hand, banks, many credit unions, and card networks say their systems are finely tuned to stop fraud and that any forced changes risk weakening those safeguards. Reports note that smaller financial firms worry about compliance costs that could hit their customers.

Featured image from Pexels, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat did Senator Roger Marshall propose adding to the crypto market structure bill?

ASenator Roger Marshall moved to add a swipe fee rule amendment to the crypto market structure bill.

QWhat is the main goal of the swipe fee amendment?

AThe main goal is to require large banks to allow at least two unaffiliated networks to handle debit and credit transactions, giving merchants a choice that could drive down swipe fees.

QWhy did the swipe fee amendment not make it onto the final agenda at the recent committee markup?

ASenator Marshall agreed not to press the amendment after talks with other lawmakers and due to concerns from various groups, as some were wary of adding a high-stakes fight that might derail the broader market rules being debated.

QHow could the swipe fee amendment potentially impact crypto payment solutions?

AThe amendment could affect crypto debit card networks that process payments for digital currencies by introducing more competition and potentially changing how these platforms are integrated with traditional payment networks.

QWhat are the main arguments from supporters and opponents of the swipe fee rule change?

ASupporters argue that adding competition would lower fees for merchants and help keep consumer prices steady. Opponents, including banks and card networks, warn that it might increase fraud risks and impose costly implementation requirements.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit49m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit49m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片