Crypto CLARITY Act set for Senate markup in January, says Sacks

cointelegraphPubblicato 2025-12-18Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-18

Introduzione

The long-awaited Crypto CLARITY Act is set for a Senate markup in January, according to White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks. Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman confirmed the bipartisan bill will advance next month. The legislation aims to define crypto securities and commodities, clarify regulatory roles between the SEC and CFTC, and reduce uncertainty for crypto firms. Supporters say it will establish clearer compliance pathways, encourage innovation, and strengthen investor protections. Work on the bill continued during the recent government shutdown, with regulators meeting executives from major crypto companies and venture firms.

The long-awaited Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, is moving closer to passage, with a Senate markup expected in January, says White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks.

Sacks posted to X on Thursday that Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman had confirmed that the bipartisan crypto bill will reach the Senate next month.

”We are closer than ever to passing the landmark crypto market structure legislation that President Trump has called for. We look forward to finishing the job in January!”
Source: David Sacks

The CLARITY Act would define crypto securities and commodities and clarify the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and other financial regulators.

Backers of the bill say it will reduce regulatory uncertainty for crypto firms by establishing clearer compliance pathways and encourage innovation while strengthening investor protections.

Related: Bitcoin institutional buys flip new supply for the first time in 6 weeks

US regulators continued to work on the CLARITY Act during the record 43-day government shutdown across October and November, meeting with executives from the likes of Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, Circle, and tech-focused venture capital firms a16z and Paradigm.

Magazine: Quantum attacking Bitcoin would be a waste of time: Kevin O’Leary

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the name of the crypto bill expected to be marked up in the Senate in January?

AThe Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act.

QWho announced that the CLARITY Act will reach the Senate next month?

AWhite House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks.

QWhich two Senate committee chairs confirmed the upcoming markup for the crypto bill?

ASenate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman.

QWhat is the main purpose of the CLARITY Act according to its backers?

ATo define crypto securities and commodities, clarify the roles of financial regulators like the SEC and CFTC, reduce regulatory uncertainty, establish clearer compliance pathways, encourage innovation, and strengthen investor protections.

QWhich major crypto and tech firms did US regulators meet with to work on the CLARITY Act during the government shutdown?

AExecutives from Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, Circle, and tech-focused venture capital firms a16z and Paradigm.

Letture associate

EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Cutting Staking 'Subsidies' – What Does Ethereum Hope to Gain?

**EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Reducing Staking "Subsidies" – What Does Ethereum Want in Return?** EIP-8363 proposes burning an increasing portion of validator rewards as the staking rate rises, reaching 100% burn when 50% of ETH is staked. This analysis models its impact on issuance, yield, and staking equilibrium, examines whether ETH's yield explains its price, quantifies the chain economy's reliance on this yield, and presents conclusions. Key findings: 1. **EIP-1559 Burns Are Ineffective:** Post-merge, burning (via base fees) has collapsed by 98% and now offsets only 2.4% of new ETH issuance, making issuance policy Ethereum's sole remaining supply lever. 2. **EIP-8363's Real Impact:** At the current ~42.2M ETH staked, the proposal would cut issuance by ~58.6% and staking APR by ~56.4%, removing ~633k ETH ($1.55B) in annual dilution (0.53% of market cap). It's not zero issuance; that would require 43% more ETH staked. 3. **Self-Limiting Mechanism:** The design has a built-in equilibrium. At reasonable required returns (e.g., 2%), the system stabilizes at ~26% staking rate and ~0.48% annual inflation. 4. **Yield vs. Price:** No detectable statistical relationship exists between changes in staking yield and ETH price returns over 43 months. The natural 37% yield decline since 2023 did not drive price action. 5. **Chain Economy Dependence:** While LSTs like wstETH form ~34% of collateral in major lending markets, their utility as collateral remains if yield is positive. The direct revenue hit to protocols like Lido is significant (~50% of fee income) but not systemic. Staking-focused ETFs represent only 0.19% of ETH supply. 6. **Core Conflict:** The debate masks a zero-sum redistribution: cutting ~$1.55B in annual issuance transfers value from concentrated staking intermediaries (LST/LRT protocols, leverage players) to the dispersed majority of non-staking ETH holders. 7. **Outlook:** The proposal is economically sound for ETH's scarcity but politically difficult due to concentrated opposition. It is unlikely to pass in its current form.

marsbit22 min fa

EIP-8363 Quantitative Review: Cutting Staking 'Subsidies' – What Does Ethereum Hope to Gain?

marsbit22 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片