Ripple CEO Says Clarity Act Has 90% Chance of Passing by April

TheNewsCrypto2026-02-20 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-20 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse estimates a 90% chance that the Clarity Act will pass through the U.S. Congress by the end of April, following recent discussions between crypto industry leaders and regulators. The bill aims to provide jurisdictional clarity by defining whether digital assets are securities or commodities, with key regulatory roles for the SEC and CFTC. While some complex issues, particularly around stablecoin regulation, remain, Garlinghouse noted that negotiations have narrowed outstanding disagreements. Passage of the act would mark a significant shift in U.S. crypto regulation, potentially encouraging greater institutional involvement by resolving long-standing legal uncertainties.

Brad Garlinghouse, the CEO of Ripple, stated that he thinks the Clarity Act will be passed through the U.S. Congress by the end of April. Garlinghouse estimated that there was a 90% chance of this happening, based on the recent talks in Washington. This was said during and after a meeting at the White House that was held between the leaders of the crypto industry and the banking regulators.

During an interview with Fox Business, Garlinghouse stated that stakeholders focused on the foundational aspects of the bill, such as jurisdictional clarity. The bill seeks to establish the regulatory jurisdiction of major U.S. agencies over digital assets. The bill will provide clarity on whether certain tokens qualify as securities or commodities.

Garlinghouse pointed out that many of the outstanding issues had been narrowed down after talks between the industry and the regulators. This came after several weeks of negotiations between lawmakers, the crypto industry, and Treasury officials. The stablecoin provisions were also part of the talks. The stablecoin yield provisions have made the initial versions of the bill complicated.

However, Garlinghouse also admitted that a compromise may be required to pass the legislation this spring. Other industry officials and prediction markets have also cited a narrowing timeline. Legislators are hoping to move the Clarity Act forward before the congressional recess in April. Some estimates place the chances of passage slightly lower than Garlinghouse’s estimate, but still high.

Regulatory Environment and Industry Implications

The Clarity Act aims to offer long-overdue federal regulatory clarity regarding digital asset regulation. It would provide a clearer definition of jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Industry insiders believe that regulatory clarity could encourage institutional involvement.

Lack of a clear legal framework has resulted in enforcement uncertainty and innovation stagnation for businesses. Regulations on the issuance and trading of stablecoins are some of the most contentious issues in the bill. The White House and Senate panels have been working to reconcile these differences. Passage by Congress would represent a major change in the course of U.S. crypto regulation.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Metaplanet CEO Defends Disclosure Practices Amid Bitcoin Strategy Criticism

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the estimated probability that the Clarity Act will pass by the end of April, according to Ripple's CEO?

ABrad Garlinghouse estimates there is a 90% chance that the Clarity Act will be passed by the U.S. Congress by the end of April.

QWhat was the main focus of the discussions between crypto industry leaders and regulators at the White House meeting?

AThe discussions focused on the foundational aspects of the Clarity Act, particularly on establishing jurisdictional clarity for major U.S. agencies over digital assets and determining whether certain tokens qualify as securities or commodities.

QWhy does the article suggest that a compromise might be necessary for the Clarity Act to pass this spring?

AA compromise may be required due to the contentious issues within the bill, such as the regulations on the issuance and trading of stablecoins, which have made the initial versions complicated and require reconciliation of differences.

QWhat are the two major U.S. regulatory agencies that the Clarity Act seeks to define jurisdiction between for digital assets?

AThe Clarity Act seeks to provide a clearer definition of jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

QWhat potential positive outcome does the article suggest could result from providing regulatory clarity for digital assets?

AIndustry insiders believe that regulatory clarity could encourage greater institutional involvement in the crypto industry, as a clear legal framework would reduce enforcement uncertainty and help overcome innovation stagnation.

İlgili Okumalar

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit13 dk önce

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit13 dk önce

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手17 dk önce

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手17 dk önce

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

A prediction market trader lost nearly $1 million after underdog Cape Verde held soccer powerhouse Spain to a 0-0 draw in their World Cup group stage match. On Polymarket, a user named "betoor619" had built a roughly $1.1 million position when Spain's implied win probability was around 92%, a low-risk, low-return strategy that backfired spectacularly. The result defied models like Goldman Sachs', which gave Spain a 25% championship probability. Cape Verde's 40-year-old goalkeeper, Vozinha, was the hero with seven key saves. The event highlights the growing scale of crypto-based prediction markets like Polymarket, where total trading volume for this single match reached $64 million.

marsbit17 dk önce

World Cup Upset! Polymarket User Loses Nearly $1 Million

marsbit17 dk önce

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit20 dk önce

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit20 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit24 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

marsbit24 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures