Crypto Market Structure Talks In Washington: Key Events To Follow This Week

bitcoinist2026-03-17 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-17 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The Senate Banking Committee is preparing for discussions on the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, though no major developments suggest imminent passage. April is critical for the bill's prospects, as failure to pass by the end of the month could significantly reduce its chances this year. Key issues include stablecoin yield, with negotiations focusing on banning rewards for idle balances while allowing them for transactions. Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks are influential in addressing banking sector concerns about deposit flight. Even if a stablecoin deal is reached, other hurdles remain, including DeFi regulation, investor protections, and SEC authority. The bill faces partisan challenges, with limited Democratic input in earlier drafts.

As the Senate Banking Committee prepares for a new round of discussions this Tuesday, anticipation builds around the long-awaited crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act. Yet despite ongoing negotiations, there have been no major developments indicating imminent passage of the bill.

With April fast approaching, the month is expected to be critical for the act’s prospects, as industry insiders warn that if it does not pass by the end of that month, the chances of it being approved this year will drop significantly.

Key Senators Work Towards Compromise

A Monday report from Crypto In America by journalist Eleanor Terret indicates that the committee chair, Senator Tim Scott, will kick off the event with a fireside chat. However, the schedule for this markup depends on finalizing the bill’s details, particularly around the contentious issue of stablecoin yield.

Negotiations have intensified around stablecoin rewards, a critical point in the ongoing discussions. Alex Thorn of Galaxy Digital’s Research team has emphasized that time is of the essence, suggesting that the odds of passing the bill this year will become “extremely low” if it fails to progress this month.

However, Cody Carbone, CEO of the Digital Chamber, expressed optimism about the negotiations, saying the parties are moving closer to a resolution.

The proposed settlement would ban yield on idle balances while allowing rewards for transactions. Carbone asserted, “They’re getting closer and closer to a deal, so I feel very confident we can reach a resolution in the next week.”

At the same time, Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks are emerging as influential figures. Both senators have shown sensitivity to concerns from the banking sector about the risk of deposit flight if crypto firms are permitted to offer high-yield options that could rival traditional savings accounts.

The report refers to Tillis and Alsobrooks as key gatekeepers. Once they are satisfied with the language of the legislation on both sides, the bill may proceed, clearing the way to address the remaining complexities around decentralized finance (DeFi) and token classifications.

A spokesperson for Tillis recently said he continues to engage with stakeholders in pursuit of a compromise, even though the senator will not attend the summit this week. Alsobrooks, however, is slated to discuss efforts related to the yield debate during her speech on Wednesday.

Multiple Obstacles In Crypto Bill

While the focus is currently on solving the stablecoin rewards issue, Thorn cautioned that even if a compromise is reached, other hurdles may emerge.

These could involve ongoing discussions about DeFi, investor protections, the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and even broader ethical considerations.

It’s worth noting that the Senate Banking Committee’s draft from January aimed at bipartisanship, yet ultimately received little direct input from Democratic members, reflecting existing partisan divides.

As such, Thorn suggests that stablecoin rewards might not be the final obstacle, but rather a temporary flashpoint in what appears to be a more complex landscape of unresolved issues underlying the bill’s progression.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap’s rise to $2.5 trillion on Monday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the name of the crypto market structure bill being discussed by the Senate Banking Committee?

AThe CLARITY Act.

QAccording to Alex Thorn, why is April a critical month for the bill's prospects?

ABecause if the bill does not pass by the end of April, the chances of it being approved this year will drop significantly, becoming 'extremely low'.

QWhat is the contentious issue in the bill's negotiations that specifically involves stablecoins?

AThe issue of stablecoin yield, specifically whether to ban yield on idle balances while allowing rewards for transactions.

QWhich two senators are identified as key gatekeepers whose satisfaction with the bill's language is crucial for it to proceed?

ASenators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks.

QBeyond stablecoin yield, what are some of the other potential hurdles for the bill mentioned by Alex Thorn?

AOngoing discussions about DeFi, investor protections, the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and broader ethical considerations.

İlgili Okumalar

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit1 saat önce

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit1 saat önce

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit2 saat önce

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片