Original Title: Mapping Out Crypto's Midterms Fate
Original Author: David Christopher, Bankless
Original Compilation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: The 2026 U.S. midterm elections may become a critical variable for the direction of the crypto industry.
From an outcome perspective, prediction markets generally believe that the Democratic Party has a high probability of retaking the House of Representatives, and it is not impossible for them to control both the House and the Senate. If this scenario occurs, control of key congressional committees will shift accordingly, with Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren leading the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, respectively.
But what really needs attention is not "who supports crypto," but "who controls the agenda."
Based on a cross-analysis of prediction markets, candidate positions, and congressional structure, this article points out an underestimated risk: even if cross-party support is forming, it holds almost no practical significance if it cannot enter the committee process. Control over hearings, deliberations, and scheduling allows committees to directly determine the life or death of a bill without even holding a vote.
Structurally, this is the core contradiction at present: although a significant proportion of Democratic lawmakers have shifted to support crypto on specific bills, this support has not translated into dominance at the committee level. In the stage that truly determines the fate of legislation, the overall landscape still presents a cautious or even opposing stance.
With the potential power reshuffle brought by the midterm elections, the crypto industry is no longer short-term policy volatility but a deeper institutional uncertainty: the path to regulatory clarity may be interrupted before it even truly begins.
Therefore, a relatively clear scenario judgment can be formed: under the baseline scenario, regulatory progress will enter a period of stagnation; in a more pessimistic scenario, core legislation such as stablecoins and market structure may be completely blocked, with short-term policy benefits nearly zero.
Below is the original text:
How bad will these midterm elections really be for the crypto industry? As the possibility of a Democratic sweep of the House and Senate in the midterm elections continues to rise, I want to take a closer look at what the existing polls are actually telling us and what this means for the future of the crypto industry.
To do this, I referenced data from prediction markets, as well as databases like Stand with Crypto (SWC) that record candidates' positions on the crypto industry. While integrating this information, I also built a visualization panel: after obtaining the data, I used Cursor to build the front end, Claude Code to string together the logic, and Vercel for final deployment.
Although the data is still being supplemented, I have already built a database tracking districts where Democratic candidates are leading, mapping them to their positions on crypto issues and the congressional committees they might join. This has allowed me to sketch an initial outline of the policy environment in the coming months: seemingly still operable on the surface, but upon closer inspection, there are some deeper structural issues lurking within.
One Surprising Point
First, support for the crypto industry within the Democratic Party is actually greater than outsiders imagine—at least on certain specific bills.
In the House, 101 Democratic lawmakers (about 48% of the caucus) voted in favor of the GENIUS Act; in the Senate, 18 Democratic senators (about 40%) voted to advance the bill for passage. This does constitute a cross-party support alliance. But this support is bill-specific. Once it enters the committee stage, where legislation truly begins to move, this alliance quickly falls apart.
And that is precisely the problem.
Where Power Comes From
Crypto-related legislation never goes directly to a full floor vote.
Whether it's stablecoins, market structure, or SEC regulatory authority, all content must first go through committee review. The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) and the Senate Banking Committee are the two critical arenas where crypto bills live or die (bills involving market structure also require the Agriculture Committee to correspond to the CFTC regulatory portion). The committee chairs decide which topics get hearings, which proceed to markup, and which are quietly dragged into procedural stagnation. If the chair opposes a bill, he doesn't even need to call a vote; he can simply cold-shoulder it by not setting the agenda.
Recent Republican chairs have demonstrated how this power can be used to advance legislation. For example, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott pushed the GENIUS Act through the committee and guided its passage in the Senate; former House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry led the FIT21 Act, the first major crypto market structure bill to pass the House. Current Chair French Hill has continued this momentum, pushing related legislation including the CLARITY Act (though it remains stalled in the Senate) and holding ongoing hearings on digital assets and capital markets modernization.
What Happens if Democrats Win Across the Board?
In the U.S. Congress, the majority party controls all committee chairmanships, without exception.
If Democrats take the House, they will lead all House committees; if they also take the Senate, they will control all Senate committees. Within the majority party, chairs are typically assigned by seniority.
In the House Financial Services Committee, the most senior Democrat is Maxine Waters; in the Senate Banking Committee, it is Elizabeth Warren. Both are well known for having opposed almost all major crypto bills. Warren opposed the GENIUS Act during its consideration, citing threats to national security, while Waters called it a comprehensive crypto scam.
More critical is the mechanism in the House: once party control changes, all subcommittees are reshuffled. The majority party not only determines the seat ratio but also influences the assignment of new members. At that point, Waters would have significant influence over the composition of the Financial Services Committee (HFSC) and its subcommittees, including the leadership of the Digital Assets Subcommittee. Although she cannot unilaterally decide all appointments (party leadership and the caucus are also involved), she can certainly steer the overall structure towards a more anti-crypto stance that aligns with her position.
In fact, the current composition of Democrats on the HFSC itself leans towards being critical of the crypto industry, such as Brad Sherman, Stephen Lynch, Emanuel Cleaver, Sylvia Garcia, and others. Although there are also crypto-supportive Democratic lawmakers, such as Jim Himes, Bill Foster, Ritchie Torres, Josh Gottheimer, and Vicente Gonzalez, who can provide some counterbalance, they do not control the agenda-setting power under Waters' chairmanship.
The Situation in the Senate: Slightly Better, But Still Constrained
The landscape in the Senate Banking Committee is relatively less bleak. If Elizabeth Warren becomes chair, the committee would present a mixed structure: there are relatively crypto-supportive members like Mark Warner, Ruben Gallego, Angela Alsobrooks, as well as explicitly opposing voices like Tina Smith, and some lawmakers with more摇摆 (swaying) positions.
There is a marginal positive here: if Democrats win the Senate, Gallego, who scores relatively well in the Stand with Crypto (SWC) rating system, would likely chair the Digital Assets Subcommittee. Although Warren would still control the overall committee agenda, Gallego could at least carve out some space for pro-crypto voices at the subcommittee level.
What's Really Key Are These Election Seats
A more realistic problem is: currently, most of those crypto-supportive Democratic lawmakers are not on the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) or the Senate Banking Committee.
They can certainly vote in favor when a bill reaches the full floor vote, and they can exert some pressure on party leadership (though in the current climate of increasing crypto issue partisanship, most may be unwilling to stick their necks out for it). But what they cannot do is: force a committee chair to move a piece of legislation into the process.
Therefore, what will truly affect the direction of crypto policy are the outcomes of a few key races in specific districts—elections that will directly change the composition of the committees, thereby determining whether a bill has a chance to be discussed, not just voted on.
Conclusion on the Midterms
The prospects in the House are quite grim.
If there's an 85% probability of Democrats flipping the House, then Maxine Waters becoming chair of the Financial Services Committee (HFSC) is almost a near certainty. She can not only rearrange subcommittee seats but also control the agenda. The so-called bright spots are very limited—for example, Menefee potentially replacing Green's seat, Gonzalez successfully getting re-elected—these only provide a degree of checks and balances but do not change the fundamental issue of who holds the gavel.
The Senate becomes the remaining key battleground, but the situation worsened further last night.
In the Illinois primary, Juliana Stratton defeated Raja Krishnamoorthi. Combining the Stand with Crypto (SWC) rating and the fact that Fairshake invested $7 million against her, it can be basically judged that Stratton belongs to the staunchly anti-crypto camp.
Even more frustrating is the overall structure: crypto-supportive Democrats do exist. In both chambers, about 47% of Democratic lawmakers supported the GENIUS Act, and in the House, 37% supported the CLARITY Act. But the problem is—the life or death of a bill is not determined by the full floor vote.
What truly determines fate is the committee stage. And in the committee votes related to market structure, it almost completely follows party lines. The support that exists has not translated into actual influence in the key decision-making arenas.
Crypto shouldn't have become such a highly partisan issue. Crypto-supportive Democrats do exist—they just aren't in the positions of power.
This data panel is still being continuously improved, and I will continue to update it in the coming weeks and months. But even with the current data still incomplete, the overall picture is quite clear: the House will most likely be the source of resistance, and the only place worth investing effort in now is the Senate.
Original link
