Crypto Clarity At Standstill In Congress, Says Fed Governor On Market Structure Bill

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-10Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-10

Анотація

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller stated that progress on the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, has stalled in Congress due to disagreements over key issues. The main points of contention include stablecoin yield provisions and the Fed's proposed "skinny" master accounts. Crypto advocates argue that yield-bearing stablecoins promote adoption and competition, while banking groups oppose them, warning of potential deposit outflows from traditional banks. Additionally, the White House has scheduled a meeting to address tensions between crypto firms and banks. The Fed aims to propose regulations for skinny master accounts by the fourth quarter of this year.

Federal Reserve (Fed) Governor Christopher Waller said on Monday that progress on the long‐anticipated crypto market structure legislation, commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act, appears to have stalled in Congress.

His remarks come as lawmakers remain divided over key issues, most notably stablecoin yield provisions and the Federal Reserve’s proposal for so‐called “skinny” master accounts, a topic earlier highlighted by Crypto In America.

Stablecoin Yield Fight Fuels CLARITY Act Stalemate

Waller’s comments quickly drew reaction from market observers. Crypto analyst MartyParty noted on X that the governor’s assessment reflects the ongoing deadlock surrounding the CLARITY Act.

According to MartyParty, the delay is not accidental. He argued that resistance from the banking sector has intensified, particularly around the treatment of stablecoin yields and rewards.

At the center of the dispute is whether crypto platforms such as exchanges and digital wallets should be allowed to offer interest‐like returns or incentives on stablecoins held by users.

Crypto industry advocates contend that yield‐bearing stablecoins encourage adoption, improve efficiency, and increase competition in the payments market. Banking groups, however, strongly oppose this view.

They argue that stablecoin yields pose a direct challenge to traditional bank deposits, warning that higher returns—often in the range of 3% to 5% or more, compared with near‐zero yields on many bank accounts—could trigger massive deposit outflows.

In MartyParty’s assessment, banks are concerned that passage of the CLARITY Act could move trillions of dollars onto crypto‐based payment rails, breaking what he described as the banking sector’s “closed‐loop system” and putting pressure on long‐established profit models.

Crypto And Banks Head Back To White House

Amid rising tensions, MartyParty also reported that the White House has scheduled a second meeting for Tuesday, February 10, aimed at easing friction between cryptocurrency firms and banks over stablecoin yield payments.

The meeting is expected to include senior policy officials rather than company chief executives, along with representatives from banking and crypto trade associations.

Another major point of contention is the Federal Reserve’s proposed “skinny” master account model. Under this framework, eligible fintech and crypto firms would be granted limited access to the Fed’s payment systems without receiving full banking privileges.

The debate around skinny accounts became especially clear through 44 comment letters submitted to the Federal Reserve. Crypto firms and industry groups generally expressed support, while banking organizations responded with caution or outright opposition.

Banking groups raised concerns about oversight and risk. The American Bankers Association (ABA) warned that many entities likely to qualify for payment accounts lack a long‐term supervisory track record and are not subject to consistent federal safety standards.

Governor Waller indicated that he hopes the Federal Reserve will be able to publish proposed regulations for skinny master accounts in the fourth quarter of this year.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.35 trillion as of Monday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main reason for the stalled progress of the CLARITY Act in Congress, according to the article?

AThe main reason is the ongoing deadlock over key issues, particularly the dispute around stablecoin yield provisions and the Federal Reserve's proposal for 'skinny' master accounts.

QWhy do banking groups oppose the idea of stablecoin yields?

ABanking groups argue that stablecoin yields pose a direct challenge to traditional bank deposits, as higher returns (often 3% to 5% or more) compared to near-zero yields on many bank accounts could trigger massive deposit outflows and threaten their established profit models.

QWhat is the purpose of the White House meeting scheduled for February 10th?

AThe White House meeting aims to ease friction between cryptocurrency firms and banks over the contentious issue of stablecoin yield payments.

QWhat is the Federal Reserve's proposed 'skinny' master account model?

AThe 'skinny' master account model is a framework where eligible fintech and crypto firms would be granted limited access to the Fed’s payment systems without receiving full banking privileges.

QWhat was a key concern raised by the American Bankers Association (ABA) regarding the 'skinny' master accounts?

AThe ABA warned that many entities likely to qualify for these payment accounts lack a long-term supervisory track record and are not subject to consistent federal safety standards, raising concerns about oversight and risk.

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