Senate Ag Committee Unveils Crypto Market Structure Bill Draft, Markup Set For Jan. 27

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-23Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-23

Анотація

The Senate Agriculture Committee has unveiled a new draft of the crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) and scheduled a markup session for January 27. This version focuses on expanding the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) authority to regulate cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, allocating $150 million for implementation. Notably, it excludes regulations on stablecoin yields—a key point of contention that led Coinbase to withdraw support from the Senate Banking Committee's version. The Agriculture Committee's draft also provides a pathway for DeFi to avoid CFTC regulation and protects developers from liability. While the Agriculture Committee aims to advance the bill, the Banking Committee is expected to delay its portion of the legislation, potentially pushing broader discussions to late February or March.

Following the unsuccessful markup of the long-awaited crypto market Structure bill (CLARITY Act) by the Senate Banking Committee, the Senate Agriculture Committee unveiled a new draft of the bill, with a scheduled markup session for Tuesday, January 27.

Stablecoin Yield Regulations Excluded

The Agriculture Committee’s version of the bill primarily addresses regulations under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which would gain expanded authority to regulate cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH).

In contrast, the Senate Banking Committee’s section of the legislation focuses on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and its oversight. Notably, the Agriculture draft allocates $150 million to support the CFTC in the implementation of the proposed law.

Market expert James Murphy reviewed the key provisions of the new draft and expressed optimism about its implications. He highlighted that the bill creates a pathway for decentralized finance (DeFi) to avoid CFTC regulation, providing important protections for developers and specific service providers from liability.

The Senate Agriculture Committee’s draft also excludes any regulations concerning stablecoin yields. This decision is significant, particularly as it addresses a critical provision that resulted in Coinbase (COIN) withdrawing its support for the Banking Committee’s version of the bill last week.

The Banking Committee’s version of the CLARITY Act aims to limit the yield that stablecoin platforms can offer. While banks support this approach due to concerns about deposits potentially flowing out, crypto firms oppose it, arguing that such restrictions hinder competition.

In contrast, the Agriculture Committee bill seeks to exempt stablecoins from CFTC regulations and relies on existing frameworks like the already passed stablecoin bill, or GENIUS Act, which mandates that stablecoins be fully backed.

Banking Committee Delays Crypto Bill’s Consideration

Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman expressed appreciation for the collaborative efforts among lawmakers, particularly mentioning Senator Cory Booker and his staff for their contributions to consumer protections and CFTC authority.

Despite the remaining differences in fundamental policy issues with its Democratic counterpart, the Committee’s chair emphasized the importance of moving the bill forward:

While it’s unfortunate that we couldn’t reach an agreement, I am grateful for the collaboration that has made this legislation better. It’s time we move this bill, and I look forward to the markup next week.

But amid the broader cryptocurrency industry’s optimism surrounding the Agriculture Committee’s version of the market structure bill, the timeline for advancing the overall legislation remains uncertain.

Bloomberg reported that the Senate Banking Committee is expected to delay consideration of its own portion of the bill, which could push discussions into late February or even March.

The 1-D chart shows the total crypto market cap valuation currently at $2.9 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the key difference between the Senate Agriculture Committee's draft of the crypto market structure bill and the Banking Committee's version regarding regulatory authority?

AThe Agriculture Committee's version primarily addresses regulations under the CFTC, which would gain authority over cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, while the Banking Committee's section focuses on the SEC and its oversight.

QWhy did the Senate Agriculture Committee's draft of the bill exclude regulations on stablecoin yields, and why is this significant?

AThe exclusion of stablecoin yield regulations is significant because it addresses a key provision that caused Coinbase to withdraw its support for the Banking Committee's version, which aimed to limit the yields stablecoin platforms can offer.

QAccording to market expert James Murphy, what important protection does the Agriculture Committee's draft provide for the DeFi sector?

AJames Murphy highlighted that the bill creates a pathway for decentralized finance (DeFi) to avoid CFTC regulation, providing important protections for developers and specific service providers from liability.

QWhat did Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman say about the collaboration on the bill despite not reaching a full agreement?

ASenator Boozman expressed appreciation for the collaborative efforts, stating that while it's unfortunate they couldn't reach an agreement, the collaboration made the legislation better, and it's time to move the bill forward.

QWhat is the reported timeline for the Senate Banking Committee's consideration of its portion of the crypto market structure bill?

ABloomberg reported that the Senate Banking Committee is expected to delay consideration of its portion of the bill, which could push discussions into late February or even March.

Пов'язані матеріали

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

No one truly teaches you how to do research. You're often given a desk, a pre-selected problem, and vague instructions to "create something new." Consequently, many people reverse-engineer the job based on visible outputs—papers, posts, announcements—learning only how to *appear* like a researcher rather than how to *become* one. True research capability is built from stacking small, trainable skills, nearly all of which can be developed through deliberate practice. **Pick Your Own Problem:** Most researchers absorb problems from advisors or trends, lacking the underlying reasoning. Choosing a problem you genuinely care about, as John Schulman advises, leads to original work. Develop "taste" like a muscle: predict experiment outcomes, guess paper results from methods, and track which findings remain important over time. **Upgrade Your Inputs:** Relying on shared reading lists (arXiv hot lists, filtered group chats) leads to unoriginal conclusions. Undervalued old literature often holds crucial insights (e.g., MoE, LSTM, backpropagation). Richard Sutton's "The Bitter Lesson" or Claude Shannon's 1952 talk on creative thinking are more predictive than lengthy modern surveys. Breadth matters as much as depth: draw from neuroscience, mechanism design, hardware knowledge, and honest statistics. Read papers directly, especially appendices and limitations sections. **Write Everything Down:** As Paul Graham noted, writing exposes flaws in seemingly mature ideas. Writing is the cheapest defense against self-deception. Following Feynman's principle, Darwin programmatically wrote down facts contradicting his theory to combat memory bias. Maintain a detailed log of hypotheses, setups, predictions, results, and updated understandings. Reviewing past logs fosters essential humility.

marsbit17 хв тому

How to Do Research Well: Deliberately Practice the Real Skills That Matter

marsbit17 хв тому

Following US Ban on Fable 5, Zhipu AI's Stock Soars 47%

On June 15th, shares of Zhipu AI surged dramatically on the Hong Kong stock market, peaking at a 47.6% gain before closing 32.82% higher. This sharp increase was directly triggered by two recent industry events. On June 12th, Anthropic announced it was suspending global access to its latest flagship models, Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5, to comply with a U.S. government export control order. The next day, Zhipu AI announced it would open access to its latest open-source flagship model, GLM-5.2, under the permissive MIT license. The Anthropic incident highlighted a critical issue beyond raw model capability: the risk of sudden, unpredictable loss of access to advanced AI models, especially for developers and enterprises deeply integrated with them. This has shifted industry and market focus toward factors like stability, sustainable access, and controllability. Zhipu's move, promoting "frontier intelligence for all," positions its openly available model as a reliable and accessible alternative. The GLM-5.2 model emphasizes "Long Horizon Task" capabilities with a 1M context window, targeting complex, multi-step coding and engineering workflows where maintaining context is crucial. Analysts note this event exposes the risk of dependency on closed-source models subject to single jurisdictional controls, potentially accelerating a shift toward domestic base models and localized deployments. The market's reaction signals a new valuation dimension in AI: providers who can offer stable, long-term, and sustainably accessible AI capabilities are gaining strategic importance.

marsbit41 хв тому

Following US Ban on Fable 5, Zhipu AI's Stock Soars 47%

marsbit41 хв тому

Fully Entering the AI Era: Alipay Bets on Conversation, WeChat Holds Fast to Social

In May 2026, Alipay announced over 300 million AI payment transactions. Shortly after, WeChat opened its mini-programs for AI integration, sparking controversy by requiring developer source code access. This highlights their diverging approaches to AI integration. Alipay is testing "Project Treasure," an optional AI-native interface replacing traditional app grids with a conversational window. Users can command complex tasks (e.g., "book a ride and order coffee") handled end-to-end by AI. This shift follows an abandoned standalone AI app, focusing instead on enhancing its existing user base. For unmodified mini-programs, Alipay's AI uses "screen-reading" to simulate user interactions, bypassing the need for developer overhaul. It also introduced "Token Pay" for micro-transactions and "AI Wallets" for autonomous agent spending. WeChat, prioritizing its core social function, is taking an embedded approach. Its AI agent will operate within existing contexts like group chats and official accounts, assisting without a separate interface. To enable this, WeChat offers developers two paths: granting source code access for direct AI control ("Automatic Mode") or manually encapsulating services into standardized "Skills." Both place significant burden on developers. Key differences emerge in handling legacy services: WeChat demands developer cooperation (code or labor), while Alipay's screen-reading offers immediate, if potentially less stable, compatibility. Alipay's 3 billion AI transactions demonstrate user acceptance of AI-driven commercial actions. The divergent strategies may reshape mini-program ecosystems—Alipay passively "AI-fying" services, WeChat potentially favoring resource-rich developers—and set competing technical standards. Ultimately, the competition centers on where users entrust the command to "help me get things done."

marsbit41 хв тому

Fully Entering the AI Era: Alipay Bets on Conversation, WeChat Holds Fast to Social

marsbit41 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片