Banks Prepare To Spend $100 Million+ To Stop Crypto Bills, Expert Warns

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-03-11Обновлено 2026-03-11

Введение

The fight over US crypto legislation is intensifying into a direct clash between the digital asset industry and the established banking sector. According to Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Action Fund, the banking industry is preparing a massive lobbying push, potentially exceeding $100 million, to counteract efforts to advance crypto market structure and stablecoin legislation. Porter warns that this creates a significant counterbalance to crypto lobbying groups and could lead lawmakers to withdraw support. He states that crypto industry faces political challenges, including low public trust and ethical concerns linked to Trump family involvement. Furthermore, market structure legislation is politically difficult as it covers a wide range of complex issues. The banking industry holds an advantage due to its entrenched local influence, including physical branches and jobs in lawmakers' districts. Porter cautions that if the dispute escalates into an open lobbying war, it could jeopardize the already tight Senate vote. He also notes that the legislative window is narrowing as midterm elections approach, with electoral incentives increasingly shaping the calendar.

The fight over US crypto legislation is turning into a direct clash between digital-asset firms and one of Washington’s oldest power centers. In an interview with Pete Rizzo, Satoshi Action Fund founder and CEO Dennis Porter said the banking industry is preparing a nine-figure lobbying push that could complicate efforts to advance both market structure legislation and stablecoin rules.

Crypto’s D.C. Outlook Just Got Darker

Porter said the core dispute is no longer just about whether Congress wants to regulate crypto, but on whose terms. President Donald Trump has publicly backed keeping the GENIUS Act intact, Porter noted, which he described as a positive sign for crypto firms. But he argued that support from the White House does not resolve the deeper standoff with banks, especially around stablecoins and the issue of rewards programs that banks view as a threat to deposits.

“The bank lobby has come out and said that they do plan to spend to counteract the crypto industry,” Porter said. “They said they’re raising nine figures, which is right up there with the Fairshake number. So that does create that counterbalance where they can essentially assert themselves into the ecosystem and start to peel some of these lawmakers off.”

That matters because, in Porter’s telling, crypto is entering the fight without a clean political backdrop. He said Democrats have grown more cautious around digital-asset legislation as Trump family involvement in the sector has raised ethics concerns among both lawmakers and voters.

At the same time, he described market structure as a far more expansive and politically difficult package than stablecoin legislation, since it touches not only securities-versus-commodities questions but also DeFi, illicit finance, ethics provisions and the makeup of the CFTC.

Porter argued that this leaves the legislation exposed to a wider set of objections and delays. He said there is still a path forward if key Democrats become comfortable with revisions, but added that the bill currently lacks a decisive forcing mechanism and has been pushed aside while lawmakers focus on a housing package.

The bank-crypto standoff, he suggested, could become especially dangerous if it turns into an open lobbying war. “If we end up in a situation where they’re directly lobbying against each other, you could see a lot of not just Democrats peel off this bill, but even possibly Republicans peel off this bill as well,” Porter said. “The vote is already tight in the Senate, very tight.”

His reasoning was straightforward: banks bring not just money, but entrenched local influence. Unlike much of crypto, Porter said, banks can point to branches, jobs and long-standing relationships in lawmakers’ districts. That advantage becomes even more important at a time when, by his own account, the industry is struggling politically.

“And also, crypto really is not popular right now,” Porter said. “Public trust in the crypto space is at an all-time low. Something that we’re deeply concerned about at Satoshi Action. Something that definitely needs some work.”

Porter framed that weakness as both a political problem and a policy argument. In his view, one purpose of market structure legislation is precisely to clean out the “crap” and scams that have damaged the sector’s reputation. But until lawmakers see a clearer consumer and political upside, he suggested, crypto firms may have trouble overcoming resistance from incumbents that view stablecoins as an existential threat to their business model.

He was notably cautious on timing. While some analysts have argued the window effectively closes by summer, Porter said the odds decline as the midterms approach but do not disappear entirely. His broader point was that the legislative calendar is being shaped as much by electoral incentives as by the text of the bills themselves.

At press time, the total crypto market cap stood at $2.34 trillion.

Total crypto market cap, 1-week chart | Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Связанные с этим вопросы

QAccording to Dennis Porter, how much money is the banking industry preparing to spend to counteract crypto legislation efforts?

AThe banking industry is preparing to spend a nine-figure sum, which is over $100 million, to lobby against crypto bills.

QWhat are the two main types of US crypto legislation mentioned that are being complicated by this banking push?

AThe two main types of US crypto legislation mentioned are market structure legislation and stablecoin rules.

QWhat reason does Porter give for why banks have a significant advantage in a lobbying war against crypto?

APorter states that banks have an advantage because they bring not just money, but entrenched local influence, including physical branches, jobs, and long-standing relationships in lawmakers' districts.

QWhat does Dennis Porter cite as a major political weakness for the crypto industry in this fight?

AHe cites that 'crypto is not popular right now' and that 'public trust in the crypto space is at an all-time low.'

QBeyond the bank opposition, what other reason is given for why the market structure bill is politically difficult to pass?

AThe market structure bill is described as politically difficult because it is a far more expansive package that touches on securities-vs-commodities questions, DeFi, illicit finance, ethics provisions, and the makeup of the CFTC, leaving it exposed to a wider set of objections.

Похожее

Has Hook Summer Really Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Narrative of Uniswap v4

"Hook Summer" Arrives? Sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite Uniswap v4 Narrative Amidst a slight market recovery, attention within the Ethereum ecosystem has shifted to Meme coins built on Uniswap v4's Hook protocol. Following ASTEROID, tokens like sato, sat1, Lo0p, and FLOOD have become market focal points, with market caps ranging from millions to tens of millions, bringing concentrated liquidity to a narrative-dry market. Uniswap v4 Hooks are "plugin smart contracts" that allow developers to inject custom logic at key points in a liquidity pool's lifecycle (initialization, adding/removing liquidity, swaps, etc.), making the AMM programmable. Recent representative projects include: * **sato**: Market cap peaked over $38M; uses a v4 curve mechanism for minting/burning, locking ETH as reserve. * **sat1**: Market cap briefly exceeded $10M, positioning as an "optimized sato," but later declined significantly. * **Lo0p**: Market cap neared $6.6M; a "lending AMM protocol" allowing users to borrow ETH against deposited LO0P tokens without immediate selling pressure. * **FLOOD**: Market cap approached $6M; channels trading reserves into Aave v3 to generate yield, which is retained in the pool. The emergence of these Hook-based tokens could drive long-term growth for the Uniswap ecosystem by attracting users and liquidity to v4 pools. Combined with Uniswap's activated fee switch (partially used to burn UNI), the long-term outlook for UNI appears positive. However, short-term UNI price appreciation is not directly guaranteed. Factors include the sustainability and lifecycle of these new tokens, their price volatility, overall market conditions, and regulatory pressures. Currently, Uniswap v4's TVL ($595M) lags behind v3 and v2, indicating Hook adoption still requires time to mature. In summary, the Hook ecosystem serves as "long-term nourishment" for UNI, but acts more as a "catalyst" than a direct "booster" in the short term. Note: These are early-stage experimental tokens and may carry unknown risks.

marsbit27 мин. назад

Has Hook Summer Really Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Narrative of Uniswap v4

marsbit27 мин. назад

Has Hook Summer Truly Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Uniswap v4 Narrative

With the broader market showing signs of recovery, a new wave of interest has emerged around Ethereum-based meme coins. Following ASTEROID, tokens like sato, sat1, Lo0p, and FLOOD, built upon the Uniswap v4 Hook protocol, are capturing market attention. Their market capitalizations range from millions to tens of millions of dollars, injecting much-needed focused liquidity into a market lacking narratives. This article explores whether this trend signifies an incoming "Hook Summer" and its potential impact on UNI's price. Hooks are essentially plug-in smart contracts for Uniswap v4 liquidity pools, allowing developers to inject custom logic at key points in a pool's lifecycle (like initialization, adding/removing liquidity, swaps). This transforms the AMM into programmable building blocks. Key highlighted projects include: * **sato**: Peaked over $38M market cap. It utilizes a v4 curve for minting/burning; buying locks ETH as reserve to mint new tokens, while selling redeems ETH from the reserve and burns tokens. * **sat1**: Market cap briefly exceeded $10M, promoted as an "optimized sato," but later declined significantly. * **Lo0p**: Reached nearly $6.6M. It's a lending AMM protocol where buying LO0P tokens locks them as collateral, allowing users to borrow ETH from the pool reserve at 40% LTV, aiming to improve capital efficiency for idle ETH in LPs. * **FLOOD**: Peaked near $6M. Its mechanism directs asset reserves from buys into Aave v3 to generate yield, with fees and interest retained in the pool to potentially influence the token's price long-term. In the long term, the development of the Hook ecosystem can attract users and liquidity to Uniswap v4, benefiting UNI's fundamentals—especially combined with the recent activation of the protocol fee switch, where a portion of fees is used to burn UNI. However, in the short term, these Hook-based tokens are unlikely to directly drive significant UNI price appreciation. Their impact is moderated by factors like token sustainability, price volatility, and broader market and regulatory conditions. Currently, Uniswap v4's TVL ($595M) still trails behind v2 and v3, indicating adoption and growth will take time. The article concludes that while the Hook ecosystem provides long-term "nourishment" for UNI, its short-term role is more of a "catalyst" than a "booster." Readers are cautioned that these are early-stage experimental tokens and may carry unknown risks.

Odaily星球日报39 мин. назад

Has Hook Summer Truly Arrived? sato, Lo0p, FLOOD Ignite the New Uniswap v4 Narrative

Odaily星球日报39 мин. назад

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell Bitcoin, But Never a Net Sale

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Said We'd Sell Bitcoin, But Never Be a Net Seller In a recent podcast, MicroStrategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor clarified the company's stance on potentially selling Bitcoin. Following MicroStrategy's earnings call statement about being prepared to sell BTC to fund dividends for its STRC (Strategic) credit product, Saylor emphasized the distinction between selling and being a "net seller." Saylor explained the core business model: MicroStrategy sells credit instruments like STRC and uses the proceeds to buy Bitcoin, which is viewed as "digital capital" expected to appreciate around 30-40% annually. A portion of these capital gains can then be used to pay the dividends on the credit products. He stressed that even if the company sells some Bitcoin for dividends, it simultaneously buys much more with new credit issuance. For example, after raising $3.2 billion from STRC sales in April, the dividend obligation was only $80-90 million, making the company a net buyer. The clarification aims to counter market narratives questioning the value of Bitcoin on MicroStrategy's balance sheet if it were never sold, and to dismiss claims of a "Ponzi scheme." Saylor reiterated his personal philosophy for investors: "Don't be a net seller of bitcoin" and ensure your Bitcoin holdings increase each year. Saylor also discussed Bitcoin's role as the foundation for "digital credit," noting that STRC has become the largest and most liquid preferred stock issue in the U.S., offering high risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe ratio). He highlighted Bitcoin's deep liquidity, stating that even large purchases by MicroStrategy do not move the market significantly, which is driven by macro factors, geopolitical tensions, and capital flows from ETFs and credit products. Finally, Saylor reflected on his early inspiration from sci-fi books, which motivated his path to MIT, and maintained his fundamental thesis on Bitcoin remains unchanged: it is superior digital capital enabling superior digital credit.

链捕手43 мин. назад

Interview with Michael Saylor: I Did Say I Would Sell Bitcoin, But Never a Net Sale

链捕手43 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片