Only a 50% Chance of Passing This Year, Can the CLARITY Bill Succeed Before the Midterm Elections?

Odaily星球日报Published on 2026-04-23Last updated on 2026-04-23

Abstract

The CLARITY Act, which passed the U.S. House in July 2025 with strong bipartisan support (294-134), faces a critical juncture in the Senate. The Senate Banking Committee is expected to hold a markup soon, but key issues remain unresolved, including stablecoin yield provisions, DeFi regulations, and securing full Republican committee support. Additional challenges involve the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), ethics amendments for government officials, and SEC-related concerns. Galaxy estimates only a 50% chance of the bill becoming law in 2026. The tight legislative calendar, competing priorities like Iran military authorization and DHS appropriations, and the impending midterm elections create significant time pressure. If the bill is not passed before the new Congress convenes in 2027, comprehensive crypto market structure legislation could be delayed until 2030 or later, especially if leadership changes result in less favorable committee chairs. The act provides crucial regulatory clarity by defining the jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, establishing a path for decentralized networks to be classified as non-securities, and bringing digital commodity intermediaries under federal regulation. The outcome of ongoing Senate negotiations, particularly the release of revised text on stablecoin yields, will be a key indicator of its future prospects.

Original Author / galaxy

Compiled by / Odaily Planet Daily Golem(@web 3_golem)

As the agenda of the 119th Congress draws to a close, cryptocurrency market structure legislation is also nearing its final stages.

The CLARITY Act received strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives in July 2025 (294 votes in favor, 134 against) and has been the focus of intensive negotiations in the Senate since January this year. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is expected to announce a markup hearing this week, most likely in the last week of April.

Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R) stated that three key issues remain unresolved: stablecoin yield provisions, DeFi provisions, and ensuring the support of all Republican members on the committee. Additionally, several other issues are pending, including the treatment of non-custodial software developers under the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, ethics provisions related to government officials holding cryptocurrencies, and issues related to the SEC, which could complicate the future legislative path.

After passing the Senate Banking Committee's markup, the bill still needs to secure 60 votes for passage in the full Senate, be reconciled with the version from the Agriculture Committee and the bill passed by the House, and finally be signed into law by the President. Each step takes time, and the legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking: the CLARITY Act must compete for limited Senate floor time with the Iran military authorization debate, the unresolved Homeland Security appropriations impasse, and a backlog of nomination cases.

On Monday, Punchbowl reported that key Senate Banking Committee negotiator, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, called for postponing the committee's markup until May. If the markup is delayed until after mid-May, the likelihood of the bill passing in 2026 will decrease significantly. Wyoming Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis warned that if it fails to pass this year, market structure legislation could be delayed until 2030 or even later.

Galaxy believes the probability of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 is approximately 50%, or possibly lower. This uncertainty does not stem from any single issue but from the numerous pending issues that must be resolved sequentially under severe time constraints.

Treasury Secretary Scott Besant (left) called for a markup of the CLARITY Act. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Thom Tillis said three major issues remain.

Review of CLARITY Act Progress

The "Digital Asset Market Transparency Act of 2025" (CLARITY Act) passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, with a vote of 294 in favor and 134 against. All 216 voting Republican members voted in favor, with none opposed and 4 abstaining. Among Democrats, 78 members crossed party lines to vote in favor, while 134 voted against.

The bill was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR) on May 29, 2025, and passed in a joint markup session of the Financial Services Committee (47-6) and the Agriculture Committee (32-19) on June 10.

The House's overwhelming vote reflected a general consensus on the urgent need for a federal regulatory framework for digital assets: the bill clearly delineates the jurisdictional boundaries between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); and establishes a "mature Blockchain Test" to determine whether certain cryptocurrencies are securities. The bill creates a path for token networks to be considered non-securities assets upon achieving sufficient decentralization; and for the first time brings digital commodity intermediaries under federal registration and anti-money laundering obligations. The Senate Banking Committee released its discussion draft in July, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on September 18 and referred to the Banking Committee.

In the Senate, consideration of the CLARITY Act has been proceeding in parallel. The Agriculture Committee released its discussion draft in November and marked up the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, which primarily focuses on the CFTC's regulatory authority over digital commodity markets (including spot markets), on January 29.

Additionally, on January 12, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Tim Scott with Elizabeth Warren as Ranking Member, released a 278-page substitute amendment (ANS) to serve as the base negotiating text for the committee's work. This text goes far beyond the House-passed bill, covering nine titles addressing securities innovation, illicit finance, decentralized finance, banking, software developer protection (Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, BRCA), customer property protection in bankruptcy, and other matters.

The bill was initially expected to be brought to the full Senate floor for a vote in mid-January but was delayed due to disagreements over stablecoin yield restrictions. A second attempt at a vote was also canceled. Before the CLARITY Act can be brought to a full Senate vote, the Banking and Agriculture Committee versions must first be reconciled, and the combined bill must then be reconciled with the House version, all before it can be sent to the President for signature.

Since January, the main obstacle to the bill's advancement has been the dispute between banks and crypto companies over stablecoin rewards. (The GENIUS Act, signed into law last year, prohibited stablecoin issuers from directly sharing yields with holders but allowed exchanges to pay rewards to users holding stablecoins on their platforms; banks want to prohibit such incentives.) On March 20, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) announced that a deal in principle had been reached, brokered by the White House. The agreement would prohibit rewards given solely for holding stablecoins but allow well-defined rewards linked to activities like payments, transfers, or platform usage.

Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President's Digital Asset Advisory Council, has been the White House's lead on crypto legislation since David Sacks' departure in March. He called the compromise durable and confirmed that previous sticking points had been resolved behind the scenes. Crypto industry representatives reviewed the text on March 23 and found its wording overly restrictive; Coinbase initially opposed it but reversed its position on April 10 after Treasury Secretary Scott Besant publicly called for the bill's passage and the exchange's CEO Brian Armstrong expressed support.

On April 8, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a 21-page analysis concluding that a full ban on crypto yields would increase bank loans by only $2.1 billion, or 0.02% of outstanding loans, while consumer costs would increase by $800 million. This report undermined the banking industry's core argument that unrestricted stablecoin yields pose a structural threat to deposits. As of publication, Chairman Scott has not announced a markup date.

He told Fox Business on April 14 that three issues remain unresolved: stablecoin yield provisions, DeFi provisions, and securing the votes of all Republican committee members. Senator Tillis, responsible for releasing the revised yield text, said last week it was unlikely to be released this week and called for a postponement of the markup until May on Monday. A markup cannot be scheduled until the text is released and the committee's required 48-hour notice period expires.

U.S. Senator Thom Tillis is a key negotiator on the Senate Banking Committee

The Importance of Passing the CLARITY Act Before the Midterms

The CLARITY Act provides a crucial and enduring legislative foundation for the digital asset industry: it classifies different types of digital assets and their regulatory treatment; clarifies the jurisdiction of market regulators; protects non-custodial developers; grants new powers to the Treasury to combat illicit finance; and more.

The bill provides the necessary legal and regulatory certainty to continue the integration of crypto markets with traditional capital markets, creates conditions for the modernization of U.S. capital markets, and for the first time provides clear and substantial safeguards, disclosures, and investor protections. It resolves many of the outstanding questions that have hindered institutional capital and infrastructure from entering the market or have driven it overseas.

Overall, the CLARITY Act is a strong bill, both technically and policy-wise.

Given the balance of power in the House and Senate (Republicans hold only slim majorities), Galaxy believes it is crucial for the CLARITY Act to pass and be signed into law before the November midterm elections. While the bill has significant Democratic support (78 House Democrats voted for the CLARITY Act in 2025), a potential shift in the balance of power in the 120th Congress (convening January 2027) would significantly reduce the likelihood of this legislation passing after November 2026.

A Democratic majority in both chambers would mean new committee chairs, new agenda priorities, and potentially a very different attitude towards crypto legislation. More specifically, the current version of the CLARITY Act would be highly unlikely to pass a Senate Banking Committee chaired by current ranking member Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.

Sherrod Brown chaired the Senate Banking Committee in the 118th Congress but was defeated by Bernie Moreno in 2024. Sherrod Brown is currently running in a special election in Ohio in November, facing Republican candidate Jon Husted, who was appointed by Governor Mike DeWine after JD Vance resigned to become Vice President. The winner of this election will serve only until 2028, highlighting how unstable the Senate's power structure is about to become.

Brown's prior tenure could give him priority over Warren for the Senate Banking chairmanship, though this is not certain; both senators have historically been hostile to the digital asset industry's priorities.

If Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown were to chair the Senate Banking Committee in the future, the current version of the CLARITY Act would be almost impossible to pass.

The current bipartisan coalition was formed under specific conditions: a crypto-friendly White House, a Republican Banking Committee chairman, the successful passage of the GENIUS Act (demonstrating the feasibility of bipartisanship), and an aggressive industry lobbying and spending effort that elected crypto-friendly lawmakers in 2024 and turned previous skeptics into supporters. These conditions may not hold in the future.

Senator Lummis has publicly warned that if the CLARITY Act fails to pass this year, comprehensive market structure legislation could be delayed until 2030 or later, as a new Congress would need to restart the legislative process from scratch, with new committee compositions and potentially very different political motivations.

Even if Republicans retain their majority, political appetite for complex, multi-stakeholder financial regulation could wane during the lame-duck session (Odaily Note: refers to the period after the congressional election but before the new Congress officially takes office, when the previous Congress continues to meet) or the initial months of the new Congress, as leadership's attention turns to forming committees, confirming nominees, and setting a new legislative agenda. Therefore, the current window is extremely favorable and may not reappear soon.

Even without the CLARITY Act, the crypto-friendly regulatory environment might only last through President Trump's term. Regulators have shown a willingness to advance the industry through administrative relief, interpretive guidance, and formal rulemaking. These developments have prompted major banks, brokerages, and exchanges to take concrete steps to build blockchain infrastructure and offer digital asset services. The degree of integration achieved by traditional capital market participants over the next two and a half years might be sufficient to prevent a major reversal of the industry's fortunes even under a future hostile administration.

However, the key is the time horizon and permanence. The regulatory progress to date, including joint interpretive statements from the SEC and CFTC, SEC no-action letters, and OCC guidance on bank crypto activities, exists outside of statute and could therefore be reversed by a future administration without congressional approval.

While the crypto industry might not be in crisis without the CLARITY Act in 2026, its longevity could be shortened. In the long run, a comprehensive market structure bill is essential for governing the digital asset industry for decades to come.

Outstanding Issues in Ongoing Senate Negotiations

While the "stablecoin rewards" issue has dominated headlines and is widely perceived as the (perhaps only) major obstacle holding up the bill, several other key issues are simmering beneath the surface. Here are the main sticking points:

Stablecoin Rewards

We are waiting for Senator Tillis to publicly release the compromise text he negotiated with Maryland Democratic Senator Alsobrooks on this matter.

According to Galaxy's understanding, the text still prohibits rewards given "solely for holding" stablecoins but allows well-defined rewards linked to activities like payments, transfers, or platform usage. If true, this is largely similar to the deal Coinbase explicitly rejected in January.

However, we need to see the specific text, which senators have kept closely held. The White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report released on April 8 concluded that a full ban on yield-bearing crypto would increase bank loans by only $2.1 billion (0.02% of outstanding loans), while consumer costs would increase by about $800 million, significantly undermining the banking industry's argument about deposit flight.

The American Bankers Association almost immediately pushed back, arguing the CEA analyzed the wrong question by only studying the impact of the current ~$300 billion stablecoin market and not modeling a future scenario where yield-bearing stablecoins grow large enough to compete substantively with banks' $18 trillion deposit base. The framing of the arguments differs significantly, and the scope of the analysis will likely determine the final outcome.

Coinbase CEO's reversal of the exchange's opposition to the bill on April 10 seemed to clear the biggest previous hurdle from the industry. The text of the deal may not be substantively different from what Coinbase rejected in January, but the political calculus has changed: Besant's public pressure, the CEA report, and Coinbase's pending application for a national bank charter (which could subject it to a federal regulatory path regardless of the bill's outcome) may all have influenced Coinbase's change of heart.

However, the underlying commercial tension between exchanges and banks over stablecoin yields remains.

Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA)

The BRCA, as Section 604 of the Senate Banking Committee's ANS, explicitly states that software developers and infrastructure providers who do not hold or control user funds are not money transmitters under the Bank Secrecy Act.

The crypto industry views this provision as a red line and essential for ensuring open-source development remains in the United States. It is opposed by law enforcement and faces strong bipartisan opposition in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In January, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent a joint letter to Banking Committee Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Warren objecting to the inclusion of the BRCA in federal law.

They argued that the Banking Committee was modifying Title 18 of the U.S. Code (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1960, which prohibits unlicensed money transmitting) without consulting the committee responsible for federal criminal law. They warned the provision would create "blind spots" for state and local law enforcement agencies that rely on FinCEN registration information to track funds, often in investigations into potential money laundering, terrorist financing, and drug and human trafficking.

Furthermore, former Nevada Attorney General and Banking Committee member Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) has been pushing for changes to the provision to address law enforcement concerns. The National Sheriffs' Association and the National District Attorneys Association have also weighed in, warning that provisions in the bill related to decentralized finance (DeFi) could limit prosecutors' ability to pursue financial crime cases.

The crypto industry's rebuttal is that the BRCA does not modify anti-money laundering statutes under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957; does not restrict prosecutions for fraud or sanctions evasion; and merely codifies FinCEN guidance and recent DOJ-stated positions that truly decentralized, non-custodial software does not constitute money transmission.

Finding a way to satisfy Chuck Grassley and Catherine Cortez Masto without significantly watering down the provision is one of the trickiest negotiations in the bill.

Ethics Amendment

Democrats have been keen to include provisions in the bill prohibiting senior government officials, elected officials, and their family members from holding crypto assets or profiting from them while in office. This issue directly targets the Trump family's involvement in various crypto projects and has been a Democratic priority throughout the negotiations.

The issue was not included in the Senate Banking Committee's January ANS, but multiple Democratic senators have indicated they will push for an ethics amendment during the committee markup or on the Senate floor. While unlikely to be a barrier in committee markup, it could become a focal point during floor debate, as any senator can offer amendments, and Democratic votes are needed to reach 60.

SEC Exemptive Authority

Section 505 of the Senate Banking Committee's ANS deals with the tokenization of securities and other real-world assets. Some market participants and former regulators believe this provision overly restricts the SEC's ability to use its exemptive and no-action relief tools to foster innovation in digital asset markets.

In short, many worry the provision would render the SEC's "innovation exemption" process unusable or even illegal by imposing rigid statutory requirements that constrain the Commission's long-held discretionary authority under statutes like Securities Act Section 28 and Exchange Act Section 36.

Lawyers and compliance professionals working on tokenization projects, as well as some Democrats, have expressed this concern, viewing the provision as an overcorrection to the SEC's current perceived progressiveness on crypto. (Under Chairman Atkins' leadership, the SEC has been actively using no-action exemptions and staff guidance to facilitate digital asset activity, and Section 505 could limit the flexibility the Commission is currently exercising.)

SEC Quorum

The SEC currently has five commissioners, three appointed by Republicans: Chairman Paul Atkins, Commissioner Hester Peirce, and Commissioner Mark Uyeda. Following long-standing tradition, no more than three of the five commissioners may be from the same party, and the two vacant seats are expected to be filled by Democrats.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Trump have not agreed on a slate of candidates. If the CLARITY Act passes, Democrats could view these vacancies as leverage and a form of insurance: confirming two Democratic commissioners would restore the Commission's bipartisan nature and give Democrats a voice in the rulemaking that would follow the CLARITY Act's enactment.

Some Senate Democrats have at least informally suggested that progress on SEC nominations could pave the way for the CLARITY Act's passage in the Senate. This is less a text issue and more a matter of political sequencing, but it is crucial for vote count, as the CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to pass and therefore requires strong Democratic support.

Not all these issues are seen as deal-breakers or key votes for a final agreement, but collectively they pose a significant risk to the negotiation timeline. Any single one could consume days or even weeks of negotiation time, which the Senate does not have.

Timeline and Probability

It was widely expected that the Senate Banking Committee would announce this week plans for a markup hearing in the last week of April (next week). However, key committee negotiator on the stablecoin yield issue, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said Monday the committee should wait until May to schedule the markup.

The procedural path from now to a presidential signature involves five steps:

  1. Senate Banking Committee markup and vote to advance the bill;
  2. Passage by the full Senate with 60 votes;
  3. Reconciliation of the Banking Committee's bill with the Agriculture Committee's version (the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, which passed committee markup on January 29);
  4. Reconciliation of the combined Senate bill with the CLARITY Act passed by the House in July 2025;
  5. Presidential signature of the final bill.

Each step takes time, and the legislative calendar is increasingly tight. Bill text will be released shortly before the markup is scheduled, and once a markup time is set, the committee must debate and vote on amendments before advancing the bill. A full Senate vote requires not only 60 votes to invoke cloture but also time for debate and amendment votes, which could take a week or more.

The Senate has a limited and competitive schedule between now and the August recess. The Senate is in session through late April, then recesses until May 11, is back in session May 11-22, works for three weeks each in June and July with a two-week recess around July 4 (the U.S. Semiquincentennial), returns the first week of August, and then recesses for five weeks starting August 10 (August recess).

During this time, the CLARITY Act must compete for floor time with several major items: the ongoing Iran military authorization debate, which has consumed significant floor time and could escalate unpredictably; the unresolved Homeland Security appropriations impasse (the only FY2026 appropriations bill not yet passed); and a steady stream of judicial and executive nominations.

Senator Bernie Moreno has publicly stated the bill must reach the Senate floor by May to avoid being overtaken by the midterm election calendar. Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty expressed confidence the bill could pass the Banking Committee markup in April and reach the Senate floor before the end of the month.

However, Chairman Scott's comments on April 14 suggest this timeline has slipped. Chairman Scott holds the keys, and as of this writing, it is the penultimate week of April. Each week of delay compresses the window available for all the steps needed to get a final bill to the President's desk. That said, a markup in early May would not necessarily doom its ultimate passage, especially if the committee vote shows strong bipartisan support indicating viability on the floor.

Galaxy's base case is a Banking Committee markup in early or mid-May, followed by an attempt at a floor vote sometime in May or June. If the markup slips past mid-May, the probability of passage in 2026 drops precipitously: the remaining legislative calendar is unlikely to accommodate the full five-step process described above, especially given the tight parliamentary schedule. A July floor vote is theoretically possible but would demand extraordinary political will and coordination given the proximity to the August recess and the midterm election season.

Senator Cynthia Lummis warned that if the CLARITY Act fails to pass this year, comprehensive market structure legislation could be delayed until 2030 or later.

Therefore, the probability of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 is approximately 50%, or possibly lower, with Polymarket currently pricing the passage probability at 50%. The uncertainty stems not from any single issue but from the sheer number of outstanding issues that must be resolved sequentially under severe time pressure.

The stablecoin yield issue will likely be resolved in the coming weeks, but the BRCA, ethics amendments, SEC exemptive authority, SEC quorum politics, DeFi provisions, and the basic challenge of securing 60 Senate votes for a novel and complex financial regulatory bill all remain variables. Any one could cause a delay of days or even weeks, and time is a luxury the process does not have.

Key near-term catalysts to watch include:

  • The release of Tillis' revised stablecoin yield text, which will signal an imminent Senate Banking Committee markup;
  • An announcement of a markup date by Chairman Scott;
  • The committee vote tally and level of support;
  • Whether Majority Leader John Thune schedules floor time before the July 4 recess.

If the CLARITY Act passes the Banking Committee markup with strong, bipartisan support, it will be a strong signal that the subsequent steps can be completed successfully. If the bill passes on a party-line or near-party-line vote, the difficulty of securing 60 votes on the floor increases dramatically, and the prospects for passage in 2026 dim significantly.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason why the CLARITY Act has a 50% chance of passing in 2026 according to the article?

AThe main reason is the significant time pressure and the numerous unresolved issues that must be addressed in a specific sequence before the midterm elections. The legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking, and the bill must compete for limited Senate floor time with other pressing matters like the Iran military authorization debate and the DHS appropriations stalemate.

QWhat are the three key unresolved issues mentioned by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott?

AThe three key unresolved issues are: 1) Stablecoin yield provisions, 2) DeFi provisions, and 3) Securing the votes of all Republican members on the committee.

QWhy is it crucial for the CLARITY Act to pass before the November midterm elections?

AIt is crucial because the current political conditions, including a crypto-supportive White House, a Republican committee chair, and a bipartisan coalition, may not persist after the elections. A potential shift in the balance of power, with Democrats potentially taking control of committees, would make it extremely difficult to pass the current version of the bill, potentially delaying comprehensive market structure legislation until 2030 or later.

QWhat was the significance of the White House Council of Economic Advisers' (CEA) report on stablecoin yields?

AThe CEA report, released on April 8th, significantly weakened the banking industry's core argument against stablecoin yields. It found that a full ban on yield-bearing stablecoins would only increase bank lending by $2.1 billion (0.02% of outstanding loans) while increasing consumer costs by $800 million, undermining the claim that unrestricted yields pose a structural threat to bank deposits.

QWhat is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) and why is it a point of contention?

AThe BRCA, included in the Senate's draft bill, clarifies that software developers and infrastructure providers who do not hold or control user funds are not money transmitters under the Bank Secrecy Act. It is a top priority for the crypto industry to keep open-source development in the U.S. However, it is strongly opposed by law enforcement agencies and some senators who argue it would create 'blind spots' for state and local law enforcement investigating financial crimes like money laundering and terrorist financing.

Related Reads

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

In three days, Google lost two AI legends. On June 18, Noam Shazeer, co-author of the seminal "Attention is All You Need" paper and Gemini co-lead, left for OpenAI. Just 48 hours later, John Jumper, 2024 Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, departed DeepMind for Anthropic. This follows Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic in May. These moves highlight a structural trend: top AI talent is concentrating at mission-driven, pre-IPO firms like OpenAI and Anthropic, while Google becomes a primary source. The exodus stems from a core mission mismatch. Google's ad-centric model often subordinates AI research to product and revenue goals, creating friction for pioneers like Shazeer, who returned in 2024 only to leave again. In contrast, OpenAI and Anthropic offer singular focus on pushing AI boundaries, whether towards AGI or safety-aligned models, which deeply appeals to top researchers like Jumper. Financial incentives amplify the pull. With both OpenAI and Anthropic nearing IPO, employees stand to gain immensely from equity, an upside Google's mature stock cannot match. Furthermore, the 2023 merger of Google Brain and DeepMind, intended to consolidate strength, has instead created cultural tension and slowed the path from research to product, as evidenced by Gemini's pace. This talent redistribution is reshaping the AI landscape. While Google retains vast data and compute resources, its true crisis is the quiet, continuous loss of the people who define the field's future. The real moat in AI is not infrastructure, but the concentration of brilliant minds—a battle Google is currently losing.

marsbit54m ago

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

marsbit54m ago

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

Beyond the familiar performance charts like MMLU-Pro and MMMU, which major AI models strive to ace, stands a key "examiner": Chinese-Canadian researcher Wenhu Chen. An assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of TIGERLab, Chen addresses the crucial need for more rigorous AI evaluation. As models like GPT-4 began scoring near-perfect results on older benchmarks like MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. In response, Chen introduced MMLU-Pro in 2024, featuring harder, more reasoning-focused questions with more answer choices, successfully reintroducing meaningful performance gaps. His work extends to multi-modal evaluation with MMMU and its enhanced version, MMMU-Pro. These benchmarks test a model's ability to understand and reason with complex information from images, charts, and text across diverse academic subjects, exposing the significant challenges even top models face in genuine comprehension. Chen's background in complex QA, table reasoning, and his experience at Google DeepMind on projects like Gemini inform his approach. He understands that effective benchmarks must anticipate how models might "cheat" by memorizing data or avoiding visual analysis. His lab also actively researches video understanding and generation models (e.g., UniVideo, Vamba), ensuring his evaluation work is grounded in practical model-building challenges. Now at Meta's Super Intelligence Lab, Chen continues his focus on multi-modal data and evaluation, representing the deep yet often unseen contributions of Chinese talent in shaping the fundamental tools of the AI industry.

marsbit1h ago

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

marsbit1h ago

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: On Cursor's $60 Billion Sale Many aspiring founders see massive exits like Cursor's $60B sale and wonder why they can't achieve the same, often concluding opportunities are exhausted. But great companies aren't built in obvious, crowded spaces. Cursor, like Stripe, Figma, and Shopify before it, started with a non-consensus belief about the future. Before ChatGPT, they believed AI would transform knowledge work. They focused on a genuinely exciting domain, became their own customer, and obsessed over power users. Their journey involved years of "glass-chewing" effort before the market was ready. The pattern is consistent: identify a long-term technological shift, find a missed entry point, and execute for years before the trend becomes obvious. First-generation products (PayPal, Adobe, Amazon) prove a market exists. Second-generation winners (Stripe, Figma, Shopify) rebuild that market around new insights, technology, or changing customer behaviors. Founders must identify their phase in the cycle. Early entrants like Coinbase or Cursor focus on making new technology usable for power users. Later entrants find the "yin" to the established "yang"—the blind spots incumbents miss as they grow distant from individual users. The key is deep market immersion. Use every product in your space. Talk to users. Build an audience. Stop looking for ideas and start *seeing* them everywhere. Then, choose one. The idea must offer a 10x improvement or solve a "hair-on-fire" pain point—something severe enough that users are already crafting workarounds. When building, avoid feature bloat. Ask: why would someone switch? Great startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction (e.g., Cursor forked VS Code instead of creating a new editor). Distribution is the underestimated moat. Before product-market fit, achieve distribution-market fit. How do customers discover new tools? Founders like those at Airbnb, Stripe, and Cursor did unscalable, manual work to recruit early users. The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Cursor built for years pre-market, faced rejection, and persisted. So did Airbnb, Nvidia, and Rain (which launched post-FTX collapse). The lesson isn't that these founders were smarter, but that they stayed in the game long enough for their insights to compound. Framework: Spot technological cycles. Cultivate unique insight. Obsess over your market. Talk to customers. Find a hair-on-fire problem. Build the simplest wedge. Win your distribution channel. Above all, don't quit when it gets hard. Most people won't do these things consistently. The few who do build the next generation of great companies. Go build.

marsbit1h ago

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

marsbit1h ago

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619): Market Insights & Analysis This weekly digest curates in-depth analysis often lost in the information flow, focusing on key insights across macro trends, investment, and technology. **Macro & Geopolitics:** With the Strait of Hormuz reopening and military conflict shifting to negotiation, markets are pivoting from "war shock" to "supply restoration." Trades include shorting crude risk premiums, longing airlines/tourism, Asian energy importers, and bond duration, while shorting inflation expectations. LNG, fertilizer, and chemical chains are also being repriced. **Investment & VC:** Ray Dalio advises against betting on concentrated AI giants dominating indices, advocating for diversified portfolios of high-quality, low-correlation assets instead. Analysis covers the 4-year crypto cycle, predicting the core surviving product by 2029 will be asset trading markets. Current BTC metrics suggest a potential bottoming zone, presenting a patient accumulation window. SpaceX's high-profile IPO at a $2.1T valuation faces scrutiny over fundamentals, with key watchpoints being its likely inclusion in the Nasdaq index and Q2 earnings. Concerns are raised about potential "gamma squeeze" and systemic risks if its narrative-driven valuation gets amplified by passive index funds. Robinhood (HOOD) is noted for breaking its high correlation with crypto, bolstered by its stock trading and new underwriting business. **Web3 & AI:** A warning highlights ~$1.8T in off-balance-sheet AI infrastructure commitments (purchase commitments, leases) as a potential systemic risk if AI monetization lags. AI models are being used for World Cup predictions, adding a new layer for betting markets. A cost breakdown of a $20 AI subscription reveals the supply chain from model companies to cloud, GPUs, and power. **Prediction Markets:** The emergence of prediction market "concept stocks" is noted, with Robinhood developing its own platform, Rothera, signaling a shift from market competition to a "channel war" for user access. **CeFi & DeFi:** The SpaceX IPO tested perpetual contract mechanisms for pre-IPO assets, highlighting challenges in handling corporate actions like stock splits on-chain. The de-pegging of STRC (Strategy's preferred share) to ~$89 reflects market concerns over MicroStrategy's capital structure and BTC-backed leverage model. BlackRock's covered-call Bitcoin ETF (BITA) offers yield but caps upside, appealing to yield-seeking institutions. **Ethereum:** An opinion piece argues Ethereum's core strength is its vast developer community and composability, solidifying its role as the default operating system for the financial internet. **Weekly Hot Topics:** Include the US-Iran deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Fed's hawkish hold, Anthropic restricting model access, SpaceX acquiring Cursor, and a humorous stock surge for "Liuliumei" due to its "LLM" ticker.

marsbit1h ago

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

marsbit1h ago

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

In this letter to entrepreneurs, Alliance reflects on the success of Cursor's $60 billion sale to Elon Musk, using it as a case study to counter the misconception that opportunities in crowded fields like AI or crypto are exhausted. The piece argues that great companies like Cursor, Stripe, Figma, and Shopify are not built by geniuses with perfect ideas, but by founders who start with a non-consensus belief about the future and build for years before that future becomes obvious to everyone. They identify long-term shifts, find overlooked entry points, and execute relentlessly. The framework for success involves: 1. **Identifying your place in the technology cycle**: Early-stage opportunities focus on making new tech usable for power users (e.g., Coinbase, Cursor). Later-stage opportunities involve finding the "yin" to an existing "yang"—the blind spots of first-generation players (e.g., Stripe vs. PayPal, Figma vs. Adobe). 2. **Cultivating unique insights**: Immerse yourself deeply in the market. Use every product, talk to users, and build an audience. Insights will emerge naturally from deep engagement. 3. **Finding a "hair-on-fire" problem**: Look for a 10x improvement or a severe, urgent pain point. The strongest signal is people already building clumsy workarounds. 4. **Building a focused MVP**: Don't just add features because you can. Ask why users would abandon their current tool for yours. The best startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction. 5. **Winning a distribution channel**: Distribution is often the moat. Before product-market fit, achieve channel-market fit. Find where your customers are and build an engine to reach them, even through unscalable, manual efforts initially. 6. **Persistence**: The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Success stories like Cursor, Airbnb, and Nvidia involved years of grinding, rejection, and perseverance when the path forward seemed unclear. The conclusion is that there is no secret. Most people fail to consistently execute these steps over the long term. The few who do build the companies that define the next era. The world is yours to create.

链捕手1h ago

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

链捕手1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片