CFTC Chair Says Crypto Market Structure Bill Nears Final Approval

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-18Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-18

Анотація

The long-debated crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, is nearing a critical point in Washington as end-of-month negotiations continue. CFTC Chair Mike Selig expressed strong confidence that the legislation is close to becoming law, aiming to establish clear U.S. rules for digital assets and prevent regulatory overreach. However, a major unresolved issue is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer yield. Banks oppose such rewards, while crypto industry groups propose a framework permitting yield generation in DeFi systems. Despite ongoing division, another meeting between stakeholders may occur soon to advance the bill.

With the end of the month approaching and negotiations still ongoing, the long-debated crypto market structure legislation known as the CLARITY Act is facing a critical moment in Washington.

The bill, which aims to establish clear rules for digital asset markets in the United States, has encountered significant obstacles in recent weeks as lawmakers, regulators, banks and crypto industry representatives continue to debate key provisions.

Despite the hurdles, newly appointed Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig has expressed strong confidence that the legislation is close to becoming law.

CFTC Chief Optimistic On CLARITY Act

In an interview with FOX Business on Tuesday, Selig said the bill is “about to” be signed, signaling optimism that Congress will ultimately push it across the finish line.

“We want to ensure that the legal framework for cryptocurrencies is adaptable to future developments. We cannot allow a second Gary Gensler to come in and destroy everything. We’re going to get this thing across the line,” he added.

Selig’s remarks build on statements he made earlier this month. On February 3, he argued that the market structure bill moving through Congress could position the United States as the “gold standard” for crypto regulation.

According to Selig, the industry has operated for too long without clear guidelines, causing businesses and innovation to migrate offshore. “The goal [of this legislation] is just to get some clarity.

It’s been too long with these markets just languishing, and they’ve fled offshore,” he said at the time. He also projected that a finalized bill could land on President Donald Trump’s desk “in the next couple of months,” praising the president’s leadership and support for the cryptocurrency sector.

However, as the White House’s end-of-month deadline looms, a major sticking point remains unresolved: whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield.

Crypto, Banks Remain Divided On Stablecoin Rewards

Journalist Eleanor Terrett reported Monday for Crypto In America that discussions between the crypto and banking industries have yet to produce a compromise on the issue, which is widely seen as the linchpin for advancing the CLARITY Act.

Last Tuesday, policy staff from banks and crypto firms met at the White House. The meeting concluded without agreement after banking representatives circulated a one-page document titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles,” which argued that stablecoins should not provide yield or rewards to holders.

In response, the Digital Chamber, a trade group representing more than 130 crypto firms and several traditional banks with digital asset exposure, released its own proposed framework on Friday.

The organization suggested principles that would allow payment stablecoins to generate yield within decentralized finance (DeFi) systems.

The group said its recommendations are intended to preserve stablecoins as payment tools, safeguard DeFi liquidity and reinforce US dollar dominance, while introducing a rigorous, data-driven method to assess potential impacts on bank deposits.

Banks have not formally responded to the Digital Chamber’s proposal. However, a source close to the Senate Banking Committee described the document to Crypto In America as “constructive,” though cautioning that some elements may be too broad to gain full support from financial institutions.

The next steps remain uncertain. Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House Crypto Council, told Yahoo Finance on Friday that another meeting could take place as early as this week, though no specific date was provided.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation at $2.29 trillion as of Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from Openart, chart from TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the name of the crypto market structure legislation discussed in the article and who expressed confidence in its approval?

AThe legislation is called the CLARITY Act. Newly appointed Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chair Mike Selig expressed strong confidence that it is close to becoming law.

QAccording to CFTC Chair Mike Selig, what is the main goal of the CLARITY Act?

AThe main goal of the legislation is to provide clarity and establish a clear legal framework for digital asset markets in the United States, which has been lacking and causing businesses to move offshore.

QWhat is the major unresolved issue preventing the advancement of the CLARITY Act, as reported by journalist Eleanor Terrett?

AThe major unresolved issue is whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield or rewards to their holders.

QHow did the banking industry and the Digital Chamber's proposals on stablecoin yields differ?

ABanking representatives argued that stablecoins should not provide any yield or rewards. In contrast, the Digital Chamber proposed a framework that would allow payment stablecoins to generate yield within decentralized finance (DeFi) systems.

QWhat did CFTC Chair Mike Selig say about the potential impact of this legislation on the United States?

ASelig argued that the market structure bill could position the United States as the 'gold standard' for cryptocurrency regulation.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год тому

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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год тому

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.

marsbit2 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 год тому

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.

marsbit3 год тому

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

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片