Menu

crypto regulation

Judge rejects joint request to void Gemini’s $5 million settlement

Judge rejects joint request to void Gemini’s $5 million settlement

, , , , , , ,

A federal judge’s refusal to void Gemini’s settlement despite regulatory and company agreement signals that recent crypto-friendly policy shifts in Washington do not automatically erase past enforcement actions. The ruling constrains the Winklevoss-led exchange’s regulatory flexibility as it pivots toward the U.S. market.

  • Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected a joint motion from Gemini and the CFTC to overturn the exchange’s $5 million settlement from January 2025.
  • Gemini has already paid the $5 million and remains bound by a court order prohibiting it from misleading the CFTC or publicly denying the settlement’s findings.
  • The ruling demonstrates that regulatory reversals and company agreement cannot retroactively erase prior court judgments, even when both parties seek to undo them.
  • $5M Settlement amount Gemini already paid to resolve the CFTC enforcement case
  • 2023 Year the CFTC sued Gemini over alleged misleading statements during regulatory review
  • 2025 Month and year Gemini settled three weeks before trial without admitting wrongdoing
  • 3 years Duration Gemini litigated the case before electing to settle

CoinDesk reported that on Friday (October 16), Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York denied an unusual joint request by Gemini and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to rescind the crypto exchange’s $5 million settlement. The CFTC had reversed its position on the case, arguing it should not have been brought, yet the judge ruled this regulatory shift was insufficient grounds to unwind the agreement that Gemini reached in January 2025.

Judge rejects CFTC reversal as basis to undo settlement

The CFTC’s decision to walk back its enforcement action represented a dramatic turn, but Judge Hellerstein found it did not justify vacating a settlement already paid and approved by the court. The regulator had alleged in 2023 that Gemini misled it during a 2017 review of a proposed bitcoin futures contract. Gemini settled roughly three weeks before trial without admitting or denying any wrongdoing.

The judge also rejected Gemini’s claim that regulators had coerced the exchange into settling.

In his ruling, Judge Hellerstein noted the timeline of Gemini’s decision: “Gemini litigated the case for approximately three years, and then, despite the preceding facts, made the calculated decision to settle the case shortly before trial.” The court’s order binding Gemini to the settlement’s terms remains in force, prohibiting the exchange from misleading the CFTC or publicly denying the settlement’s findings.

Regulatory pivot toward crypto does not erase past judgments

The decision carries broader implications for how courts treat enforcement actions when political winds shift. A more crypto-friendly regulatory environment under new leadership in Washington has prompted the CFTC to reverse course on Gemini, but the ruling shows that changed agency positions do not automatically nullify prior legal agreements, even when both parties now support undoing them. Past court judgments remain binding unless specific legal grounds for reversal are met.

Gemini, founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, has already paid the full $5 million settlement amount.

The company can continue operating in the U.S. and launching new products, but it must operate under the constraints imposed by the January 2025 settlement. This summer, Gemini announced it would exit the U.K., European Union, and Australia while cutting 25 percent of its workforce to focus on the American market and prediction markets, though it said it would maintain operations in Singapore.

Gemini has not publicly responded to Thursday’s ruling. The company’s strategic pivot toward the U.S. market now proceeds under regulatory conditions set before the recent shift toward crypto-friendly policy, raising questions about whether the Winklevoss brothers will seek to challenge the ruling further or whether they will accept the settlement terms as a cost of their domestic expansion.

The BlockWest read. What matters here is path dependency: a company cannot reset its regulatory scorecard simply because policymakers change their minds. Gemini’s decision to settle rather than litigate to conclusion three years ago now locks in obligations that friendlier regulators cannot unwind. This constrains the exchange’s operational flexibility and incentivizes future defendants to fight enforcement actions longer, knowing political reversals offer no rescue valve.

Hyperliquid founder proposes regulating firms on his blockchain, not the network itself

Hyperliquid founder proposes regulating firms on his blockchain, not the network itself

, , , , , , , ,

Hyperliquid’s founder is proposing a regulatory model that would place oversight on financial firms using his blockchain rather than the blockchain itself, potentially allowing Wall Street to build regulated trading businesses on the network without it becoming a registered exchange. The proposal could reshape how crypto infrastructure navigates U.S. regulation and sets a precedent for similar blockchain platforms seeking mainstream institutional adoption.

  • Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan proposed that U.S. regulators oversee financial firms on his blockchain rather than the network itself.
  • Payward, Kraken’s parent company, plans to offer U.S. derivatives using Hyperliquid’s technology through a regulated exchange.
  • Yan’s model would allow Wall Street firms to build regulated trading businesses on Hyperliquid without requiring the blockchain to register as an exchange.
  • August Month when President Donald Trump said CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S.
  • 2026 Year Yan outlined his regulatory proposal to Bloomberg, setting framework for institutional adoption.

Hyperliquid founder Jeff Yan on Thursday (October 15) proposed a regulatory framework in which U.S. authorities would oversee financial firms operating on his blockchain rather than regulating the blockchain network itself, according to reporting by CoinDesk. The approach would allow Wall Street institutions to build regulated trading markets on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure without requiring the network to become a registered exchange with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The regulation sits at the layer where there are controls, and indeed the deployers are the ones that exercise these controls.

Jeff Yan, Hyperliquid founder, in an interview with Bloomberg

Yan drew a parallel to how financial firms use internet infrastructure: companies operating trading markets on Hyperliquid should bear responsibility for meeting regulatory requirements rather than pushing that burden onto the protocol layer. Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures trading platform remains closed to U.S. customers, a restriction that has limited its access to American retail and institutional traders.

Payward’s regulated derivatives offering validates the layered approach

Kraken’s parent company Payward is already moving forward with a model aligned to Yan’s framework. The firm plans to launch derivatives products using Hyperliquid’s technology through a regulated exchange available to U.S. investors, even though Hyperliquid’s native perpetual futures market itself remains unavailable domestically. This arrangement would effectively let a Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulated operator build on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure without the network having to navigate federal exchange registration.

Yan stressed that the proposal is not intended to disrupt existing market infrastructure. “We’re not trying to displace anything,” he told Bloomberg. “In fact, I think the technology can benefit everyone who currently operates markets in a more traditional setting.”

Trump administration pressure precedes Yan’s formal proposal

Yan’s regulatory framework comes months after President Donald Trump said in August (2026) that the CFTC was working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S. under federal regulations. Trump’s statement signaled regulatory momentum that could have forced Hyperliquid to seek exchange status, a path that would have subjected the blockchain itself to stringent oversight. Yan’s proposal now offers an alternative: regulators could supervise individual market operators on the chain without classifying Hyperliquid as an exchange.

Whether the CFTC will adopt Yan’s layered regulatory model or pursue exchange registration for Hyperliquid remains unresolved, with the agency having made no public statement on the framework since Trump’s August comments.

The BlockWest read. Yan’s proposal shifts the regulatory burden away from the protocol layer to individual market operators, a structure that benefits both Hyperliquid and established financial firms seeking blockchain access without triggering full exchange classification. The test case is whether Payward’s CFTC-regulated derivatives platform can scale on Hyperliquid without prompting regulators to demand the blockchain itself register as an exchange.

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit blocks 27 unregistered crypto exchanges

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit blocks 27 unregistered crypto exchanges

, , , , ,

South Korea’s financial regulator has expanded its enforcement against unregistered crypto exchanges by blocking their websites, directly targeting major platforms like KuCoin and BitMart. This escalation signals a hardening regulatory stance that will reshape how foreign exchanges can reach South Korean customers and manage compliance obligations.

  • South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit blocked 27 unregistered crypto exchange websites, including KuCoin, BitMart, and MEXC, after mobile app restrictions last year.
  • Foreign exchanges must register with the FIU and meet security and anti-money-laundering requirements to legally serve South Korean customers.
  • Only 28 virtual asset service providers are currently registered with the regulator, while 44 unregistered operators have been referred to investigators.
  • 27 Unregistered crypto exchanges blocked by South Korean regulator on Tuesday
  • 28 Virtual asset service providers currently registered with the FIU
  • 44 Unregistered operators referred to investigators by the watchdog
  • $110 billion Estimated crypto outflow from South Korean exchanges during 2025

South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit announced Tuesday (October 13) that the Korea Communications Standards Commission approved website blocks for 27 unregistered cryptocurrency exchanges following reviews on Tuesday (October 6) and Wednesday (October 7), according to CoinDesk reporting. The action extends the country’s enforcement campaign beyond the mobile app restrictions imposed last year against platforms including KuCoin, BitMart, and MEXC. Overseas-operated exchange websites will face blocking, while domestically operating services face termination orders.

KuCoin pledges compliance as enforcement expands without court orders

The FIU stated that regulators can now seek website blocks immediately upon detecting unregistered activity, without requiring a court ruling or evidence of customer losses. This procedural change significantly lowers the barrier to enforcement action and accelerates the pace at which authorities can restrict access to non-compliant platforms.

KuCoin responded to the action by stating that the firm “respects applicable laws and regulations across jurisdictions and continuously strengthen our compliance framework in response to evolving regulatory requirements,” and that “user assets remain safe and secure.” BitMart, Phemex, and MEXC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Registration requirements and ongoing referrals narrow the legal path forward

To legally operate in South Korea and serve domestic customers, exchanges must register with the FIU and satisfy the country’s security and anti-money-laundering standards. The FIU has referred 44 unregistered operators to investigators and signaled that it will pursue additional website blocks against exchanges that reopen under different addresses.

Currently, only 28 virtual asset service providers hold active registration with the regulator, creating a steep compliance gap across the sector. The FIU warned that customers using unauthorized platforms may face difficulties recovering their funds and urged investors to verify their exchange’s registration status and withdraw assets from non-compliant operators.

Capital flight accelerates amid stricter rules and unclear timelines

The FIU has not specified how long the website restrictions will remain in place or set a deadline for exchanges to achieve compliance.

South Korean investors have transferred an estimated $110 billion in crypto out of domestic exchanges during 2025 in response to tightening regulatory requirements. The FIU announced it will coordinate with the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance, an industry trade association, to assist affected customers in withdrawing funds from blocked platforms where access restrictions create practical difficulties.

The country’s proposed Digital Asset Basic Law, not yet in force, would establish a comprehensive legal framework covering issuance, trading, custody, and supervision of digital assets.

The BlockWest read. Regulators have removed procedural friction from their enforcement toolkit, but the underlying question for institutional allocators remains: how many of the 44 referred operators will attempt registration versus pivoting entirely away from the South Korean market? The $110 billion outflow suggests investors are already voting with their capital.

The FIU’s next enforcement action will test whether exchanges can reopen under new addresses faster than regulators can block them, and whether the industry association DAXA can meaningfully help trapped users recover funds without triggering further capital flight.

London court applies Chinese law to seized bitcoin, strengthening UK Treasury’s claim

London court applies Chinese law to seized bitcoin, strengthening UK Treasury’s claim

, , , , ,

A London court has ruled that Chinese law, not English law, governs claims by defrauded investors to 61,000 bitcoin seized by British authorities, dramatically narrowing their path to recovery. The decision substantially improves the odds that the UK Treasury will retain the multi-billion-pound cache, though victims’ lawyers are appealing.

  • 61,000 bitcoin worth approximately £3.8 billion ($5 billion) seized by London Metropolitan Police in the investigation of Zhimin Qian.
  • Qian pleaded guilty to defrauding over 128,000 investors through a Ponzi scheme between 2014 and 2017 before converting proceeds to bitcoin and fleeing to Britain in 2017.
  • The ruling does not determine final ownership but substantially strengthens the British government’s legal position to retain the seized cryptocurrency.
  • £3.8 billion Value of seized bitcoin at time of court ruling decision
  • 128,000+ Number of Chinese investors defrauded by Zhimin Qian’s Ponzi scheme
  • 2014-2017 Years during which the Tianjin Lantian Gerui fraud operated in China
  • $25.8 billion Value of cryptocurrency held by US government addresses according to Arkham Intelligence

CoinDesk reported that Mr Justice Mark Turner of the London High Court ruled Monday that Chinese law governs property claims to 61,000 bitcoin seized during the Metropolitan Police investigation into Zhimin Qian. Qian ran a massive Ponzi scheme through her company, Tianjin Lantian Gerui Electronic Technology, defrauding more than 128,000 investors between 2014 and 2017. She converted the stolen proceeds into bitcoin and fled to the United Kingdom in 2017, where authorities eventually seized the cryptocurrency worth approximately £3.8 billion ($5 billion) at the time of the ruling.

London court applies Chinese law to victims’ claims after finding fraud occurred entirely in China

The victims had argued that English law should apply to their claims, a position that could have given them stronger property rights over the seized bitcoin. However, the judge determined that because the fraud scheme, investor losses, and fraudulent representations all occurred within China, Chinese law rather than English law must govern the property claims.

The relevant damage occurred in China. The applicants parted with their money in China. The alleged fraudulent representations were made in China. The contractual relationships thereby induced were entered into in China. The immediate economic consequences of the alleged wrongdoing were likewise suffered in China.

Mr Justice Mark Turner, London High Court

Ruling narrows victim recovery path but does not finalize ownership

The decision does not finally determine who will retain the seized bitcoin. However, it substantially narrows the route through which victims can pursue recovery claims, which increases the likelihood that the British government will eventually keep most of the cryptocurrency. The Crown Prosecution Service said a further hearing will determine whether any victims can establish an interest in the bitcoin.

According to the Financial Times, the victims’ lawyers are appealing the judgment.

US already holds billions in seized cryptocurrency as strategic asset

The UK’s handling of seized crypto contrasts with the US approach. The United States established a strategic bitcoin reserve in March 2025 that includes bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies seized in enforcement actions, with no single token acquired using taxpayer money. Addresses linked to the US government hold $25.8 billion worth of cryptocurrencies, according to blockchain data firm Arkham Intelligence, demonstrating how seized assets have become institutionalized within the federal balance sheet.

The BlockWest read. We’re watching how governments treat seized crypto as a policy asset class separate from enforcement tools. The UK court’s reasoning on jurisdictional property claims may reshape how cross-border fraud victims pursue claims against seized digital assets held by other nations, setting precedent for future cases.

The Crown Prosecution Service is scheduled to hold a further hearing to determine whether any of the defrauded investors can establish an interest in the seized bitcoin, while victims’ lawyers pursue their appeal of Mr Justice Turner’s decision.

Greece plans 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, undercutting EU peers

Greece plans 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, undercutting EU peers

, , , , , ,

Greece is moving toward taxing cryptocurrency capital gains at a rate substantially lower than most EU peers, a sign that member states are settling on divergent approaches to digital asset taxation. The 10% levy would create a competitive advantage for Greek investors relative to those in Germany, France and Italy, where rates exceed 25%.

  • Greece plans a 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency, lower than the 25%+ rates in Germany, France and Italy.
  • Annual gains up to 500 euros ($560) would be exempt from the proposed tax under the draft bill.
  • The measure is set for parliamentary submission in November after public consultation closes.
  • 10% Greece’s planned capital gains tax rate on cryptocurrency transactions
  • 500 EUR Annual exemption threshold per investor under the proposed legislation
  • 25%+ Capital gains tax rates in Germany, France and Italy for comparison

CoinDesk reported that Greece is preparing to impose a 10% capital gains tax on cryptocurrency holdings under a draft bill currently in public consultation. The exemption threshold of 500 euros ($560) annually would shelter smaller investors from the levy, while the bill itself is scheduled for parliament in November. The Greek government has yet to release revenue projections for the tax or quantify the domestic cryptocurrency market, citing difficulty in tracking trading activity given that most Greek investors use offshore platforms.

Greece’s rate undercuts major EU trading partners by more than half

The 10% levy positions Greece as a significantly more attractive jurisdiction for cryptocurrency investors relative to other EU member states. Germany, France and Italy are all setting or planning to set capital gains tax rates exceeding 25% on digital assets, creating a gap of at least 15 percentage points between Greece’s approach and its neighbors’ framework.

The disparity reflects broader divergence among EU countries on how to treat cryptocurrency taxation. Rather than adopting a bloc-wide standard, member states are developing their own regimes independently, often mirroring the tax treatment applied to traditional financial assets like equities.

Data scarcity complicates revenue forecasting for the Greek government

Greek officials face structural challenges in estimating the tax base, since most domestic investors trade on platforms headquartered outside the country rather than through Greek-regulated exchanges.

Without visibility into cross-border trading volumes or holdings of Greek nationals, the treasury has not attempted to project the revenue the 10% rate might generate. This opacity may influence how aggressively Greece enforces compliance reporting requirements when the bill reaches parliament.

The BlockWest read. Institutional allocators and crypto wealth managers will likely view Greece’s regime as a compliance arbitrage opportunity, particularly for EU-based clients already holding positions. The rate differential could incentivize migration of trading activity to Greek platforms if regulatory implementation remains light, though offshore trading by Greek nationals may persist unless reporting requirements close loopholes.

The draft bill is scheduled for parliamentary submission in November, when lawmakers will debate the 10% rate, the 500-euro exemption floor, and enforcement mechanisms. The outcome will signal whether Greece intends to enforce cross-border reporting agreements or rely primarily on voluntary disclosure.

Binance requires Brazilian users to disclose cross-border crypto transfer purposes

Binance requires Brazilian users to disclose cross-border crypto transfer purposes

, , , , ,

Binance is adding a new disclosure layer to cross-border crypto transfers for its Brazilian customers, tying the exchange more tightly into the country’s central bank reporting system. The move lands as Brazil pushes to bring crypto payments, self-custody wallets and foreign-exchange-adjacent stablecoin flows under tighter surveillance.

  • Starting Nov. 1, Binance will require Brazilian users to disclose the purpose and counterparty type of cross-border crypto transfers.
  • Binance will report these transactions monthly to Brazil’s central bank under Resolution BCB No. 521/2025.
  • Brazil’s crypto market handled $252.5 billion between July 2025 and June 2026, ranking first in Chainalysis’s 2026 global adoption index and second for cross-border flows.
  • Nov. 1 start date for Binance’s new transfer disclosure rules in Brazil
  • $252.5B Brazil crypto volume Chainalysis estimated for July 2025 to June 2026
  • R$1.13T declared stablecoin transactions since 2019, 72% of all crypto activity
  • $10,000 threshold that triggers next-day self-custody wallet reports to Coaf

Binance will require Brazilian customers to disclose the purpose of each cross-border crypto transfer and identify the counterparty type starting Nov. 1, according to reporting by CryptoSlate. The requirement covers anyone sending crypto abroad or receiving it from nonresidents, including customers moving assets to their own accounts on foreign exchanges. Transfers between Brazilian residents are not affected.

Binance will report the transactions monthly to Brazil’s central bank under Resolution BCB No. 521/2025, which folds international virtual-asset transfers into the country’s foreign-exchange framework. Withdrawals cannot be submitted until a disclosure questionnaire is completed.

Transfers above $50,000 face a 96-item purpose list

The disclosure burden scales with transaction size. Transfers of up to $50,000 use a simplified menu of 10 purposes, while anything larger forces customers to pick from 96 separate classifications, according to Binance’s support documentation. Certain international transfers are capped at $100,000 outright when the receiving counterparty is not authorized to operate in Brazil’s foreign-exchange market.

Corporate accounts carry an extra step, needing to state whether the counterparty belongs to the same economic group. Incoming deposits are not blocked outright but can sit pending, and in some cases get returned, if a user fails to supply the required information in time.

Self-hosted wallets follow a different track. Users only need to confirm wallet ownership rather than state a transfer purpose, and Binance will report those transactions to the central bank under a separate category.

Brazil’s $252.5 billion market already faces a $10,000 self-custody rule

The Binance changes sit inside a wider Brazilian effort to pull crypto payments, self-custody wallets and cross-border transfers into existing financial-surveillance and foreign-exchange rules. Regulated institutions already must report crypto transfers of at least $10,000 involving self-custody wallets to Brazil’s Financial Activities Control Council, known as Coaf, by the next business day, even absent any suspicious-activity flag.

Brazil has also restricted stablecoin use within a specific aggregated cross-border payment structure used by foreign-exchange providers. Settlement between eFX firms and overseas counterparties must now run through licensed FX transactions or qualifying nonresident real accounts, though individual international crypto transfers remain permitted outside that structure.

The restriction touches a market where stablecoins are deeply embedded in payments activity. Brazilian tax data put declared stablecoin transactions at R$1.13 trillion between August 2019 and December 2025, about 72% of all declared crypto activity over that stretch, even as Chainalysis recorded a 1.6% contraction in overall activity during the July 2025 to June 2026 window in which Brazil still ranked first overall and second for cross-border flows.

Resolution BCB 584 adds holding powers on Jan. 1

Binance described the Nov. 1 disclosure rules as separate from Brazil’s Travel Rule, which phases in for domestic transactions in 2027 and international transfers in 2028. A further tightening arrives on Jan. 1, when Resolution BCB 584 introduces precautionary holding procedures that can delay certain outbound virtual-asset transfers pending additional checks.

Binance said it will share more details before the Nov. 1 changes take effect.

The BlockWest read. For exchanges operating in Brazil, this is a compliance cost that scales with transaction size rather than a blanket capital control. The 96-category purpose list and the $100,000 cap on unauthorized counterparties push larger retail and corporate flows toward licensed intermediaries, which raises the operating bar for smaller platforms that lack Binance’s reporting infrastructure.

Binance has not yet published the full detail it promised ahead of the Nov. 1 rollout, leaving open exactly how the questionnaire will handle edge cases such as partial transfers or disputed counterparty classifications before Resolution BCB 584’s holding powers take effect on Jan. 1.

SEC and CFTC fill gaps left by failed Clarity Act vote

SEC and CFTC fill gaps left by failed Clarity Act vote

, , , , , , , ,

The failed Senate vote on the Clarity Act has left crypto regulation in limbo, with the SEC and CFTC moving unilaterally to fill gaps that lawmakers cannot seem to close. For allocators and companies in digital assets, the outcome of a narrowing legislative window will determine whether federal oversight arrives by statute or executive action, a critical distinction for legal stability.

  • The Clarity Act fell short of the 60 votes needed for cloture, failing to advance despite Republican support for its market structure rules.
  • The Trump family drew 1.4 billion dollars in crypto profits last year, fueling Democratic concerns about an ethics clause lacking independent enforcement.
  • The SEC has opened a pathway for tokenized stock trading and the CFTC sent a crypto rulemaking proposal to the White House, neither carrying the force of statute.
  • 60 Senate votes required for cloture; Clarity Act fell short of threshold
  • $1.4B Crypto profits drawn by Trump family in prior year
  • $30M Campaign budget opened by Fairshake super PAC against Ohio Senate candidate
  • Early January Time current Congress ends, leaving weeks to revive Clarity Act

According to reporting by BeInCrypto, regulators are racing to fill gaps left by the Clarity Act’s failure, the bill designed to split crypto oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The measure fell short of the 60 votes required to end debate and move to a final vote, stalling legislation that lawmakers intended to complement last year’s Genius Act, which set the first federal rules for dollar-backed stablecoins. With Congress unable to act, the SEC has cleared a path for tokenized stock trading, while the CFTC sent a separate crypto rulemaking proposal to the White House, though neither carries statutory force and both remain vulnerable to legal challenge.

Ethics Enforcement Language Divided Democrats and Republicans

Democrats did not contest the bill’s market structure rules but objected to how it addressed conflicts of interest. Hours before the vote, Republicans released revised text that gave state attorneys general a role in enforcement while keeping federal authority inside the Department of Justice. That distinction proved decisive: many Democrats argued the ethics language would not restrain a president overseeing his own regulators.

The Trump family’s $1.4 billion in crypto profits during the prior year amplified Democratic skepticism. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) stated the case plainly to The Hill, framing the vote as a Republican refusal to impose restraints on executive power. Banks added a second pressure point, warning that stablecoin interest payments permitted under the bill threatened to drain deposits from community lenders, according to industry lobbyists.

A Narrowing Window Requires Three Concessions from Republicans

Sen. Thom Tillis switched his vote to keep a path back to the bill, but time is tightening. The Senate recesses on Monday, October 5 and returns Monday, November 9, leaving only a few weeks before the current Congress ends in early January. To advance Clarity through that window, Republicans would likely need to trade away three things.

First, ethics enforcement independent of the Department of Justice. Second, a firmer bar on the president and his family holding stakes in crypto ventures while in office. Third, a stablecoin compromise that satisfies community banks.

Two of those fights are already public. Gallego’s statement captured the ethics dispute, and the banking industry’s objections captured the stablecoin fight, leaving the third point, which centers on presidential holdings, still largely beneath the surface of formal debate.

The Industry Shifts Its Bet to Political Leverage Over Legislation

Crypto’s political spending is moving faster than its legislative ethics language. Fairshake, the industry’s leading super PAC, opened a $30 million campaign against Sherrod Brown, a Democrat running to reclaim his old Ohio Senate seat, just one week after the Clarity Act failed. The timing signals that the industry is betting on midterm leverage over a quick fix inside the current Congress.

Neither regulatory pathway opened by the SEC and CFTC carries the force of statute, leaving both open to legal challenge.

The BlockWest read. We see a sector choosing political dominance over legislative certainty. A $30 million campaign against a single senator, launched days after Clarity failed, reveals the industry’s calculation: securing a friendlier Congress matters more than passing ethics rules now. But unilateral SEC and CFTC moves are fragile. The next administration, or a court challenge, could unwind both pathways, leaving crypto regulation again in flux.

Watch whether Tillis’s shift signals Republican willingness to negotiate on ethics enforcement before the Senate recess on October 5. If negotiations restart and focus on the three concessions Republicans must make, a revised Clarity Act could reach the floor before the Congress ends in early January. If Republicans hold their line on independent ethics oversight, the industry’s political spending suggests it is preparing for a 2026 legislative fight instead.

OCC grants Bastion conditional approval for national trust bank charter

OCC grants Bastion conditional approval for national trust bank charter

, , , , ,

Bastion has secured conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to form a national trust bank focused on digital asset custody, a step that puts it on a path toward federal banking oversight rather than state-by-state trust licensing. The decision adds to a wider pattern of crypto infrastructure firms seeking federal charters to serve institutional clients that demand fiduciary standards and regulatory supervision.

  • The OCC issued Corporate Decision 1391 on September 18, approving Bastion National Trust Bank’s formation.
  • The charter is non-depository, meaning Bastion cannot take conventional deposits like a retail or commercial bank.
  • Approval covers custody services and digital asset payment-clearing activities, but Bastion must still meet pre-opening requirements before launching.
  • Sep. 18 date the OCC issued Corporate Decision 1391 approving Bastion
  • 1391 the OCC decision number granting Bastion’s conditional trust charter

Bastion is moving closer to operating under a federal banking charter after the OCC granted conditional approval for a national trust bank structure. The regulator’s Corporate Decision 1391, dated September 18, permits Bastion National Trust Bank, still in formation, to proceed with a charter built around custody and digital asset services. The story was first reported by NewsBTC.

The charter is not a conventional banking license. It is specifically a non-depository national trust bank, meaning Bastion will not accept deposits the way a commercial or retail bank does.

OCC Decision 1391 Sets Custody-Focused Federal Framework

Federal trust charters have grown in importance for digital asset firms because they provide a clearer regulatory path for institutional custody than state-level alternatives. Large funds, corporations and financial institutions increasingly want more than a wallet provider and an informal guarantee of safekeeping. They expect governance structures, fiduciary standards, independent audits, and regulatory oversight paired with defined custody responsibilities.

A national trust charter gives Bastion access to that institutional market under direct OCC supervision. The approval also extends to digital asset payment-clearing activities, which could broaden the charter’s use beyond simple asset storage into settlement functions.

Pre-Opening Requirements Still Stand Between Bastion And Launch

Conditional approval is not final approval. Bastion must still satisfy the OCC’s standard pre-opening requirements before the bank can begin operating under the new charter.

Those requirements typically cover capital adequacy, systems infrastructure, management qualifications, compliance programs and overall operational readiness. The OCC decision marks a significant regulatory milestone for Bastion, but the formation process is not complete.

Crypto Custody Firms Keep Moving Toward Federal Oversight

Bastion’s approval fits a broader trend of digital asset infrastructure shifting from largely unregulated territory into federal banking and securities frameworks. Custody firms are pursuing trust charters, exchanges are seeking derivatives registrations, and stablecoin issuers are applying for payment licenses. Each move brings previously separate crypto infrastructure under established regulatory regimes.

The report does not name other firms currently pursuing similar OCC trust charters, nor does it detail Bastion’s existing client base or assets under custody. Those gaps leave open how Bastion’s charter will compare in scale to peers once operational.

The BlockWest read. For institutional allocators, a federally chartered custody option under OCC supervision changes the due-diligence calculus, since fiduciary obligations and examination cycles differ meaningfully from state trust or unregulated custodial arrangements. Firms weighing where to park digital assets now have another federally supervised counterparty once Bastion clears its pre-opening conditions.

Bastion has not disclosed a target date for satisfying the OCC’s pre-opening conditions, leaving the timeline for the bank’s full operational launch unresolved.

Senate blocks CLARITY Act in crypto regulation push, markets slide

Senate blocks CLARITY Act in crypto regulation push, markets slide

, , , , ,

The CLARITY Act’s collapse in the Senate leaves crypto regulation in limbo, with immediate price damage already reflected in markets but longer-term institutional adoption still uncertain. Negotiations broke down over presidential ethics rules and stablecoin enforcement, putting the bill’s revival in doubt before the current Congress adjourns in December.

  • The Senate voted 49-50 on a procedural motion on Tuesday (September 15), falling 11 votes short of the 60 needed to advance the CLARITY Act.
  • Democrats demanded senior officials sell large crypto holdings outright, while Republicans offered a qualified blind-trust option as compromise.
  • Bitcoin fell over 5%, Ethereum dropped more than 6%, and XRP lost roughly 12% as negotiations collapsed before the official vote.
  • 49-50 Senate procedural vote count, 11 votes below the threshold needed
  • 5% Bitcoin price decline during Tuesday’s selloff compared to prior close
  • 12% XRP decline at its worst point during the market reaction
  • 60 Senate votes required to invoke cloture and advance the bill

The CLARITY Act, the crypto industry’s most ambitious push for federal regulatory clarity in years, stalled in the Senate on Tuesday (September 15) when lawmakers failed a procedural vote to begin floor debate, according to reporting by BeInCrypto. The motion to proceed received 49 votes in favor and 50 against, leaving the legislation 11 votes short of the 60 required for cloture. The vote centered on whether the Senate should begin considering the bill rather than on final passage, but the shortfall exposed unbridged disagreements over ethics rules, enforcement mechanisms and stablecoin regulation that Republicans and Democrats could not resolve in final-hour negotiations.

Divestment Rules and Presidential Finance Derailed Final Negotiations

The sharpest divide between negotiators concerned how strictly the bill should govern senior officials’ crypto holdings. The Republican proposal would have required senior elected officials, federal judges and their spouses with a “significant financial interest” in certain crypto companies to either sell that interest or place it in a qualified blind trust. Democrats pushed for a stricter standard, demanding that officials with a “very large interest” in a crypto company sell the holding entirely, eliminating the blind-trust option for those positions.

Democratic negotiator Angela Alsobrooks identified divestment as the major unresolved issue before the vote. The distinction mattered concretely: a Republican official could retain financial exposure to a crypto investment through a blind trust, whereas the Democratic standard would have forced complete divestment of very large holdings. That debate carried particular weight given Trump family involvement in the crypto sector. Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Barron Trump have links to World Liberty Financial, a crypto platform that has generated substantial revenue for the family and the wider Trump organization.

Democrats also sought to expand ethics restrictions to cover the children of covered officials, a demand Republicans rejected on Tuesday morning. Sen. Cynthia Lummis’ office countered that Democrats were repeating demands already considered during months of prior negotiations.

State-Level Enforcement Left Democrats Unpersuaded on Presidential Accountability

Republicans had already moved significantly on enforcement architecture. Earlier bill versions gave the U.S. attorney general the main role in enforcing ethics rules, a design Democrats criticized as problematic because a Justice Department controlled by the sitting president would police that same president. The final Republican draft moved enforcement authority to state attorneys general as well, a concession President Trump accepted before the vote.

Democrats still argued the mechanism left too much authority within the federal administration, making enforcement difficult in practice. Without additional state-level teeth, the proposal retained the core problem of a controlled executive branch enforcing rules against itself.

Stablecoin Rewards and Anti-Money Laundering Disputes Remained Open

Beyond ethics, unresolved technical disputes blocked passage. Banks have raised alarms that stablecoins offering yield could pull deposits out of the traditional financial system, potentially harming smaller community banks that depend on deposit funding to make loans. The final CLARITY draft gave the Treasury secretary temporary authority to restrict stablecoin rewards if outflows damaged the banking system, but some lawmakers wanted stronger safeguards. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican who opposed advancing the bill, flagged concerns about community bank protection.

Democrats also pushed for stronger rules around money laundering, national security and illicit finance. The latest Republican draft made changes to decentralized finance regulation and anti-money laundering requirements, but lawmakers including Elizabeth Warren argued more work was needed. These disputes, while secondary to the ethics standoff, contributed to the wider breakdown.

Markets Priced in Failure Before the Official Vote

Crypto assets fell sharply during and before Tuesday’s vote as traders recognized negotiations were collapsing. Bitcoin declined more than 5% during the selloff, Ethereum dropped more than 6%, and XRP fell as much as 12%. Coinbase and Circle shares fell as much as 10%. Markets began declining before the Senate voted because traders could see the breakdown in morning negotiations, allowing them to reduce risk exposure ahead of the official count.

The selloff coincided with other market pressures unrelated to CLARITY. U.S. Treasury yields climbed above 5%, oil prices surged above $100, and markets were preparing for a Federal Reserve interest-rate decision scheduled for Wednesday (September 16). Higher interest rates generally reduce the appeal of risk assets including cryptocurrencies. Dennis Porter, co-founder of Satoshi Action Fund, argued to BeInCrypto more than a month before the vote that markets had already priced in failure, with prediction market Polymarket giving CLARITY only around a 16% chance of becoming law in 2026 at that time. Porter suggested that a failed vote could therefore cause less damage than investors feared, since an unexpected shock would have larger market impact than an anticipated outcome.

Resurrection Possible but Unlikely Without Fresh Compromise

The bill is stalled but not dead. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis switched his vote to “no” at the end of Tuesday’s count, a procedural move that preserves a path to seek reconsideration if Republicans and Democrats reach a new compromise. Lawmakers could attempt another procedural vote before October 5 if negotiators find common ground. The Senate is scheduled for a state work period from October 5 through November 6 covering the November 3 midterm elections, then could try again during the post-election session. December 18 is the target adjournment date for the current Congress, though January 2027 marks the hard deadline: if CLARITY does not pass before the current Congress ends, lawmakers would need to introduce new legislation in the next Congress.

The key question now is whether Republicans and Democrats are willing to reopen ethics negotiations. Without a compromise on divestment and enforcement, CLARITY still lacks the 60 votes required to advance.

The BlockWest read. Crypto institutions should not expect regulatory clarity on this timeline. Even if negotiations resume and both sides compromise on ethics, the bill’s path to 60 votes remains narrow. Larger players may now accelerate direct engagement with the SEC and CFTC rather than wait for Congress, shifting the regulatory burden onto existing agency authority rather than new statutory frameworks.

Observers should watch for signals from senior negotiators—particularly Democratic leadership and key Republican sponsors—by late September on whether bipartisan talks will resume before the October 5 deadline. If no serious negotiations restart by then, CLARITY’s revival becomes unlikely before Congress adjourns in December, pushing comprehensive crypto regulation into the next Congress and potentially triggering a new round of piecemeal agency rulemaking.

Senate blocks Digital Asset Markets CLARITY Act, Bitcoin falls below $75,000

Senate blocks Digital Asset Markets CLARITY Act, Bitcoin falls below $75,000

, , , , , , ,

Bitcoin dropped below $75,000 following a Senate vote that blocked the Digital Asset Markets CLARITY Act from advancing without further debate, signaling continued regulatory uncertainty for crypto assets. The price decline coincided with a surge in forced liquidations across leveraged positions, adding to market volatility at a critical juncture for legislation that sponsors have championed as essential clarity for the sector.

  • Bitcoin fell 2.3% in 24 hours to just below $75,000 following the Senate vote against advancing the CLARITY Act.
  • Liquidations surged over 200% in the past day, reaching approximately $760 million with $290 million occurring in a single hour.
  • The bill’s failure to advance does not kill the legislation but opens it to further debate, delaying its progression toward a vote.
  • $75,000 Bitcoin’s price following the Senate vote, down from higher levels.
  • 2.3% Bitcoin’s 24-hour decline measured from the vote announcement.
  • $760M Total liquidations in the past day across crypto markets.
  • 200% Surge in liquidation volume compared to the prior day.

According to CryptoPotato reporting, Bitcoin’s price fell to slightly below $75,000 in the minutes following confirmation that the Digital Asset Markets CLARITY Act would not secure sufficient votes to move forward in the Senate. The drop represented a 2.3% decline over the prior 24 hours and triggered a wave of forced position closures across cryptocurrency markets as leverage unwinds accelerated volatility. Liquidations across all digital assets surged by more than 200% in the same period, with the total value reaching approximately $760 million, of which over $290 million occurred within a single hour as prices moved sharply downward.

Broader Market Selloff Extends Beyond Bitcoin

The price pressure extended across major altcoins, with Ethereum declining 3.5%, Solana and TRX each falling 2.2%, and HYPE dropping 3.8% in the same timeframe. The synchronized nature of the decline pointed to broader sentiment deterioration in response to the regulatory development rather than weakness isolated to a single asset.

Senate Vote Delays Rather Than Kills the CLARITY Act

The Senate’s failure to advance the bill does not eliminate the legislation from consideration but instead allows debates to continue and delays its path forward.

Historical precedent shows that some sponsors withdraw legislation after it fails to advance at this procedural stage, though the fate of the CLARITY Act remains uncertain. The bill’s status now depends on whether backers choose to continue pursuing it through additional debate or allow it to stall. Concurrent with the market reaction, the U.S. Federal Reserve is scheduled to announce its interest rate decision on Thursday (September 17), an announcement likely to generate substantial additional volatility across financial markets including digital assets.

The BlockWest read. The liquidations spike reveals how much leveraged capital had positioned for regulatory tailwinds from the CLARITY Act. This suggests allocators had priced in a higher probability of passage than the Senate vote reflected. The real risk ahead is whether the bill’s sponsors maintain political momentum or whether today’s price action and forced selling discourage further advancement.

Watch for whether the CLARITY Act’s sponsors file a motion to reconsider or attempt to bring the bill back for another vote, a move that would require renewed negotiation over its terms. The Federal Reserve’s interest rate announcement on Thursday will likely dominate price action in the near term and could provide a secondary catalyst for either stabilization or further weakness in crypto markets.

Load More

Back To Top
© BlockWest 2026
BlockWest Media LLC

Equities, AI, and blue-chip crypto, covered as one connected market.

Sections

Company

Legal

Follow

𝕏 ▶ in

© 2026 BlockWest. All rights reserved.