CFTC Chair Says Crypto Market Structure Bill Nears Final Approval

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-18Última atualização em 2026-02-18

Resumo

The long-debated crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, is nearing a critical point in Washington as end-of-month negotiations continue. CFTC Chair Mike Selig expressed strong confidence that the legislation is close to becoming law, aiming to establish clear U.S. rules for digital assets and prevent regulatory overreach. However, a major unresolved issue is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer yield. Banks oppose such rewards, while crypto industry groups propose a framework permitting yield generation in DeFi systems. Despite ongoing division, another meeting between stakeholders may occur soon to advance the bill.

With the end of the month approaching and negotiations still ongoing, the long-debated crypto market structure legislation known as the CLARITY Act is facing a critical moment in Washington.

The bill, which aims to establish clear rules for digital asset markets in the United States, has encountered significant obstacles in recent weeks as lawmakers, regulators, banks and crypto industry representatives continue to debate key provisions.

Despite the hurdles, newly appointed Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig has expressed strong confidence that the legislation is close to becoming law.

CFTC Chief Optimistic On CLARITY Act

In an interview with FOX Business on Tuesday, Selig said the bill is “about to” be signed, signaling optimism that Congress will ultimately push it across the finish line.

“We want to ensure that the legal framework for cryptocurrencies is adaptable to future developments. We cannot allow a second Gary Gensler to come in and destroy everything. We’re going to get this thing across the line,” he added.

Selig’s remarks build on statements he made earlier this month. On February 3, he argued that the market structure bill moving through Congress could position the United States as the “gold standard” for crypto regulation.

According to Selig, the industry has operated for too long without clear guidelines, causing businesses and innovation to migrate offshore. “The goal [of this legislation] is just to get some clarity.

It’s been too long with these markets just languishing, and they’ve fled offshore,” he said at the time. He also projected that a finalized bill could land on President Donald Trump’s desk “in the next couple of months,” praising the president’s leadership and support for the cryptocurrency sector.

However, as the White House’s end-of-month deadline looms, a major sticking point remains unresolved: whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield.

Crypto, Banks Remain Divided On Stablecoin Rewards

Journalist Eleanor Terrett reported Monday for Crypto In America that discussions between the crypto and banking industries have yet to produce a compromise on the issue, which is widely seen as the linchpin for advancing the CLARITY Act.

Last Tuesday, policy staff from banks and crypto firms met at the White House. The meeting concluded without agreement after banking representatives circulated a one-page document titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles,” which argued that stablecoins should not provide yield or rewards to holders.

In response, the Digital Chamber, a trade group representing more than 130 crypto firms and several traditional banks with digital asset exposure, released its own proposed framework on Friday.

The organization suggested principles that would allow payment stablecoins to generate yield within decentralized finance (DeFi) systems.

The group said its recommendations are intended to preserve stablecoins as payment tools, safeguard DeFi liquidity and reinforce US dollar dominance, while introducing a rigorous, data-driven method to assess potential impacts on bank deposits.

Banks have not formally responded to the Digital Chamber’s proposal. However, a source close to the Senate Banking Committee described the document to Crypto In America as “constructive,” though cautioning that some elements may be too broad to gain full support from financial institutions.

The next steps remain uncertain. Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House Crypto Council, told Yahoo Finance on Friday that another meeting could take place as early as this week, though no specific date was provided.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation at $2.29 trillion as of Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from Openart, chart from TradingView.com

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the name of the crypto market structure legislation discussed in the article and who expressed confidence in its approval?

AThe legislation is called the CLARITY Act. Newly appointed Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig expressed strong confidence that it is close to becoming law.

QAccording to CFTC Chair Mike Selig, what is the main goal of the CLARITY Act?

AThe main goal of the legislation is to provide clarity and establish a clear legal framework for digital asset markets in the United States, which has been lacking and causing businesses to move offshore.

QWhat is the major unresolved issue preventing the advancement of the CLARITY Act, as reported by journalist Eleanor Terrett?

AThe major unresolved issue is whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield or rewards to their holders.

QHow did the banking industry and the Digital Chamber's proposals on stablecoin yields differ?

ABanking representatives argued that stablecoins should not provide any yield or rewards. In contrast, the Digital Chamber proposed a framework that would allow payment stablecoins to generate yield within decentralized finance (DeFi) systems.

QWhat did CFTC Chair Mike Selig say about the potential impact of this legislation on the United States?

ASelig argued that the market structure bill could position the United States as the 'gold standard' for cryptocurrency regulation.

Leituras Relacionadas

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Há 1h

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Há 1h

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.

marsbitHá 4h

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHá 4h

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Há 5h

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

链捕手Há 5h

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?

marsbitHá 6h

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

marsbitHá 6h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片