SEC Chair Presses Congress On Crypto Market Structure, Wants Bill To Reach President’s Desk

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-10Last updated on 2026-04-10

Abstract

SEC Chair Paul S. Atkins urged Congress to pass the CLARITY Act, which aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for crypto markets in the U.S. He emphasized the need to move away from "regulation by enforcement" and enable coordinated oversight by the SEC and CFTC. His comments follow similar calls from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who warned that the U.S. risks losing its leadership in financial innovation without such legislation. The push comes amid ongoing disputes between banks and crypto firms over provisions in the already-passed stablecoin bill (GENIUS Act), particularly regarding restrictions on interest payments for stablecoin holders. Despite bipartisan efforts, no compromise has been reached.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Paul S. Atkins on Thursday used social media to press Congress to approve the long‐awaited CLARITY Act, the bill intended to create a formal market‐structure framework for crypto in the United States.

Atkins’ post on X (formerly Twitter) echoed recent comments by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and framed the legislation as necessary to replace “regulation by enforcement” with clear statutory rules that will allow federal agencies to implement consistent oversight of digital assets.

Atkins Urges Congress To Pass CLARITY Act

“At project Crypto is designed so once Congress acts, @SECGov & @CFTC are ready to implement the CLARITY Act,” Atkins wrote, adding that “It’s time for Congress to future‐proof against rogue regulators & advance comprehensive market structure legislation to President Trump’s desk.”

His remarks came a day after Bessent published an op‐ed in the Wall Street Journal warning that the United States risks losing its leadership in financial innovation if lawmakers fail to pass the bill.

Bessent urged durable legislation that would give entrepreneurs and developers the confidence to “reshore” digital‐asset activity to American markets, arguing that decisive legal standards have historically made the US the world’s financial center.

Atkins’ appeal references Project Crypto, the coordinated SEC–CFTC effort to create a unified approach to token classification and to streamline how on‐chain trading, custody, and settlement are treated under federal law.

That initiative culminated in a joint interpretation in March clarifying how securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions — a milestone that many described as the first meaningful step toward the kind of legal clarity the sector has sought for years.

The push for the CLARITY Act, however, is occurring amid stalled negotiations and a high‐stakes dispute between the banking and crypto industries over a provision of the already passed GENIUS Act, the country’s stablecoin legislation.

Banks Vs. Crypto

That earlier legislation included a measure prohibiting permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to customers simply for holding tokens.

Banks argue the rule left a gap that third parties could exploit by offering rewards to stablecoin holders and have demanded that the market‐structure bill close that loophole. The crypto sector counters that the ability to provide rewards is crucial for stablecoins to compete effectively as payment instruments.

Despite multiple White House meetings intended to bridge the divide, no public compromise has yet been announced. Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Thom Tillis appeared to find bipartisan common ground late last month, but it remains unclear whether their proposal satisfies both the banking and crypto lobbies.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.4 trillion as of Thursday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the name of the bill that SEC Chair Paul S. Atkins is urging Congress to pass?

AThe CLARITY Act.

QAccording to the article, what does the CLARITY Act aim to replace in the U.S. crypto regulatory approach?

AIt aims to replace 'regulation by enforcement' with clear statutory rules.

QWhich two federal agencies are coordinating through 'Project Crypto' to create a unified approach to token classification?

AThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

QWhat specific provision in the already passed GENIUS Act is causing a dispute between the banking and crypto industries?

AA provision prohibiting permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to customers for holding tokens.

QWho published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal warning about the U.S. losing its leadership in financial innovation?

ATreasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Related Reads

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight News18m ago

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight News18m ago

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

MicroStrategy's Debt Risk: A Turning Point in the "Never Sell" Strategy As of June 3, 2026, MicroStrategy holds 843,706 bitcoins (valued at ~$53.1B) but faces significant financial obligations. Its capital structure includes $6.75B in convertible notes and $15.48B in perpetual preferred stock (led by the $8.5B STRC series), creating an annual payout burden of ~$1.71B. With software revenue at only ~$500M, interest and dividend obligations far exceed operating income. A critical shift occurred in late May 2026 when the company sold 32 bitcoins for ~$2.5M to cover dividends, breaking CEO Michael Saylor's long-standing "never sell" pledge. This symbolic move triggered a sharp decline in both Bitcoin's price and MSTR stock, reflecting market fears about cash flow sustainability. The core of the strain is the STRC perpetual preferred stock, designed as a "permanent loan" with no maturity date but requiring high monthly dividends (currently 11.5%). Its business model relies on a three-part cycle: issuing new STRC shares, using proceeds to buy more Bitcoin and fund a USD reserve, and using that reserve to pay dividends. This cycle depends on continuous investor demand for STRC and Bitcoin's price appreciation. Analysis shows Bitcoin needs to appreciate at least 2.3% annually to cover the $1.71B in yearly obligations at current holdings. With Bitcoin price down ~22% from March 2026 highs, this pressure has intensified. The company's $900M USD reserve can only cover about 7 months of payments if STRC issuance stalls. Key risks are not immediate bankruptcy or forced Bitcoin liquidation (as BTC is not collateral), but rather: 1) The erosion of MSTR's premium to its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV), which would cripple its ability to raise cheap capital; 2) A vicious cycle where stagnant Bitcoin prices reduce STRC demand, draining the USD reserve and forcing BTC sales, further depressing prices. The period from February 2027 to September 2028 is a crucial test, with over $5.9B in convertible notes facing put options or maturity. In essence, MicroStrategy has evolved from a simple Bitcoin holder into a complex financial entity acting like a "private Bitcoin bank," leveraging its BTC holdings to create layered financial products. Its survival depends on maintaining Bitcoin's price trend, its stock premium, and market appetite for its preferred shares. The recent token sale marks not a betrayal of its Bitcoin thesis, but an admission that the leveraged strategy must eventually be paid for.

marsbit29m ago

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

marsbit29m ago

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

Anthropic has published an article titled "When AI builds itself," discussing the emerging concept of "recursive self-improvement," where AI begins to actively participate in designing, training, testing, and optimizing its own subsequent versions. The company presents internal data showing that by May 2026, over 80% of code merged into its codebase was written by Claude, its AI model. Claude's capabilities have expanded to handling complex, open-ended engineering tasks, achieving a 76% success rate in such areas, and even contributing to research processes, such as optimizing code performance and conducting AI safety experiments. Anthropic outlines an evolution from human-driven development to AI-assisted workflows, culminating in the current stage where AI agents can autonomously write, run, and delegate code. The company cautions that the path toward a "closed loop," where AI continuously improves itself, is becoming visible. It calls for coordinated global mechanisms to potentially slow or pause frontier AI development to allow safety research and societal structures to catch up. However, the timing of this warning coincides with Anthropic's preparations for an IPO, framing the narrative not just as a safety concern but also as a demonstration of Claude's advanced capabilities and its integral role in accelerating Anthropic's own R&D—creating a potential "flywheel" effect for competitive advantage. This contrasts with OpenAI's recent, more policy-oriented discussion of the same risks, highlighting the competitive dynamics in the AI industry as companies position themselves in both the technological and regulatory landscape.

marsbit1h ago

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片