Senate Ag Delays Crypto Market Structure Markup to Late January

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-01-13Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-13

Introduzione

The US Senate Agriculture Committee has delayed its markup of a major cryptocurrency market structure bill to the late January, as more time is needed to finalize details and secure bipartisan support. The legislation is critical for clarifying the regulatory roles of the CFTC and SEC over digital assets. Key unresolved issues include disputes over prohibiting stablecoin yields and incorporating strong ethics rules. Despite progress, political factors and the 2026 mid-term elections could further delay the bill's passage, with some predictions suggesting it may not be implemented until 2029.

The US Senate Agriculture Committee has deferred the date of their much-awaited markup on the big cryptocurrency market structure legislation to the last week of January as lawmakers rush to secure bipartisan support on bills affecting the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the US.

Committee on Appropriations Chairman John Boozman stated on Monday that he would like to proceed with a bill supported by both parties, but he requires additional time to finalize the remaining details. “We have indeed made progress and had constructive discussions as we look toward reaching this objective,” Boozman said. “Additional time is required before the bill proceeds to markup to finalize the remaining details and gain the support that this bill requires.”

Boozman went further to state that the committee would proceed to markup the last week of January, which pushed what had been planned for the current week.

Why this markup matters to crypto

Crypto industry leaders have closely watched the Senate process because the market structure bill would clarify how the U.S.’s top market regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, divide authority over digital assets.

The CFTC, meanwhile, falls under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee and is preferred by many crypto companies as a regulator for “digital commodities” spot markets. The Senate Banking Committee has direct oversight of the SEC and intends to vote on its own markup this week-a vote that Boozman is now delaying, keeping Washington’s crypto calendar active.

Notably, however, is that the Senate Act does not reproduce the same elements of the House CLARITY Act that passed successfully in July of 2025. This is because Senate procedures prevented a direct adoption of the previous House bill.

Stablecoin yield and ethics rules remain sticking points

While lawmakers work to bridge gaps, several issues remain unresolved and continue to slow consensus.

The first major controversy appears with stablecoin yields. Bank trade groups have called on the legislative branch to prohibit third-party providers, including crypto exchanges, from providing yields on stablecoins. The groups have stated that these yields cloud the distinction between stablecoins and interest-bearing deposits, particularly with the GENIUS Act preventing stablecoin issuers from paying yields.

On the other hand, the Democratic senators have been advocating for strong ethics and conflict-of-interest measures to be included in the bill. This comes as they require rules that would restrict officials, as well as President Donald Trump, from gaining any benefit due to connections to crypto projects or companies.

The crypto industry associations are also actively campaigning to ensure that the legislation does not consider software developers and non-custodial wallets to be “intermediaries,” meaning that they would be forced to comply with obligations that apply to financial middlemen.

The 2026 timeline is still uncertain

However, despite the rising momentum, there are predictions from certain policymakers that the future is not that bright. An investment bank, TD Cowen, has advised that political factors, including the mid-term elections, could dampen support. This implies that the bill might not be passed until the year 2027, and its implementation would be in 2029.

However, in the short term, Boozman’s filibuster puts the spotlight on the fact that, in crypto regulation, lawmakers need clarity but also can’t agree on the scope of regulation or who should benefit most from those regulations.

Highlighted Crypto News:

UK Lawmakers Push to Ban Crypto Donations Over Transparency and Foreign Influence Risks

TagsCFTCcrypto regulationcurrent market statusstablecoinsU.S Senate

Domande pertinenti

QWhy has the Senate Agriculture Committee delayed the markup on the cryptocurrency market structure legislation?

AThe committee has deferred the markup to the last week of January to secure bipartisan support and finalize remaining details of the bill.

QWhich two US regulatory agencies' authority over digital assets would the market structure bill clarify?

AThe bill would clarify the division of authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

QWhat is one of the major sticking points regarding stablecoins in the legislation?

AA major controversy is whether third-party providers, like crypto exchanges, should be prohibited from offering yields on stablecoins, as it blurs the line with interest-bearing deposits.

QWhat specific measures are Democratic senators advocating to include in the bill?

ADemocratic senators are advocating for strong ethics and conflict-of-interest measures, including rules to prevent officials from benefiting due to connections to crypto projects.

QAccording to the investment bank TD Cowen, what could delay the passage of the crypto market structure bill until 2027?

APolitical factors, including the mid-term elections, could dampen support and delay the bill's passage until 2027, with implementation not until 2029.

Letture associate

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit1 h fa

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit1 h fa

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit2 h fa

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片