Sen. Lummis Rebukes Sam Bankman-Fried, Says CLARITY Act Would Mean Longer Sentence

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-02-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-27

Introduzione

Sam Bankman-Fried, the former FTX CEO sentenced to 25 years in prison, has been seeking a retrial and fueling speculation about a potential presidential pardon. This follows former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao's pardon by Donald Trump. Bankman-Fried recently praised the proposed CLARITY Act, calling it a major achievement for Trump and the crypto industry, and claimed former SEC Chair Gary Gensler helped the DOJ prosecute him. Senator Cynthia Lummis, a key Trump ally on crypto policy, rebuked him, suggesting his support was a self-serving attempt to secure a pardon. She stated the CLARITY Act would have led to a longer sentence for him, as it includes tougher penalties for crypto-related fraud. The bill, currently under negotiation, is part of broader crypto market structure discussions ongoing at the White House, with officials indicating progress towards a potential March 1 deadline.

Sam Bankman-Fried, the co-founder and former CEO of collapsed crypto exchange FTX, has in recent months repeatedly called for a retrial in New York, where he was sentenced to 25 years in prison following the company’s 2022 downfall.

His renewed public statements have coincided with growing online speculation that he could seek a presidential pardon, particularly after former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) was pardoned last year by President Donald Trump.

Sam Bankman-Fried Praises CLARITY Act

The speculation intensified this week after Sam Bankman-Fried posted on X, formerly Twitter, praising the proposed CLARITY Act. In his message, he described the bill as a major milestone for the crypto industry and “a huge achievement” for President Trump.

He added that he had supported similar efforts in the past to remove oversight of digital assets from former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler, claiming that Gensler had assisted the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) in bringing charges against him.

In the same post, Sam Bankman-Fried referenced a letter from the House Financial Services Committee. The document, signed by Chairman Patrick McHenry, called on the SEC to provide records and communications involving the agency’s Division of Enforcement, the Office of the Chair and the DOJ.

The lawmakers sought information about the timing of charges filed against Sam Bankman-Fried and his arrest, which occurred shortly before he was scheduled to testify before the House Financial Services Committee.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, a prominent supporter of digital assets closely aligned with President Trump’s crypto policy agenda, responded sharply to Bankman-Fried’s remarks. Writing on Thursday, she suggested that his praise for the CLARITY Act was self-serving.

Lummis Dismisses Pardon Talks

“Someone’s looking for a pardon and doesn’t realize the Clarity Act would have you locked up for much longer than 25 years,” the Senator said in her remarks.

Lummis further distanced her proposal from any prior legislative efforts associated with Sam Bankman-Fried, stating, “My legislation couldn’t be more different than the bill you tried to buy from Congress over my objection in 2022. We do not need—nor want—your support.”

Her comments were echoed by some social media users, including one who pointed out that the CLARITY Act includes tougher criminal penalties for fraud, misrepresentation and misuse of customer assets when digital assets are involved.

According to that interpretation, certain crypto-related offenses would be treated as aggravated financial crimes, adding additional years to standard wire fraud sentences. “Please get it passed!!” the user wrote in response to Lummis’ remarks.

The CLARITY Act, also known as the broader crypto market structure bill, remains under negotiation. It is currently on hold as representatives from the banking and crypto sectors prepare for another meeting at the White House scheduled for Friday.

The talks are expected to focus on unresolved issues, including stablecoin rewards programs, decentralized finance (DeFi) provisions and ethics-related measures that have complicated earlier drafts.

Industry participants and administration officials have indicated that progress is being made. Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, described last week’s discussions as “a big step forward.”

In a public message, Witt wrote, “We’re close,” adding that if both sides continue negotiating in good faith, he believes the administration’s March 1 deadline can still be met.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.28 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from Fortune, chart from TradingView.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main reason Senator Lummis rebuked Sam Bankman-Fried's praise for the CLARITY Act?

ASenator Lummis rebuked Sam Bankman-Fried because she believed his praise was self-serving and an attempt to seek a pardon, and she stated that the CLARITY Act would actually result in a much longer prison sentence for him than his current 25 years.

QAccording to the article, what event intensified speculation about Sam Bankman-Fried seeking a presidential pardon?

ASpeculation intensified after Sam Bankman-Fried posted on X (formerly Twitter) praising the proposed CLARITY Act and describing it as a major milestone for crypto and a huge achievement for President Trump.

QHow does the CLARITY Act propose to treat certain crypto-related offenses, according to social media users cited in the article?

AAccording to social media users, the CLARITY Act includes tougher criminal penalties, treating certain crypto-related offenses like fraud and misuse of customer assets as aggravated financial crimes, which would add additional time to standard wire fraud sentences.

QWhat was the purpose of the letter from the House Financial Services Committee referenced by Sam Bankman-Fried?

AThe letter, signed by Chairman Patrick McHenry, called on the SEC to provide records and communications involving its Enforcement Division, the Office of the Chair, and the DOJ regarding the timing of charges and arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried.

QWhat is the current status of the CLARITY Act and what are the key issues being discussed in the negotiations?

AThe CLARITY Act remains under negotiation and is currently on hold. Key unresolved issues being discussed include stablecoin rewards programs, decentralized finance (DeFi) provisions, and ethics-related measures.

Letture associate

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit8 h fa

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit8 h fa

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8 h fa

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手8 h fa

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.

marsbit11 h fa

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit11 h fa

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12 h fa

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

链捕手12 h fa

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?

marsbit13 h fa

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

marsbit13 h fa

Trading

Spot

Futures