Crypto Market Structure Bill Paused: Senate Banking Cancels Markup

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-15Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-15

Анотація

The Senate Banking Committee has postponed the markup of a crypto market structure bill following opposition from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who argued the current draft is "materially worse than the status quo" and would effectively ban tokenized equities, restrict DeFi, and stifle innovation. Committee Chairman Tim Scott described the delay as a tactical pause to continue bipartisan negotiations, emphasizing the goal of establishing clear rules to protect consumers and national security. The move has split the crypto industry, with firms like a16z, Circle, and Ripple expressing support for the legislative effort, while others, including Bitwise Asset Management, sided with Coinbase's stance that "no bill is better than a bad bill." Despite the setback, key figures like Galaxy Digital's Mike Novogratz remain optimistic about a eventual compromise, noting ongoing good-faith discussions among lawmakers. The total crypto market cap was $3.22 trillion at the time of reporting.

The Senate Banking Committee has pulled the scheduled Thursday markup of its crypto asset market structure bill after a late-stage flare-up with Coinbase, freezing what had looked like a tightening path toward action. The pause lands at a sensitive moment for Washington’s crypto negotiations: industry heavyweights are publicly splitting over the Senate draft even as lawmakers insist bipartisan talks are still alive.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Wednesday the committee will postpone the markup “as bipartisan negotiations continue,” framing the delay as tactical rather than terminal. “I’ve spoken with leaders across the crypto industry, the financial sector, and my Democratic and Republican colleagues, and everyone remains at the table working in good faith,” Scott wrote on X. “As we take a brief pause before moving to a markup, this market structure bill reflects months of serious bipartisan negotiations and real input from innovators, investors, and law enforcement.”

Scott positioned the bill as a foundational framework rather than a narrow industry carveout. “The goal is to deliver clear rules of the road that protect consumers, strengthen our national security, and ensure the future of finance is built in the United States,” he added.

Coinbase Breaks Ranks Late

The immediate catalyst was Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who said the exchange “can’t support the bill as written” after reviewing “the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs.”

Armstrong argued the draft contains multiple provisions he says would be “materially worse than the current status quo,” contending that it amounts to “a defacto ban on tokenized equities,” includes “DeFi prohibitions” that expand government access to financial records and erode privacy, and would “stifl[e] innovation” by weakening the CFTC relative to the SEC.

He also pointed to “draft amendments” he said “would kill rewards on stablecoins,” warning the changes could allow banks to “ban their competition.” Armstrong’s bottom line was blunt: “We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.” Still, he struck a conciliatory note about process and odds of a compromise, adding he was “quite optimistic” that continued work could produce “the right outcome.”

That posture split the difference between hard opposition to the text and support for continued negotiations,an important distinction as the markup process is typically where senators offer and vote amendments.

Crypto Industry Split

Coinbase’s stance quickly triggered a counter-response from other major crypto firms and advocacy groups backing the Senate Banking GOP’s push. Support was voiced by a16z, Circle, Kraken, The Digital Chamber, Ripple, and Coin Center, coalescing into a public front aimed at keeping momentum intact despite the delay.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse cast the bill as overdue but directionally positive. “While long-overdue, this move by @SenatorTimScott and @BankingGOP on market structure is a massive step forward in providing workable frameworks for crypto, while continuing to protect consumers,” he wrote. He said Ripple would remain engaged, adding: “We are at the table and will continue to move forward with fair debate. I remain optimistic that issues can be resolved through the mark-up process.”

Meanwhile, Tim Draper said Armstrong’s opposition is justified, arguing the Senate compromise “is worse than no bill at all” and suggesting that “the banks have been meddling.”

Ryan Rasmussen, Head of Research at Bitwise Asset Management , called the current CLARITY Act draft broadly harmful, listing tokenization, stablecoins, DeFi, privacy, builders, users, investors, and innovation, and concluded that the industry would “rather have no bill than a bad bill.”

White House Crypto Czar David Sacks urged the industry to treat the delay as a narrow window to align rather than an opening to splinter. “Passage of market structure legislation remains as close as it’s ever been,” Sacks wrote. “The crypto industry should use this pause to resolve any remaining differences. Now is the time to set the rules of the road and secure the future of this industry.”

Galaxy Digitall’s CEO Mike Novogratz struck a more optimistic tone, saying: “While the crypto bill might be delayed to keep working on it, I am very confident that a bill will get done soon. I have spoken to over 10 senators on both sides of the aisle in the past 24 hrs and I believe they all are working in good faith to get something done. Always gets tense at the end.”

At press time, the total crypto market cap stood at $3.22 trillion.

Total crypto market cap needs to overcome the 20-and 50-week EMAs, 1-week chart | Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhy did the Senate Banking Committee postpone the markup of the crypto market structure bill?

AThe Senate Banking Committee postponed the markup to allow more time for bipartisan negotiations to continue, as stated by Chairman Tim Scott, who framed the delay as tactical rather than terminal.

QWhat were Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong's main objections to the draft bill?

ABrian Armstrong argued the draft bill contained provisions that would be 'materially worse than the current status quo,' including a de facto ban on tokenized equities, DeFi prohibitions that expand government access to financial records, and measures that would stifle innovation by weakening the CFTC relative to the SEC.

QWhich major crypto firms and advocacy groups publicly supported the Senate Banking GOP's push for the bill?

ASupport for the bill was voiced by a16z, Circle, Kraken, The Digital Chamber, Ripple, and Coin Center.

QWhat was the overall sentiment of Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse regarding the bill?

ABrad Garlinghouse viewed the bill as a long-overdue but massive step forward, calling it a positive framework for crypto that protects consumers, and he remained optimistic that issues could be resolved through the mark-up process.

QHow did White House Crypto Czar David Sacks advise the crypto industry to respond to the delay?

ADavid Sacks urged the industry to use the pause as a narrow window to resolve remaining differences and align, rather than splinter, emphasizing that this is the time to set the rules of the road and secure the industry's future.

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.

marsbit4 год тому

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

marsbit4 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片