08-25-2026 
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
China may have paused its plans to go to the moon, but United States regulatory updates and increasingly desperate bond market interventions are sending the price of BTC and other major digital assets lunar-bound.
- SEC proposes ‘Reg Crypto’ exemptions
- Trump hints at buying BTC for Strategic Bitcoin Reserve
- CFTC working hard to bring ‘compliant’ Hyperliquid to U.S.
- CFTC innovator meeting sees shots fired over prediction markets
- Trump wants ‘fair’ CLARITY Act but voters find his ethics lacking
- Fairshake takes another $2 million loss as voters frown on crypto influence
Last week was one of the more consequential periods in terms of U.S. digital asset regulation, as the two federal agencies most responsible for crypto oversight both signaled a willingness to act with or without Congressional approval, the president dropped a few market-moving comments, and the U.S. Treasury made a major intervention in the bond market. All of which combined to send the prices of the most prominent tokens soaring. So let’s break it down.
Last Tuesday (18), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed new rules it’s calling ‘Regulation Crypto Assets’ (aka Reg Crypto). The SEC planned to announce these new rules the previous week, but that meeting was called off at the last minute, reportedly at the White House’s request.
The White House was said to be nervous about the SEC announcing new rules for tokenization of equities, a move some Wall Street titans remain skittish about. Instead, the SEC’s Reg Crypto expands on guidance issued this spring by both the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regarding greater freedom for token projects to raise outside investor funds and skirt regulatory scrutiny.
The full SEC proposal can be found here, while those with shorter attention spans can peruse the SEC’s fact sheet here. But basically, Reg Crypto calls for a ‘startup exemption’ that would allow project developers to raise up to $5 million without having to register with the SEC for four years. A similar ‘fundraising exemption’ would allow offerings of up to $75 million “during each 12-month period.”
Projects would also benefit from a ‘conditional safe harbor’ provision that would ensure that the SEC doesn’t view tokens as subject to the ‘investment contract’ language that helps define a security. To qualify for this safe harbor, a token issuer would have to certify with the SEC that it has “ceased or terminated all essential managerial efforts that it promised to undertake under the investment contract,” as well as satisfying certain other conditions.
The rules would also define ‘qualified purchaser’ so as to pre-empt state securities law registration and qualification requirements re the offer/sale of Reg Crypto-approved ‘covered investment contracts,’ as well as ‘certain secondary market transactions.’
The SEC has opened a 60-day comment period on its Reg Crypto proposals before it decides how best to proceed down this road.
In a statement accompanying the proposed rules, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency’s go-it-alone approach shouldn’t be construed as the regulator not supporting the Senate’s ongoing efforts to pass its digital asset market structure legislation (the CLARITY Act). Atkins said legislation “remains indispensable to enacting ‘future-proofed’ rules of the road that are durable enough to protect the work we are undertaking today from being unwound by a future rogue regulator.”
Unwinding Rogue Crypto would be just fine with former SEC enforcement director John Reed Stark, who tweeted a lengthy retort to Atkins, slamming the SEC chair as “a fiduciary for Big Crypto masquerading as a protector of investors.” Stark called the SEC’s proposed rule changes an “insidious farce” that involves “surrendering oversight of crypto” and assisting ransomware gangs, money launderers, pedophiles, sex traffickers, and terrorists.
To buy or not to buy, that is the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve question
The crypto markets took the SEC’s proposed rules in stride, but it was a different story on Wednesday (19), as President Donald Trump welcomed a who’s who of blockchain luminaries to the White House and made a few remarks that lit a fire under token prices.
Alongside Atkins and CFTC Chair Michael Selig, as well as tops execs from Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN), Kraken, Ripple Labs, Robinhood (NASDAQ: HOOD), Gemini (NASDAQ: GEMI), the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange, Trump delivered remarks that included his pitch to pass “a fair version” of CLARITY ahead of the Senate’s cloture vote on September 15. (More on what Trump might consider ‘fair’ below.)
When it came for reporters to ask questions, the first question—the only question substantively about digital assets, actually—dealt with the possibility that the administration might use taxpayer funds to acquire “sizable amounts of Bitcoin or other crypto” to top up the government’s Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR) and Digital Asset Stockpile (DAS).
Trump replied that he’d “probably rely on [Atkins] and the whole group for that … You guys will make a decision and you’ll let me know … I think if you came in with recommendations … I would certainly listen.”
The SBR and DAS (the latter consisting of non-BTC tokens) were created via an executive order Trump issued in March 2025. The order stipulated that both vehicles would rely on tokens already in the government’s possession following seizures and confiscations from individual/entities linked to crypto crime. But the order allowed for the possibility of adding tokens via “budget-neutral” methods, the specifics of which were unclear.
While many in the crypto community hoped the government would open its wallet to acquire BTC and other tokens via direct purchases, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later confirmed that “we’re not going to be buying” additional tokens. But this year saw White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt repeatedly hint at ‘breakthroughs’ on the SBR front, although no details followed.
While it remains unclear whether there’s been any actual policy shift, crypto buyers clearly hope there might be, as the BTC token—which had been mired in a $60,000-$65,000 range for months—shot skyward, coming within a whisker of $80,000 before slipping back below $77,000 then rising again to $80,000 as of Monday night.
Mind you, other factors played a role in that spike, including last Wednesday’s highly symbolic metric of the U.S. national debt exceeding $40 trillion for the first time. This heretofore unimaginable scenario—the amount doubling in a decade—boosted the value of dollar alternatives, including gold, which hit a 15-week high. So if you’re wondering why ‘digital gold’ suddenly has legs, there’s no shortage of possibilities.
Including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubling his bond-buybacks last week in a bid to lower yields (and increase interest in riskier assets). The yield relief was extremely short-lived, barely lasting until the weekend, leading to Monday’s news that Treasury could tap the $950 billion in its General Account to further ramp up buybacks. And if that doesn’t do the trick, maybe the administration will put Alaska up for sale.
‘Compliant’ Hyperliquid coming to US shores?
Trump’s White House remarks also included his claim that the CFTC’s Selig was “working to bring Hyperliquid into the United States in a fully legal and compliant fashion … we would really like to see it.”
At present, the Singapore-based Hyperliquid lacks a U.S. license to offer its perpetual futures markets, a situation Selig said in June that he wanted to resolve by creating “a path to bring these onchain markets into the United States and make sure they comply with some form of regulation.” Selig claims the onchain perpetual futures offered by the likes of Hyperliquid could “transform our markets.”
In late May, the CFTC signaled its approval of a BTC-based perpetual futures contract for Kalshi, the prediction market licensed by the CFTC as a designated contract market (DCM). The CFTC then authorized other licensees to take similar steps, only to have the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) sue the CFTC based on CME’s view that these perps are swaps, not futures, and thus the CFTC was horning in on CME’s exclusive turf.
Regardless, Trump’s announcement sent HYPE, the native token of the Hyperliquid decentralized exchange (DEX), soaring from ~$58 to nearly $71 in a matter of hours. HYPE continued to rise, peaking at over $83 before settling back to its current price (as of Monday evening) just under $80.
Hyperliquid Strategies (NASDQ: PURR), a HYPE-based digital asset treasury (DAT) firm, enjoyed its own related Trump pump. After trading at ~$7, PURR shares soared to above $11 and haven’t yet fallen back to earth, closing Monday at $10.64.
All well and good, but Trump’s apparent endorsement of Hyperliquid briefly sent share prices for more traditional financial platforms in the opposite direction. Companies like Cboe Global Markets (NASDAQ: CBOE) and CME Group (NASDAQ: CME) took significant dips last Wednesday but soon recovered that lost ground.CFTC innovators take fire from tradfi operators
Thursday (20) saw Selig welcome many of the same crypto execs who were at the White House to the inaugural meeting of the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC), whose membership also includes top execs from prediction markets, tech-friendly venture capital groups and tradfi groups like Cboe and CME.
The meeting was streamed live from CFTC HQ, where Selig got things started with his traditional broadsides against all those who would dare oppose his definition of progress. Selig repeated his recent promise/warning/threat that if CLARITY gets stalled in the Senate “because of Democratic obstruction,” the CFTC will follow the SEC’s lead and just issue its own digital asset rules “that cannot be undone by the crypto haters.”
Petulance aside, the meeting was a bit of a snoozefest, with most of the execs in lockstep agreement on the need for regulators to get a lot better at doing a lot less. That is, until CME CEO Terrence Duffy took a stab at prediction markets, saying he was “a little bit concerned about this and I’m a lot concerned about” the free ride his crypto-friendly rivals are getting from the CFTC in terms of oversight.
Duffy noted that since January 2025, CFTC-registered DCMs had submitted about 2,500 self-certifications of ‘event markets’ on their platforms, “of which none have been opposed.” Perhaps aware of this lack of oversight, the CFTC issued an advisory notice last month reminding its DCMs to stop submitting “broad, template-style certifications that combine many potential event contract variations into a single certification.”
Duffy also complained that many of these self-certifications involve products “susceptible to manipulation,” which is “horrible for our industry. We’re not a bunch of carnival barkers at a circus.”
Duffy mocked the oft-repeated claims by both Selig and prediction market operators that DCMs offer valuable insights into markets as well as the capacity to hedge economic risk. Duffy cited Kalshi offering “another really economic contract that’s been massively important for the United States, the Nathan’s hot dog eating contest.”
Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara was in the room and challenged Duffy to clarify whether CME “ever had any issues with any market manipulation, any issues ever in its history?” Duffy retorted that he has “more people in my regulatory department than you do in your entire company.” Lara didn’t flinch, saying maybe Duffy “should learn a bit about efficiency then.” Duffy shot back that Kalshi “should learn about credible markets,” then the moderators stepped in and ordered these fighters to neutral corners.
Duffy concluded by saying he agreed that “it’s important for us to go forward as innovators” but only if the CFTC can ensure “a level playing field and make sure that the consumer is always protected.”
Bitcoin wasn’t available until 2009, and Duffy warned the comparative youngsters in the room about the 2008 global economic crisis. “When the financial industry takes bad behavior, it doesn’t take a step backwards. It takes 20. It takes years to respond to build back the financial system. We’ve been able to do that and I hope we don’t go backwards again.”
Voters see no ethics in Trump mixing private and public roles
Getting back to Trump’s concept of a ‘fair’ CLARITY Act, his primary concern is almost certainly the bill’s ‘ethics’ language, aka rules that would restrict elected officials like himself from earning preposterous sums via crypto projects in which they have both an ownership stake and the capacity to eliminate regulatory guardrails.
Speaking at last week’s Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), one of the bipartisan pair of senators who worked on the most recent version of CLARITY’s ethics language, was asked about Trump’s ‘fair’ comment.
Gallego said “I think, unfortunately, what the president means is fair to him. The president is agreeing to some limitation. It’s not his place to agree. It’s the place of the Congress, the Senate and then the White House … the president doesn’t just get to decide what level of regulation he gets.”
While Trump has dismissed concerns over his combining the public office with his private business dealings, that attitude isn’t shared by the broader public. Last week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 1,166 U.S. adults found 63% of respondents believe it’s inappropriate for Trump and his family members to have profited off crypto while the president is in office, versus just 32% who were okay with it.
Naturally, more Democrats (92%) believe Trump’s crypto profiteering was out of bounds than Republicans (27%). But GOP politicians up for re-election in November won’t find it comforting to learn that 66% of independent voters agreed that Trump’s crypto profits were inappropriate.
Meanwhile, 69% of all respondents believe Trump’s private business interests are influencing his presidential decisions, exactly the kind of situation CLARITY’s ethics language is intended to address. Here again, Democrat voters skewed higher, but two-thirds of independents and nearly half (48%) of GOP supporters agreed that Trump was considering the impact on his personal bottom line when making policy decisions.
With the economy tanking, the Iran debacle showing no signs of ending, and the U.S. now in a trade war with Canada, Democrats believe they have a very real shot at regaining control of the House of Representatives come November. With that possibility in mind, Dem reps are eagerly plotting a variety of investigations into the president’s dealmaking, which could make the final two years of Trump’s presidency very uncomfortable indeed.
Crypto sector tries to influence voters, but not every voter is buying
Monday saw the Coinbase-backed astroturf group Stand with Crypto (SwC) issue a slate of 32 House incumbents whose pro-crypto stances it heartily endorses. The 32 candidates are a bipartisan mix who all hold the advocacy group’s ‘A’ rating based on their crypto statements and voting records.
Meanwhile, the Coinbase/Ripple-financed Fairshake political action committee (PAC) went down to defeat in last week’s Democratic primary for Florida’s 24th District. Fairshake’s Dem-focused offshoot Protect Progress spent over $2 million opposing Oliver Gilbert’s bid to replace the retiring Rep. Frederica Wilson, but Gilbert narrowly edged rival Shevrin Jones to seal the victory.
Protect Progress had been called out for crafting anti-Gilbert ads that distorted Miami Herald articles to make their point. Gilbert responded by calling out “crypto con artists trying to buy a Democratic primary.”
Following Gilbert’s win, one of Gilbert’s senior advisers told Politico that “the tech industry—especially crypto and AI—has real problems with Democratic lawmakers and voters. Spending millions to firebomb safe Democratic seats is buying them neither votes in Congress nor goodwill from rank-and-file Democrats. As a political strategy, it is profoundly misguided.”
This latest pricey defeat comes just a few weeks after another $2 million outlay failed to secure a Dem House primary in Michigan. Another $12.5 million was lost in two Illinois Dem primaries (House and Senate) this spring. Survey after survey has shown that U.S. voters view crypto in a highly unfavorable light, hate crypto PACs, and believe crypto has too much influence in Washington.
Nonetheless, a Fairshake spokesperson told Politico that other candidates it supported won four other races the night of Gilbert’s victory, bringing the PAC’s total score to 49 wins out of 53 races. But those four losses cost Fairshake and its affiliates some $16.5 million, and there’s still 10 weeks until the midterms. Better dig deep, boys.
Watch | Tokenization on public blockchain: Transforming RWAs and finance
