Odds Of Crypto Market Structure Bill Passing This Year Fall To 40% On Polymarket

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-25Última atualização em 2026-02-25

Resumo

According to prediction market Polymarket, the odds of the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, passing this year have fallen sharply to 42%. This drop reflects growing skepticism that ongoing high-level negotiations between the crypto industry and banking representatives will reach a breakthrough in time, despite months of discussions at the White House. A key sticking point is draft legislation addressing bank concerns, particularly around crypto rewards programs. A major outcome is that paying yield on idle stablecoin balances is now off the table. The debate has shifted to whether rewards can be tied to specific user activities instead of simple account balances. Market experts suggest that if passed, the bill could significantly impact Bitcoin derivatives markets. It would likely cement the CFTC's authority, potentially leading to more regulated US trading venues and the emergence of CFTC-registered perpetual futures platforms. This clarity could encourage greater institutional participation and reduce discrepancies between spot and futures markets. Furthermore, Bitcoin options markets might see new regulated venues and potentially lower volatility, making strategies like hedging more accessible.

The likelihood that the long‐awaited crypto market structure legislation, known as the CLARITY Act, will become law this year has fallen sharply over the past 24 hours, according to data from prediction platform Polymarket.

Traders now assign the bill a 42% chance of passing in 2026, reflecting growing skepticism that ongoing negotiations between the crypto industry and the banking sector will produce a breakthrough in time.

Crypto And Banks Remain Divided

The drop in confidence comes despite months of high-level discussions at the White House. Lawmakers and industry representatives have been attempting to build consensus around a broader market structure framework.

However, three key White House meetings between crypto firms and banking representatives have yet to yield a final agreement. Even so, public messaging from officials has remained upbeat.

Crypto market structure bill odds of passing drop to 42%. Source: Polymarket

As Bitcoinist reported last week, Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, described the latest round of talks as “a big step forward.” “We’re close,” Witt wrote, adding that if both sides continue negotiating in good faith, he expects the administration’s March 1 deadline to be met.

At the center of the discussions is draft legislative language designed to address concerns raised by banks in a document titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles.”

While the proposed text acknowledges the banking sector’s objections, it also makes clear that any restrictions on crypto rewards programs would be narrowly tailored.

One significant outcome of the negotiations is that paying yield on idle stablecoin balances — a major objective for many crypto firms — is effectively off the table.

Instead, the debate has shifted toward whether companies should be permitted to offer rewards tied to specific user activities rather than simple account balances.

How New Rules Could Change Bitcoin Derivatives Markets

Beyond the political back‐and‐forth, market expert MartyParty recently highlighted potential structural shifts that could follow the bill’s passage, arguing that the changes may be more significant than many investors realize.

In the Bitcoin (BTC) futures market, clearer jurisdictional boundaries would likely cement the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) authority over digital asset commodities.

The expert believes that could accelerate the growth of regulated US trading venues, similar to CME, and potentially open the door to CFTC‐registered perpetual futures platforms.

According to MartyParty’s analysis, clear commodity classification may also encourage greater institutional participation, particularly from funds that are restricted from investing in assets deemed securities.

Perpetual futures contracts — a crypto‐native product widely used outside the United States — could also evolve. With CFTC registration, US‐based perpetual products might emerge with stronger consumer protections, greater transparency around funding rates, and tighter safeguards against manipulation.

Greater regulatory clarity could also reduce discrepancies between spot and futures markets, narrowing price gaps and stabilizing funding dynamics. At the same time, stricter leverage caps or margin requirements imposed under CFTC rules could limit the extreme levels of retail speculation currently seen on offshore platforms.

Bitcoin options markets would likely experience parallel shifts. The expert asserts that a clearer regulatory framework could encourage the development of additional US‐regulated options venues offering both physically settled and cash‐settled contracts tied to Bitcoin futures.

Reduced enforcement uncertainty may also lower implied volatility premiums, potentially making options more affordable for hedging and speculative strategies.

Institutional investors, in particular, could more confidently deploy advanced strategies — including collars and straddles — if Bitcoin’s commodity status is firmly established.

The 1D chart shows BTC’s price consolidation, currently at around $66,000. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Perguntas relacionadas

QAccording to Polymarket, what are the current odds that the CLARITY Act will pass this year?

AThe current odds that the CLARITY Act will pass this year are 42%.

QWhat is the major sticking point in the negotiations between the crypto industry and banks, as mentioned in the article?

AA major sticking point is the debate over whether companies should be permitted to offer rewards tied to specific user activities rather than simple account balances, with paying yield on idle stablecoin balances effectively being off the table.

QWhich US regulatory body is expected to gain clearer authority over digital asset commodities if the bill passes?

AThe Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is expected to have its authority over digital asset commodities cemented.

QWhat potential benefit for institutional investors does the expert MartyParty highlight regarding Bitcoin's classification?

AMartyParty highlights that if Bitcoin's commodity status is firmly established, institutional investors could more confidently deploy advanced options strategies like collars and straddles.

QWhat was the public messaging from officials like, despite the lack of a final agreement from the White House meetings?

ADespite the lack of a final agreement, public messaging from officials remained upbeat, with one executive director describing the latest talks as 'a big step forward' and expressing that they are 'close' to a deal.

Leituras Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHá 49m

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHá 49m

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHá 1h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHá 1h

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHá 1h

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHá 1h

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHá 3h

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHá 3h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片