Crypto Victory Ahead? This Senator’s Decision Clears Path For Market Structure Bill Approval

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-01-28Actualizado a 2026-01-28

Resumen

A key amendment that threatened to delay the crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) has been withdrawn, potentially smoothing its path to approval. Senator Roger Marshall agreed not to propose his swipe-fee amendment during the Senate Agriculture Committee markup, a move seen as securing broader industry support. The amendment, which targeted credit card fees and was backed by Senators Durbin and Welch, was viewed as a major obstacle due to opposition from some Republicans and concerns it could derail the legislation. While this hurdle is cleared, other amendments—including ethics rules for officials, CFTC governance, anti-fraud measures, and foreign adversary restrictions—remain under consideration. The bill, which has received positive feedback from the crypto industry for its focus on intermediaries rather than protocols or users, remains divided along party lines despite weeks of negotiations.

A crucial amendment that was expected to delay passage of the CLARITY Act, also known as the crypto market structure bill, could be scrapped ahead of a vital committee vote this week, potentially simplifying the bill’s path forward.

Senate Crypto Bill Clears Key Hurdle

According to a report by Politico, Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas has agreed not to offer a proposed amendment targeting credit card swipe fees during the Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup of the crypto legislation, scheduled for Thursday, January 29.

Three people familiar with the private discussions said the decision was made over the weekend and could help secure broader backing for the bill from the cryptocurrency industry.

Marshall had filed the amendment just last week, seeking to force payment networks to compete on credit card swipe fees. The proposal closely mirrors the long‐running Credit Card Competition Act, which Marshall has championed for years alongside Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.

However, in private conversations on Saturday, Marshall reportedly agreed not to bring the amendment forward during the markup, according to those with knowledge of the matter.

Marshall’s swipe‐fee amendment, which is also supported by Durbin and Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, was widely seen as a potential obstacle. Some Republicans who are inclined to support the crypto bill oppose the credit card provision, which would place major financial institutions in direct conflict with large retailers.

Durbin is not currently expected to introduce the amendment himself during the markup, according to a person familiar with the situation, although a final decision has not been confirmed.

Amendments Still Loom

The issue has reportedly drawn attention from the White House as well. Several people with insight into internal deliberations said administration officials became involved out of concern that the swipe‐fee amendment could derail the legislation.

One person described the amendment as something that would have “jeopardized” the bill’s passage, at a time when the White House is pushing for the measure to advance out of committee.

While the Marshall amendment may be off the table, other changes could still emerge. Journalist Eleanor Terrett noted on X (previously Twitter) that several amendments remain under consideration.

These include proposed ethics rules for US officials, a requirement that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) maintain at least four sitting commissioners following consultation with the minority party, anti‐fraud measures targeting crypto ATMs, and limits on participation by foreign adversaries in crypto markets.

Despite two additional weeks of bipartisan negotiations—negotiations that already delayed an earlier planned markup from January 15—the bill remains sharply divided along party lines. So far, only Republican members of the Senate Agriculture Committee have publicly expressed support for the legislation.

Nonetheless, the committee’s latest draft, posted on Wednesday, January 21, has received a positive response from the broader crypto industry. Industry participants have praised the text for providing explicit protections for noncustodial software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers.

The bill is seen as narrowly targeting intermediaries, rather than protocols or end users, a distinction many in the sector consider essential for maintaining innovation.

The draft also excludes provisions that would regulate stablecoin yields, a decision viewed as particularly significant following Coinbase’s recent withdrawal of support for the Senate Banking Committee’s version of the legislation.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap consolidating just above $2.9 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the name of the crypto market structure bill discussed in the article?

AThe CLARITY Act.

QWhich senator agreed not to offer an amendment targeting credit card swipe fees?

ASenator Roger Marshall of Kansas.

QWhy was the swipe-fee amendment considered a potential obstacle to the bill's passage?

ABecause some Republicans who support the crypto bill oppose the credit card provision, which would put major financial institutions in direct conflict with large retailers.

QWhat are some of the other amendments still under consideration for the bill?

AProposed ethics rules for US officials, a requirement for the CFTC to maintain at least four sitting commissioners, anti-fraud measures for crypto ATMs, and limits on participation by foreign adversaries in crypto markets.

QHow has the broader crypto industry responded to the latest draft of the bill?

AThe industry has responded positively, praising the text for providing explicit protections for noncustodial software developers and blockchain infrastructure providers.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 5 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 7 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片