Sen. Marshall Drops Card Fees Push From Crypto Bill Markup

TheNewsCryptoPublicado em 2026-01-27Última atualização em 2026-01-27

Resumo

Senator Roger Marshall has withdrawn his proposed amendment on credit card swipe fees from the crypto market structure bill to avoid jeopardizing its progress. The Senate Agriculture Committee is prioritizing a focused debate on digital asset regulation, and Marshall’s amendment—aimed at increasing competition in card network fees—was seen as a potential distraction that could provoke opposition from financial institutions and disrupt bipartisan support. The markup, delayed from late January to early February due to weather and scheduling conflicts, is part of a broader effort to advance the bill without contentious additions. Both Democratic and Republican negotiators are working to keep the legislation clean to ensure it moves forward amid a crowded legislative agenda. The bill includes key provisions on crypto commodities and securities definitions and software developer protections. Marshall’s tactical retreat is viewed as a strategic move to maintain momentum and improve the bill’s chances of committee approval and eventual Senate debate.

Republican Senator Roger Marshall intends to put his proposed credit card swipe fees amendment on the back burner as the Senate Agriculture Committee gears up for a markup of a significant crypto market structure bill. Legislators are determined to keep the bill’s scope on digital asset regulation rather than financial sector conflicts. Reports indicate Marshall privately agreed to step back after concerns emerged that the amendment could derail momentum behind the bill.

Marshall originally filed the proposal to increase competition around card network fees. However, negotiators feared the move would spark resistance from financial institutions and distract from crypto policy. This shift comes as Washington intensifies debate around digital asset frameworks, a topic recently highlighted in coverage on US lawmakers’ debate crypto oversight framework and stablecoin regulation gaining traction in Congress.

Weather Delays and Political Timing

The Senate Agriculture Committee had set the markup for late January but later rescheduled it for early February due to severe winter storms that affected operations in Washington. However, weather conditions are only one factor for the delay. Another significant factor is the political timing of the bill. The Senate Agriculture and Banking Committees are still modifying their schedules in an effort to gain bipartisan support.

Legislators recognize that if the bill includes any contentious amendments, it could disrupt the bipartisan process. Therefore, they are now focusing on stability and progress rather than expanding the bill’s scope.

White House and Party Strategy

Representatives from the White House have been involved in negotiations regarding the timing of the markup of the bill. They are trying to ensure that the bill passes without any amendments that might draw attention away from crypto. Party strategists also consider the election calendar.

Republicans want policy wins ahead of the upcoming elections, while Democrats push for stronger ethics and consumer protection language.

Some Democrats supported Marshall’s swipe-fee language, yet several Republicans opposed it. They argued the amendment would trigger a fresh fight between banks and retailers. That dispute could overshadow core crypto provisions and stall progress.

Focus Returns to Core Crypto Oversight

The Senate Agriculture Committee version of the bill contains provisions to protect software developers and to distinguish between commodities and securities. However, the Senate Banking Committee has not yet set the date for its markup of the bill. Experts track developments through official sources such as the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee and the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, where procedural updates define the future of the bill.

Experts point out that the crypto bill is progressing in a crowded legislative environment. Members of Congress are dealing with funding deadlines, economic policies, and election politics. Each change in focus can change committee agendas. Thus, the current preference is for a clean bill that does not contain contentious provisions.

A Strategic Pause, Not a Retreat

Marshall’s action is part of this approach. He takes a step back to allow leaders to keep their attention on the digital asset market structure rather than card network reform. Negotiators believe this move increases the odds of committee approval and eventual Senate floor debate.

Crypto regulation remains a moving target in Washington. Nevertheless, lawmakers continue refining proposals and negotiating compromises. For now, leaders push the bill forward without policy riders that risk slowing progress.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Crypto Debanking Deepens in the UK as 40% of Exchange Transactions Face Bank Blocks

TagsCrypto BillCrypto Marketcrypto regulationfinanceSwipe

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhy did Senator Marshall decide to withdraw his proposed credit card swipe fees amendment from the crypto bill markup?

ASenator Marshall withdrew the amendment after concerns emerged that it could derail momentum behind the crypto bill and spark resistance from financial institutions, potentially distracting from the core focus on digital asset regulation.

QWhat were the two main reasons for the Senate Agriculture Committee rescheduling the markup of the crypto bill from late January to early February?

AThe markup was rescheduled due to severe winter storms affecting Washington operations and the political timing considerations as committees worked to gain bipartisan support for the bill.

QHow are White House representatives involved in the crypto bill negotiations according to the article?

AWhite House representatives have been involved in negotiations regarding the timing of the markup, trying to ensure the bill passes without amendments that might draw attention away from crypto policy.

QWhat key provisions does the Senate Agriculture Committee's version of the crypto bill contain?

AThe bill contains provisions to protect software developers and to distinguish between commodities and securities in the digital asset market.

QWhy is there a preference for a 'clean bill' without contentious amendments in the current legislative environment?

AThere is a preference for a clean bill because Congress is dealing with multiple priorities including funding deadlines, economic policies, and election politics, and contentious provisions could disrupt bipartisan progress and change committee agendas.

Leituras Relacionadas

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) kept its benchmark interest rate at 1% on July 31, as widely expected, following a June hike to a 31-year high. The decision passed with an 8-1 vote, with board member Hajime Takata again dissenting in favor of a hike to 1.25%. Despite holding rates steady, the BOJ signaled a hawkish tilt, warning that underlying inflation is likely to accelerate and exceed 2% from the latter half of the fiscal year. While it slightly lowered its core inflation forecast for FY2026, officials expressed stronger confidence that an overshoot will occur later, driven by yen weakness, corporate pricing behavior, and lingering energy shock effects. Markets were focused on the BOJ's forward guidance. Analysts noted the central bank appeared to balance short-term caution with a long-term warning of tighter policy. Governor Kazuo Ueda faces the challenge of reconciling a government reluctant to tighten further with bond markets already pricing in additional hikes, with the timing of the next move debated. Adding complexity, the BOJ reportedly intervened in currency markets hours before the rate decision, buying yen to support the currency which had fallen to 40-year lows against the dollar. Yen weakness stems from the wide U.S.-Japan interest rate gap, high fuel prices, and market skepticism about the pace of BOJ policy normalization. The yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds fell to 2.8%, indicating investor expectations for future monetary tightening.

cryptonews.ruHá 5m

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

cryptonews.ruHá 5m

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbitHá 12m

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbitHá 12m

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbitHá 22m

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbitHá 22m

Trading

Spot
活动图片