U.S. Senate Housing Bill Links Affordability Reforms With CBDC Restrictions

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-03-03Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-03

Introduzione

U.S. Senate lawmakers have introduced a provision in a housing-focused bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, that prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) accessible to the public until at least 2031. The measure requires the Fed to obtain congressional authorization before launching a digital dollar, though it may continue researching the technology. This unexpected addition to housing legislation has sparked debate over the timeline and links CBDC policy to broader discussions on affordability. The ban reflects congressional concerns over privacy, financial stability, and the potential impact of a CBDC on the traditional banking system.

A move by US Senate Democrats and Republicans to pass a wide-ranging housing bill. They added a new section that prohibits the Federal Reserve from launching a retail central bank digital currency, or CBDC. The section of the bill would prevent the Fed from launching a digital version of the US dollar, or a digital dollar, until at least 2031 if it is accessible to the public.

The section prohibiting the Fed from launching a CBDC was added to the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This is a bill focused on housing legislation but that touches on financial technology policy. The addition of the CBDC prohibition to a housing bill was a surprise to some. As the past debates have focused on CBDC policy in finance legislation.

According to the provision, the Federal Reserve would need permission from Congress to issue a CBDC to consumers. The reason for the requirement, based on the rationale provided by the advocates, was that it would prevent the Fed from issuing digital currency without permission. The ban does not stop the Fed from continuing to research and experiment with digital currency concepts.

The focus of the ban is on public issuance and use of digital currency by individuals or businesses. The lawmakers have set a date in the future to sunset the ban. This created a debate about whether it is enough time to allow for technological advances in the field. The inclusion of the bill in the housing legislation may require lawmakers to consider digital currency in the context of housing affordability.

Policy and Market Implications of the CBDC Ban

The CBDC ban demonstrates the continued congressional interest in central bank digital currencies and issues of privacy, surveillance, and financial stability. Opponents of CBDCs claim that Fed-issued CBDCs might interfere with the traditional banking system or undermine existing privacy protections for consumers.

This measure might have implications for the way financial tech companies and digital asset platforms plan their future development strategies. Some analysts suggest that a formal ban through to 2031 indicates a more cautious legislative approach to CBDCs. Financial markets that track this type of regulation might reassess the prospects for future U.S. digital currency policies.

The housing bill still has to pass through committee stages before becoming law. Congressional leaders from all parties must balance competing policy interests, which are part of a broader budget debate. Supporters of the CBDC ban are hoping that the inclusion of this measure in this bill will give it a greater chance of being considered.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Hong Kong and Shanghai Authorities Integrate Cargo Data on Blockchain

TagsbillCBDCFederal ReserveFederalReserveU.SU.S SenateUS Senate

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main purpose of the U.S. Senate housing bill regarding CBDCs?

AThe bill prohibits the Federal Reserve from launching a retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) accessible to the public until at least 2031, requiring Congressional permission for any such issuance.

QWhy was the addition of the CBDC prohibition to a housing bill considered surprising?

AIt was surprising because past debates about CBDC policy have typically occurred within financial legislation, not housing-focused bills.

QDoes the bill completely stop the Federal Reserve from working on digital currency concepts?

ANo, the ban does not prevent the Fed from continuing to research and experiment with digital currency concepts; it only prohibits public issuance to consumers.

QWhat are some concerns that opponents of CBDCs have raised according to the article?

AOpponents claim that Fed-issued CBDCs might interfere with the traditional banking system and undermine existing privacy protections for consumers.

QWhat must happen before this housing bill with the CBDC provision becomes law?

AThe bill still has to pass through committee stages, and Congressional leaders must balance competing policy interests as part of a broader budget debate.

Letture associate

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4 h fa

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手4 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.

marsbit6 h fa

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit6 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7 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7 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?

marsbit8 h fa

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

marsbit8 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片