‘Let crypto bill die’ – Crypto VC cites stablecoin yields as red line

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-01-11Actualizado a 2026-01-11

Resumen

Some crypto industry leaders are expressing strong opposition to a potential stablecoin yield ban in the upcoming crypto market structure bill. Following reports that lawmakers are receptive to TradFi demands to restrict yields, Galaxy CEO Mike Novogratz criticized Congress for prioritizing bank profits over consumers. Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures stated that if stablecoin yields are killed, the entire bill should be allowed to die. However, Consensys lawyer Bill Hughes remains optimistic about the bipartisan negotiations. Key committees are set to mark up their versions of the bill on January 15th, covering SEC and CFTC oversight. The bill requires Democrat support to pass committee votes. Contentious issues include stablecoin yields, DeFi provisions, and ethics standards. If the vote fails, it could sour market sentiment and delay progress until at least 2026 due to upcoming elections and crowded legislative calendars.

Some crypto industry leaders are disappointed following reports that lawmakers might be open to the idea of banning stablecoin yields.

According to reporter Sander Lutz, lawmakers are now receptive to TradFi demands to change stablecoin yield rules during bipartisan negotiations on the crypto market structure bill. The bill is scheduled for a markup on 15 January.

Reacting to the development, Galaxy CEO Mike Novogratz slammed the legislators, calling the update a “sad state.”

“Sad state that Congress cares more about banks margins than they do consumers! Both D’s and R’s need to ask who are they serving?”

For his part, Nic Carter, partner at crypto VC firm Castle Island Ventures, said that the sector would be better off without the bill if stablecoin rewards are restricted.

“If they want to kill stablecoin yield we might as well just let the bill die.”

Bill Hughes, a lawyer at Consensys and one of the attendees at the meeting, acknowledged potential pitfalls. However, he remains optimistic about the crypto bill.

“For what it’s worth, I left the call more bullish than I had been previously. We are close. Pitfalls, for sure. But closer than we’ve ever been. And smart people calling the game. I’m optimistic.”

What to expect from crypto bill markup

Both the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee are expected to markup their respective version of the crypto bill on 15 January. The Banking committee handles the SEC’s oversight mandate, while the Agriculture committee will cover the responsibility of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Although the bill is sponsored by Republicans, they must have Democrat buy-in to pass the committee vote before being advanced to the Senate chamber for a final floor vote.

For the Senate Banking group, the key contentious issues have been stablecoin yields, DeFi provisions, and ethics standards that seek to ban President Donald Trump’s family from the crypto sector.

Based on Carter and Novogratz’s reactions, it’s unclear whether yields or DeFi regulations will be deal-breakers.

However, according to Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), Senate Banking Committee chair, it may be time to take the bill to the next step after “good-faith, bipartisan negotiations.”

What’s next if the vote fails?

Alex Thorn, Galaxy Research’s Head of Research, recently reiterated that the bill needs 7-10 Democrats to pass the Senate Banking committee vote (A total of 60 YES votes needed to pass).

If the vote falters, it would have minimal impact. However, it will still sour market sentiment, he said. He also warned that another committee vote could be challenging in 2026.

“If the Senate falls short next week, the combination of crowded congressional calendars and looming midterm elections makes a second run in 2026 highly uncertain.”


Final Thoughts

  • TradFi’s demand to restrict stablecoin yields is reportedly gaining traction in Congress.
  • Failure to pass the committee vote on 15 January could throw the bill into limbo.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main concern of crypto industry leaders regarding the upcoming stablecoin bill?

ACrypto industry leaders are concerned and disappointed that lawmakers might be open to the idea of banning stablecoin yields, which they see as a major red line.

QWho is Mike Novogratz and what was his reaction to the proposed changes?

AMike Novogratz is the CEO of Galaxy. He slammed the legislators, calling the update a 'sad state' and accused Congress of caring more about bank margins than consumers.

QAccording to Nic Carter, what would be the consequence of restricting stablecoin yields in the bill?

ANic Carter, a partner at crypto VC firm Castle Island Ventures, stated that if stablecoin yields are restricted, the sector would be better off letting the bill die.

QWhat are the key contentious issues for the Senate Banking Committee regarding the crypto bill?

AThe key contentious issues for the Senate Banking Committee are stablecoin yields, DeFi provisions, and ethics standards that seek to ban President Donald Trump’s family from the crypto sector.

QWhat did Alex Thorn say would happen if the Senate Banking committee vote fails on January 15?

AAlex Thorn, Galaxy Research’s Head of Research, said that if the vote fails, it would have minimal immediate impact but would sour market sentiment, and a second run in 2026 would be highly uncertain due to crowded congressional calendars and midterm elections.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

**Title: Has the "Digital Gold" Narrative for Bitcoin Failed?** The article argues that Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative remains valid despite a recent sharp price decline (from a peak near $126k in Oct 2025 to briefly under $61k in Feb 2026). It presents a long-term investment framework based on three core points: **1. Viewing Bitcoin as an Asset:** Bitcoin is presented as a superior potential store of value compared to gold. Key arguments are its absolute scarcity (21 million cap), superior portability, and transparent auditability via its public ledger. While acknowledging its current use in early, volatile stages (~3-4% global adoption), the author draws parallels to the early, disruptive phases of the internet and e-commerce. **2. Understanding the Recent Downturn:** The current ~50% correction is framed as a predictable, consensus-driven cycle following its post-halving peak (the 2024 halving preceded the Oct 2025 high). A crucial factor is a historic "changing of hands": the influx of new institutional buyers via ETFs allowed early, low-cost holders (miners, OG believers) to take profits. The author notes that while severe, Bitcoin's historical drawdowns (e.g., 93% in 2011, 77% in 2021-22) have been progressively smaller, suggesting maturing holder structure and decreasing volatility over time. **3. The Long-Term Perspective:** The long-term thesis hinges on Bitcoin capturing a portion of gold's market value. With Bitcoin's market cap at ~$1.4 trillion (at $70k) versus gold's ~$20 trillion, significant upside potential exists if the "digital gold" narrative is partially realized. However, the author strongly cautions that short-term risks remain, the bottom is unpredictable, and high volatility is inherent. The real risk is not Bitcoin failing but poor personal position management (over-leverage, wrong capital) and a lack of deep understanding, which can force investors out during severe downturns. The conclusion uses Amazon's 95% crash post-2000 dot-com bubble and subsequent 42x recovery as an analogy. The ultimate question is not if Bitcoin's price will rise, but if an investor's strategy and conviction can withstand the volatility to see the long-term play out. The recent divergence (gold up, Bitcoin down) is posed not as a narrative failure, but as potential evidence of this ongoing, painful transition from a speculative asset to a mainstream allocation.

marsbitHace 26 min(s)

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

marsbitHace 26 min(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

The article discusses Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, its recent price drop, and long-term outlook through the perspective of "Jason". It argues the narrative is not a failure but that Bitcoin represents a superior, new asset class due to its fixed supply (21 million), portability, and auditability. The piece compares its current ~3-4% global adoption rate to early internet/e-commerce, suggesting significant growth potential. Regarding the 2025-2026 price decline (from ~$126k to briefly under $61k), the author views it as a predictable, consensus-driven sell-off within Bitcoin's ~4-year cycle post-halving, exacerbated by a major "handover" from early, low-cost holders to new institutional buyers via ETFs. A key observation is that historical peak-to-trough drawdowns have lessened over time (e.g., 93% in 2011 to ~50% in 2026), indicating maturing volatility as holder structure changes. For the long term, the author uses a simple framework: Bitcoin's total market cap (~$1.4T at $70k) is only about 7% of gold's (~$20T). Even capturing 30-50% of gold's value would imply substantial upside. However, the article strongly cautions against viewing this as investment advice, emphasizing extreme volatility and the critical importance of risk management, position sizing, and deep fundamental understanding to survive severe drawdowns. It concludes by drawing a parallel to Amazon's 95% crash in 2000 and subsequent 42x recovery, stressing that the key is surviving market cycles to realize long-term potential.

链捕手Hace 36 min(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

链捕手Hace 36 min(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

"From Code to Cognition: The Evolution of Robot Brains" The journey of robotic intelligence has shifted dramatically from manually coded systems to AI-driven brains. For decades, robots relied on layered software stacks—perception, state estimation, planning, control—each handcrafted. While predictable, they lacked adaptability. The 2010s saw deep learning revolutionize perception (e.g., object detection) and control (via reinforcement learning), but learned skills remained narrow. The arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) marked a turning point. LLMs acted as high-level planners, interpreting natural language instructions and generating sequences of actions for traditional robotic systems to execute. However, true integration came with Visual-Language-Action (VLA) models, which fused vision, language, and motion prediction into a single network. Pioneered by models like RT-2 and open-source projects like OpenVLA, VLAs enable robots to reason and act directly from visual input and commands. The most advanced humanoid robots now employ a "dual-brain" architecture: a slow-thinking, large VLA (System 2) for reasoning and planning, and a fast-reacting, small network (System 1) for high-frequency motion control, sometimes with an even lower-level System 0 for balance. This split balances cognition with the physics of real-time movement. Computation is split between onboard hardware (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson) for safety-critical control loops and cloud/edge servers for non-critical tasks like learning and interfaces. A crucial driver is the open-source ecosystem—models like GR00T and OpenVLA allow startups to build upon pre-trained brains and fine-tune them with their own data, accelerating development. Despite progress, current systems struggle with recovery from errors, sample inefficiency, and long-horizon tasks. This has spurred the rise of **World Models**—neural networks that predict the consequences of actions. By simulating possible futures before acting (like NVIDIA Cosmos or Meta V-JEPA), robots can plan, recover, and generalize better. This represents the next frontier: shifting intelligence from learned reactions to an internal model of physics and cause-and-effect. The field is rapidly evolving. While not yet at its "ChatGPT moment," the convergence of cheaper hardware, scalable simulation, and world models points toward robots that are increasingly capable, adaptive, and useful. The question is shifting from "what can robots do?" to "what *should* they do?"

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

AI Bubble Is Bursting

The AI Bubble is Bursting: A Necessary Purge on the Path to Ubiquitous Intelligence Market volatility has reignited debates about an AI bubble, with figures like Ray Dalio pointing to high valuations. However, this parallels the dot-com bubble, which, despite its crash, laid the physical infrastructure for today's internet era. The current AI investment frenzy, with tech giants planning trillions in infrastructure spending far outstripping current AI application revenues, appears similarly imbalanced. This 'bubble' is seen as an inevitable phase for a disruptive technology, paying the "innovation tax." Critically, AI inference costs have plummeted over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence nearly free at the margin. This hasn't reduced spending but has instead unlocked massive new demand, as seen in enterprise AI cloud expenditure tripling. This follows the Jevons Paradox: efficiency gains lead to greater total consumption. The market is now entering a cleansing phase, weeding out speculative ventures lacking real moats. The deeper shift is a move from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to value creation in operational expenditure (OpEx) through AI applications that solve real industry problems. While infrastructure valuations are high, rapid earnings growth from widespread AI adoption across sectors—from manufacturing and finance to law and healthcare—may digest these valuations over time. Ultimately, this creative destruction will leave behind robust infrastructure and optimized models, cheaply powering an AI-augmented future for all industries, much as the internet became indispensable after its own bubble burst. The core productive potential remains undiminished.

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

AI Bubble Is Bursting

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片