Peken Global Limited, the parent company of cryptocurrency exchange KuCoin, has agreed to pay $500,000 in a settlement in a case brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which alleged that the company operated an unregistered trading platform for U.S. users.

 

In a Monday press release, the CFTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had entered a consent order with Peken Global Limited to resolve the case with the U.S. commodities regulator. As part of the agreement, Peken is permanently restrained from future violations.

 

According to the CFTC, the settlement was reached as a result of Peken’s cooperation during the investigation and related proceedings. The agency also stated that neither it nor the court would be seeking or imposing disgorgement of profits from Peken.

 

The CFTC Case With Kucoin

The CFTC case involving crypto exchange KuCoin officially began on March 26, 2024, when the U.S. commodity regulator filed a civil lawsuit against KuCoin and its related entities, including Peken Global Limited, Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited.

 

The CFTC accused KuCoin and its affiliates of violating several U.S. financial laws, including operating an unregistered trading platform, offering high-risk and unregistered crypto products, failing to properly verify users, and violating U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements.

 

KuCoin agreed to settle the charges, paying penalties totaling nearly $300 million and committing to exit the U.S. market for at least three years.

 

This is not the first time KuCoin has faced regulatory challenges in the United States. In 2023, the New York Attorney General accused the exchange of operating in the state without proper registration, resulting in a $22 million settlement and an order to cease operations in New York.

 

KuCoin has also faced regulatory actions outside the U.S. 

 

In 2022, the Ontario Securities Commission in Canada identified it as an unregistered crypto exchange, resulting in a $2 million penalty. In 2025, Canada’s Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) imposed a $19.5 million fine on the exchange for allegedly violating anti-money laundering laws. More recently, Austria’s Financial Market Authority (FMA) restricted the exchange from registering new users until it complied with local AML regulations.

 

 

Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin issuer, has hired KPMG, one of the Big Four accounting firms, to conduct its first full audit of its USDT reserves. It has also engaged PwC to support the preparation of its internal systems.

 

The move comes days after Tether announced plans to work with one of the Big Four firms on an inaugural audit of its stablecoin reserves. Although it did not initially name the firm, the Financial Times reported that KPMG had been selected, citing sources familiar with the matter.

 

Prior to now, Tether had, for several years, engaged BDO Italia, an Italian affiliate of the global accounting firm BDO, to conduct periodic attestations of its reserves. These attestations involved BDO Italia taking a point-in-time snapshot of Tether's USDT reserves.

 

These snapshots helped confirm that, at a specific date, Tether's reported assets, including cash, U.S. Treasuries, gold, Bitcoin, and secured loans, met or exceeded the circulating supply of USDT. They were conducted quarterly and also included details on Tether's profit, reserve composition, and excess reserves.

 

While these attestations provided a degree of transparency and accountability, they were not full, comprehensive audits, as they relied on agreed-upon procedures and did not include elements typically associated with a full audit, such as in-depth testing of internal controls, continuous transaction verification, and formal risk assessments.

 

Tether’s Expansion Goals

Apart from ensuring transparency, the audit of its reserves aligns with Tether’s U.S. expansion goals under the GENIUS framework for stablecoins.

 

Signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act establishes a federal regulatory framework for dollar-backed payment stablecoins.

 

The framework outlines requirements that must be met by stablecoin issuers operating in the United States, including:

 

• Full reserve backing with high-quality liquid assets, such as cash and short-term U.S. Treasuries.
• Comprehensive audits and robust internal controls for larger issuers.
• Strict anti-money laundering (AML), redemption, and consumer protection requirements.
• Monthly public disclosures of reserve composition.

 

Tether, in partnership with crypto bank Anchorage Digital, launched USAT, a dollar-pegged stablecoin designed to comply with the GENIUS Act, as part of efforts to expand its presence in the U.S. market under the GENIUS framework.

 

The launch provides Tether with immediate regulatory cover, potentially making the asset more attractive to U.S. institutions that have previously avoided offshore-issued stablecoins such as USDT. Because USAT is issued by Anchorage Digital, a U.S.-based company, it has been positioned as a “made in America” product—marking a significant step in Tether’s broader U.S. expansion strategy.

 

Since comprehensive reserve audits are among the requirements for stablecoin issuers seeking to operate in the U.S., the KPMG audit helps position Tether as compliant with U.S. standards.

 

 

On March 27, Morgan Stanley filed Amendment No. 3 to its S-1 registration with the SEC, and buried inside was a number that caught the entire industry off guard: 14 basis points. That's 0.14% annually, the lowest management fee of any spot Bitcoin ETF currently available in the United States, Morgan Stanley is coming in hot with plans to dominate the crypto ETF field.

 

The Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust, set to trade under the ticker MSBT, will track Bitcoin's price using the CoinDesk Bitcoin Benchmark 4PM NY Settlement Rate. It holds Bitcoin directly, with no leverage, no derivatives, and no structural complexity. Coinbase will serve as the prime broker and custodian, while BNY Mellon handles cash and administrative functions. The product looks almost identical to what BlackRock, Fidelity, and others already offer. The only thing really different here is the price.

 

Why Basis Points Matter

To understand why this is a big deal, you need to look at what's already out there. BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the dominant product in the space with roughly $54 billion in assets and about 785,000 BTC under management, charges 0.25%. Grayscale's Bitcoin Mini Trust is currently the cheapest option at 0.15%. Morgan Stanley's proposed fee undercuts even that by a single basis point, putting the firm at the absolute bottom of the cost stack. Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas called it a "semi-shock" on X, noting that the pricing means none of Morgan Stanley's 16,000 financial advisors would face any conflict of interest recommending the product to clients.

 

His colleague James Seyffart was even more blunt, writing that Morgan Stanley is "not messing around" and projecting a potential launch in early April 2026, pending final SEC sign-off. That timeline is looking increasingly credible. The New York Stock Exchange has already issued a listing notice for MSBT on NYSE Arca, which is one of the procedural steps that typically signals a fund is close to going live.

 

The Distribution Advantage

Here's where Morgan Stanley's play becomes something more than just a fee war. The bank's wealth management division oversees roughly $8 to $9.3 trillion in client assets, depending on who you ask. That advisor network of around 16,000 professionals is massive and, until now, has largely been directing clients toward third-party Bitcoin ETFs when they wanted crypto exposure. A proprietary fund, priced cheaper than everything else on the market, removes that friction entirely.

 

Phong Le, president and CEO of Strategy, laid out the math plainly: if just 2% of Morgan Stanley's wealth management assets rotate into MSBT, that's roughly $160 billion in potential demand. To put that in context, IBIT, the largest spot Bitcoin ETF on earth, currently holds about $54 billion. Even a fraction of Morgan Stanley's allocated potential could dwarf what any competitor has built so far.

 

Morgan Stanley's own data suggests there's room to grow internally. Amy Oldenburg, the firm's head of digital asset strategy appointed in January 2026, noted earlier this year that roughly 80% of crypto ETF activity on the platform comes from self-directed investors rather than advisor-managed accounts. That's a hefty gap, and a cheap in-house product is a pretty obvious way to close it.

 

A Huge Crypto Push

It's worth taking a step back and looking at what Morgan Stanley has been doing over the past few months, because MSBT is just one piece of a much larger pie. The firm filed for its Bitcoin ETF in early January 2026. Later that same month, it submitted applications for a Solana ETF and a staked Ether ETF. Then in February, it applied for a national trust banking charter specifically to custody digital assets and execute transactions for clients. CEO Ted Pick has engaged directly with the U.S. Treasury on product development. This looks like a company that has decided crypto is a core business and is building the infrastructure to match.

 

What This Means for the Rest of the Market

The ETF market has seen fee compression before, and it rarely ends with just one cut. When Fidelity, Schwab, and others began undercutting each other on equity index funds years ago, it triggered a prolonged race toward zero that reshaped the entire industry. Bitcoin ETFs are not quite there yet, but Morgan Stanley's move adds serious downward pressure to the cost structure. Grayscale has already been watching assets bleed from its flagship GBTC product since the January 2024 launch, with holdings dropping from roughly $29 billion to around $10 billion. Higher-cost funds tend to lose assets over time when cheaper alternatives are available. And lower barrier to entry may just push crypto-curious investor off the fence.

 

For those retail investors and the advisors who serve them, the picture is pretty clear. Spot Bitcoin ETFs all offer the same basic thing: direct exposure to BTC's price without having to hold the asset yourself. When the product is the same, cost becomes the deciding factor. And right now, MSBT is set to be the cheapest option on the shelf.

 

Whether the SEC clears the final steps before April remains to be seen. But the direction here is clear. One of the biggest names in traditional finance has looked at the $83 billion Bitcoin ETF market, decided it wants in on its own terms, and priced its entry in a way that forces every other player to respond. Are we going to see ETF price wars heating up? That seems like a good thing for everyone involved.

 

The Federal Court of Australia has ordered Oztures Trading Pty Ltd, the company behind Binance Australia Derivatives, to pay 10 million Australian dollars (about $6.9 million USD). The penalty follows the company’s admission that it misclassified 85% of its Australian clients.

 

According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), around 524 retail investors were incorrectly classified as wholesale clients. Of these, 460 were categorized as sophisticated investors and 33 as wealthy traders between July 2022 and April 2023.

 

ASIC said the misclassification exposed these retail investors to high-risk crypto derivatives they should not have accessed. The regulator reported that the affected investors suffered losses exceeding $6 million and paid roughly $2.6 million in trading fees.

 

In a statement of agreed facts, Binance also admitted to several other compliance failures, including not fully disclosing information to retail clients, failing to maintain a compliant dispute resolution system, and not making a target market determination as an operational crypto entity.

 

Image credit: ASIC

 

Binance, through its Australian entity Oztures, was also found to have failed to comply with the country’s regulator’s requirements regarding employee training.

 

“Binance’s senior compliance staff provided inadequate oversight or review of client applications and supporting documentation, further weakening the onboarding and classification processes,” ASIC wrote on its official website.

 

Binance Previous Settlement With the Australian Regulator

The $6.9 million penalty imposed by the country’s regulator on Binance comes three years after the company paid $9 million in compensation to affected clients.

 

Although the misclassification issue, which began in 2023, was self-identified, Binance had its operating license withdrawn by Australian authorities, in addition to the compensation it paid.

 

Countries Intensify Crackdown on Compliance Violators

The crackdown on Binance’s Australian operations by the country’s financial regulator is one of several regulatory actions targeting crypto firms in recent weeks. Just a few weeks earlier, South Korean regulators fined Bithumb $25 million for anti-money laundering (AML) and compliance violations.

 

Regulators in multiple jurisdictions have taken action against crypto-related companies. 

 

In Canada, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), the country’s financial intelligence unit and anti–money laundering regulator, has revoked the registrations of 47 crypto-linked money services businesses this year, accounting for the majority of its 50 total revocations. 

 

The agency has indicated it will continue enforcement actions against non-compliant entities. Prediction market companies have also faced increased regulatory scrutiny, including restrictions and bans, amid concerns over compliance and regulatory violations.

 

 

Onchain sleuth ZachXBT has accused stablecoin issuer Circle of improperly freezing 16 hot crypto wallets. The freeze is reportedly linked to an ongoing civil case in the United States, but ZachXBT said the company failed to conduct adequate due diligence before taking action.

 

 

“An analyst with basic tools could have identified, within minutes, that these were operational business wallets from the thousands of transactions they process,” he said.

 

According to ZachXBT, the wallets were used for business purposes. “I reviewed the onchain activity, and the exchanges, casinos, and forex businesses do not appear to be related to one another,” he added.

 

The crypto investigator also criticized the judicial process that approved the freeze, calling it the “most incompetent” he has seen in more than five years of work in the field.

 

“The NY civil case is sealed and they have provided absolutely ZERO basis to freeze all of these business addresses. [...] The expert witness is liable. The judge is liable. Circle is liable,” Zach said. “This is what happens when you outsource your freezing decisions to literally any random federal judge instead of having a process,” he added.

 

Following the callout by the on-chain investigator, Circle reportedly unfroze one of 16 wallets. According to Zach, the wallet with the address "0x61f…e543," which holds 130,966 USDC and is linked to Goated, has been unfrozen. He expects more wallets to be unlocked soon.

 

The Crypto Community Reacted

The crypto community reacted with outrage, with many criticizing centralized stablecoins. “This is your 10th reminder that centrally issued stablecoins are not actually yours. They can be frozen, unlike cash,” said Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Helius Labs.

 

“I still find it hard to believe that token issuers can 'freeze' coins on EVM shitchains and call it a 'normal' feature. The CBDC is already here, and it's called USDC,” said Francis Pouliot, CEO of crypto platform Bull Bitcoin.

 

Circle’s History With Freezes

Like many centralized stablecoin issuers, Circle has a history of freezing crypto assets. In May 2025, it froze approximately $57 million in USDC linked to the memecoin project LIBRA, as well as 2,997,180 USDC held in an Ethereum address flagged for suspicious activity.

 

Most of these freezes were legally justified and are part of Circle's efforts to curb money laundering and other illicit activities on the blockchain. 

 

However, some critics have raised concerns about centralization, noting that centralized stablecoin issuers can freeze users' crypto assets at their discretion, a clear departure from the user control promised by blockchain technology.

 

 

 

Something shifted in Washington on Friday, and the people who have been watching the CLARITY Act back and forth for months could feel it. Two key lawmakers, Republican Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democrat Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, reached an agreement in principle on one of the most stubbornly contested provisions in the bill: stablecoin yield. It is the kind of deal that, when the details finally shake out, may well be remembered as the moment the United States stopped kicking the crypto regulatory can down the road.

 

The news broke late Friday and was first reported by Politico. Senator Alsobrooks confirmed it plainly. "Sen. Tillis and I do have an agreement in principle," she said. "We've come a long way. And I think what it will do is to allow us to protect innovation, but also gives us the opportunity to prevent widespread deposit flight." The White House's crypto executive director, Patrick Witt, called it a "major milestone" and added that more work remains, but that progress toward passing the CLARITY Act was now real and tangible.

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee's crypto subcommittee and has been one of the most tireless advocates for this legislation, marked the occasion in her own way. She posted a photo on X of a "yield" sign. No caption needed.

 

 

The Stablecoin Yield Standoff, Explained

For months, the stablecoin yield question was the immovable object blocking the CLARITY Act from getting its Senate Banking Committee hearing. 

 

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July 2025, prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders. The intent was to prevent stablecoins from functioning as de facto bank deposit accounts, which would put them in direct competition with traditional savings products and, as the American Bankers Association argued loudly, threaten deposit flows into community banks. The concern: if Coinbase or another platform could offer users 4% on their dollar-pegged tokens simply for holding them, why would anyone keep money in a checking account?

 

The problem is that the GENIUS Act only covered issuers. It left a gap for third-party platforms that might offer rewards to customers who hold stablecoins on their systems. The ABA saw this as a loophole and spent months in Washington lobbying to close it. Crypto companies, for their part, said those rewards programs were fundamentally different from deposit interest and should be allowed.

 

Section 404 of the Senate Banking Committee's draft tried to thread this needle. It prohibits digital asset service providers from paying interest or yield "solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin," while explicitly allowing "activity-based" rewards tied to transactions, payments, platform use, loyalty programs, liquidity provision, and other behaviors. The distinction is real: a reward for moving money through a system is not the same thing as interest paid for parking money in one.

 

Senator Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican on the Banking Committee, captured the nuance at an ABA summit earlier this month: rewards cannot be simply about how much money sits in an account, but they might reasonably be tied to how active that account is. "We're trying to reflect that in the discussions," he said.

 

Lummis had suggested the final compromise would disallow anything that "sounds like banking product terminology" and bar rewards tied to the size of a user's balance. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, whose withdrawal of support in January helped torpedo a scheduled markup hearing, has been described by Lummis as "really pretty good about being willing to give on this issue."

 

 

From 99% to Done

The past week has been a rapid acceleration. As recently as Thursday, sources familiar with the situation described the stablecoin yield issue as being on the verge of resolution. A closed Senate Republican meeting on Wednesday, attended by White House crypto council director Patrick Witt, produced what Lummis told reporters afterward were significant breakthroughs, with "major light bulbs" switched on among the participants.

 

FinTech Weekly, which has closely tracked the legislative calendar, reported that stablecoin yield negotiations were "99% of the way to resolution" coming out of that meeting. The digital asset provisions of the bill more broadly were described as being in a "good place." The remaining friction, sources said, was not technical but political, specifically around whether community bank deregulation provisions might be attached to the CLARITY Act as part of a broader legislative trade.

 

Then came Friday's agreement. "We've come a long way," Alsobrooks told Politico, with a formality that understated just how much ground has been covered since January, when the scheduled markup hearing collapsed under the weight of over 100 proposed amendments and an industry revolt over the yield language.

 

 

What Comes Next and Why the Timeline Matters

An agreement on yield does not mean the CLARITY Act is done. Several other issues need resolution, decentralized finance remains a live debate, and the bill still needs to clear the Senate Banking Committee before it can go to a full Senate vote. After that, it must be reconciled with the version that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee in January. And before the President can sign it, that combined Senate text has to be reconciled with the House-passed version from July 2025. 

 

But the clock is ticking here. Senate Majority Leader John Thune controls the floor calendar, and it is crowded. Unrelated fights, including the Republican voter-ID bill and ongoing debate over the situation in Iran, are competing for limited floor time. Haun Ventures CEO Katie Haun, in a CNBC interview Friday, put it directly: "The big question on the Clarity Act is, is Congress going to get a bill to the floor on time to vote?"

 

Lummis has said she expects a Banking Committee hearing in the latter half of April, after the Easter recess. Advocates have been hoping for a May resolution. Prediction markets are currently pricing the odds of the CLARITY Act being signed in 2026 at around 72%, according to FinTech Weekly. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described passage as a spring 2026 target. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has put the odds at 80 to 90%.

 

JPMorgan analysts have described CLARITY Act passage by midyear as a positive catalyst for digital assets, pointing to regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth as the key drivers. The crypto industry committed nearly $150 million to the Fairshake political action committee in the current cycle and announced a $193 million war chest around the Agriculture Committee markup in January. The companies behind that spending are waiting.

 

 

What This All Means

The stakes of the CLARITY Act extend well beyond Senate procedure. Markets are waiting. Institutions that have been slowly building out crypto infrastructure, custody solutions, tokenized asset offerings, trading desks, need to know what the rules are before they can fully commit capital and resources. The SEC's interpretation helps, but as Atkins himself acknowledged, it is not a substitute for law.

 

The CLARITY Act, if signed, would give the CFTC clear jurisdiction over most digital asset spot markets, create a path to register exchanges and brokers, establish consumer protections with real enforcement teeth, and provide the kind of statutory framework that companies can build businesses around. It would, in the language of its Senate Banking Committee sponsors, establish the United States as the crypto capital of the world, not just by rhetoric but by law.

 

If the bill fails this year, the status quo continues. Crypto companies operate under regulatory uncertainty. The SEC retains broad discretion to treat digital assets as securities. Institutional adoption continues but without a clear statutory framework. And the crypto lobby, which has made clear it will treat failure as a political liability, turns its $193 million war chest into something that looks a lot more like electoral pressure.

 

Friday's agreement does not guarantee passage. It does something important though. It removes the single biggest substantive obstacle to moving forward. The stablecoin yield question, which derailed a January markup hearing and has consumed months of negotiations, now has a resolution in principle. The path ahead still has obstacles, but for the first time in a while, it looks like an actual path.

 

Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks just handed the crypto industry something it has been asking for since the last bull market: a credible signal that Washington is finally going to do its job. The deal is in principle, the details are not yet public, and there is still legislative work ahead. But after years of false starts, shelved bills, collapsed markup hearings, and agency standoffs, this is the moment the trajectory changed.

 

 

Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who chairs the Senate Banking Committee's digital assets subcommittee and has spent the better part of two years shepherding the crypto industry's most ambitious legislative goal, walked into the Digital Chamber's DC Blockchain Summit and told a packed room what a lot of people in the industry had stopped expecting to hear.

"We think we've got it," she said. "We really are going to get it out of the banking committee in April."

That's a bigger deal than it might sound. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the comprehensive crypto framework that cleared the House in a 294-134 bipartisan vote back in July 2025, has been grinding through Senate committees ever since, chewing through months of negotiations, a January markup that collapsed hours before it was scheduled to begin, and a dispute over stablecoin yield that managed to put banking lobbyists, crypto firms, and Democratic senators all at odds simultaneously. For a while, it looked like the whole thing might just quietly die before the 2026 midterms swallowed the calendar.

Apparently not, if Lummis is certain on the new deal being made.

 

The Stablecoin Yield Fight, Explained
To understand how we got here, it helps to understand the fight that almost killed this bill. After the House passed its version, the Senate Banking Committee got to work on its own draft. In January 2026, committee staff released a 278-page bill that took a firm stance: digital asset service providers could not offer interest or yield to users simply for holding stablecoin balances, though rewards or activity-linked incentives were still on the table.

Banking groups hated the carve-out. The American Bankers Association lobbied hard against any yield provision, arguing that if crypto platforms could pay customers to hold stablecoins, those customers might pull deposits from community banks. Coinbase, meanwhile, had built a profitable stablecoin rewards program and wasn't eager to see it legislated away. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong reportedly signaled opposition to an early compromise attempt, and within hours of the January 14 scheduled markup, committee leadership postponed it indefinitely.

That delay rattled markets, contributed to what analysts at CoinShares estimated as nearly $1 billion in crypto market outflows, and sent lobbyists back to their whiteboards.

The White House held at least three separate meetings over the following weeks to try to broker a deal. And now, Lummis says, a compromise has landed. Crypto platforms will not be able to offer rewards programs using language that sounds like banking products, whether that means using terms like "yield," "interest," or anything that ties payouts to how much a user holds rather than what they do.

"Anything that sounds like banking product terminology will not appear," Lummis said. She added that Armstrong had been "really pretty good about being willing to give on this issue," a notable shift from his earlier posture.

Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican on the committee, confirmed the trajectory in a video statement at the same event, saying Senators Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, and Thom Tillis, a Republican, are in the final stages of the stablecoin talks alongside the White House. "Once they all sign off," Moreno said, it's "go time."

 

DeFi Disputes Quietly Shelved
DeFi was the other thing that kept lobbyists up at night. Decentralized finance protocols, which allow users to lend, borrow, and trade digital assets without going through a traditional intermediary, sit in a legal grey zone that both Democrats and Republicans approached with very different instincts.

Democrats wanted oversight that was on par with federally regulated financial firms. The crypto industry, somewhat predictably, wanted software developers and peer-to-peer activity protected from being treated as financial intermediaries. The House version of the bill had already tried to thread this needle by drawing a line between control and code: developers who publish or maintain software without directly handling customer funds would not be classified as financial intermediaries. Centralized entities that interact with DeFi protocols would face tailored requirements.

According to Lummis, those DeFi disagreements have been "put to bed." She didn't go into detail, but Senate Banking Committee materials describe the bill's approach as targeting control rather than code, and requiring risk management and cybersecurity standards for centralized intermediaries that touch DeFi, while leaving non-custodial software development out of scope.

 

The Ethics Problem Won't Go Away
Not everything is resolved. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat who has been one of Lummis's most consistent bipartisan partners on crypto legislation over the years, made clear at the same summit that there is still a major outstanding demand from her caucus.

Democrats want the bill to include an explicit ban on senior government officials personally profiting from the crypto industry. The reasoning for this is not very subtle, especially in heated partisanship of Washington these days: President Donald Trump and his family are tied to World Liberty Financial, a crypto platform that launched a stablecoin last year, and Trump's crypto-linked ventures have given Democrats a consistent line of attack.

"It's very important that we include this," Gillibrand said on Wednesday, adding that no government official in Congress or the White House should "get rich off their position and their knowledge base." Including such a restriction, she argued, would "unlock many more votes" from Democrats.

Lummis has previously said she took a compromise ethics provision to the White House and was rebuffed. Trump administration officials have repeatedly stated that the president's family's participation in digital asset businesses does not represent an inappropriate conflict of interests. The practical read from lobbyists: Republicans are unlikely to pass language that targets the leader of their own party.

The House bill, for its part, does include language specifying that existing ethics statutes already bar members of Congress and senior executive branch officials from issuing digital commodities during their time in public service. Whether that satisfies Democrats in the Senate is another matter.

 

Where the Bill Stands Procedurally
The legislative path from here still has a few moving parts. The Senate Agriculture Committee cleared its version of a crypto market structure bill, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, in late January 2026. That bill covers the CFTC-related side of the regulatory picture, including commodity market oversight, exchange registration, and derivatives. It passed over the objections of Democratic members who tried and failed to push through a series of amendments.

The Senate Banking Committee bill, now expected to go through a markup in late April after the Easter recess, would handle the SEC-related provisions: investor protections, securities treatment of digital assets, and stablecoin regulation. Once it clears that committee, both Senate bills need to be reconciled and merged before heading to a full Senate floor vote. That combined version would then need to be aligned with the House-passed CLARITY Act before a single final bill could reach Trump's desk.

That's a lot of steps. Lummis, who announced in December that she will not seek re-election, seems acutely aware of the time pressure. "This may be our only chance to get market structure done," she posted on X on Wednesday. Moreno was even more pointed: "If we don't get the CLARITY Act passed by May, digital asset legislation will not pass for the foreseeable future."

The Senate's 2026 calendar is not working in the bill's favor. The midterm elections in November mean that floor time effectively closes for controversial legislation sometime around August, when lawmakers shift their attention to their races. A Senate majority that currently tilts Republican could flip to Democratic control after the vote, bringing new leadership to key committees and potentially shelving the bill for another cycle.

Making things more unpredictable, both parties are currently tangling over unrelated legislation and the U.S. involvement in the war in Iran, which threatens to consume floor time that crypto advocates would prefer to use for a market structure vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said as recently as last week that he did not expect the Banking Committee to pass the bill quickly. Whether that assessment holds is now up to the negotiators.

Prediction markets have priced the odds of the bill being signed into law in 2026 at around 72%, according to available data. JPMorgan analysts have described passage before midyear as a positive catalyst for digital assets, citing regulatory clarity, institutional scaling, and tokenization growth as key drivers. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse has put his personal odds estimate even higher, at 80 to 90%.

Industry Money and Political Pressure
The stakes are reflected in the lobbying numbers. Total crypto industry lobbying expenditures topped $80 million in 2025. Fairshake, the industry's primary political action committee, had built a 2026 war chest of $193 million as of January, with Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz each contributing $24 to $25 million in the second half of last year alone. The day before the Senate Agriculture Committee's January markup, Fairshake made that announcement public.

For all the money, the legislative process has been messier than the industry hoped. A bill that many expected to be done before year-end 2025 is now racing a midterm election clock, dependent on a handful of senators reaching agreement on provisions they've been arguing about for months, and navigating a Senate floor schedule that no one fully controls.

Lummis, for her part, sounded more confident than she has in months. "We're going to have this thing done, come hell or high water, before the end of the year," she told the crowd in Washington.

Whether the rest of the Senate, the White House, and the clock agree with her is the only question left.

 

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dropped its two-year case against Nader Al-Naji, founder of the blockchain-based social media platform BitClout.

 

The stipulation of dismissal was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, according to the US regulator, the dismissal was based on a reassessment of evidentiary records.

 

 

Since the dismissal was issued with prejudice, the SEC will not be able to file the same charges against Al-Naji or any of the relief defendants named in the case, including his wife, mother, or any companies associated with him.

 

However, the SEC cautioned against treating the dismissal as a precedent for other cases. “The Commission’s decision to exercise its discretion and seek dismissal of this litigation is based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case and does not necessarily reflect its position on any other case,” it said.

 

Reacting to the dismissal, Nader Al-Naji, founder of BitClout, described the initial lawsuit as unreasonable. “In the coming days and weeks, I will be hopping on some podcasts to tell the whole story,” Al-Naji said.

 

 

Why the Sec Filed a Lawsuit Against Al-Naji

On July 30, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil lawsuit against Al-Naji. The regulator alleged multiple complaints against him, including offering unregistered securities. According to the SEC, Al-Naji failed to register BTCLT, BitClout’s native token, which he sold to investors, raising over $257 million from its sales.

 

The SEC also accused Al-Naji of fraud and misrepresenting the use of investor funds, claiming he spent more than $7 million on luxury properties in Beverly Hills and extravagant cash gifts for family members.

 

In addition to the SEC’s civil case, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Al-Naji committed wire fraud by misleading investors about the use of their funds, leading to his arrest in July 2024. However, these criminal charges were later dropped.

 

 

An Increase in the Number of Case Dismissals by the SEC

The dismissal of the BitClout case is one of several recent SEC case dismissals, particularly since the start of the Trump administration.

 

In January 2026, the SEC jointly dismissed its lawsuit against Gemini Trust Company and Gemini Earn. The regulator had initially alleged that Gemini Earn offered unregistered securities but dropped the charges without imposing penalties.

 

In 2025, the SEC voluntarily dismissed its case against the blockchain platform Dragoncoin, which it had accused of making misrepresentations. The case was closed with prejudice, and no penalties were imposed.

 

 

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), a crime monitoring and prevention body under South Korea’s Financial Services Commission, fined cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb 36 billion won (about $24.5 million) for anti-money laundering (AML) violations.

 

The fine follows an on-site inspection of the exchange conducted by the regulator in March and April last year, which found that Bithumb had violated the Specific Financial Information Act 6.65 million times. The act requires exchanges to restrict transactions with unregistered virtual asset service providers, block suspicious transactions, and verify their customers.

 

Bithumb was also found to have violated the Act on Reporting and Use of Financial Information by facilitating 45,772 cryptocurrency transactions with 18 unregistered overseas virtual asset service providers and cryptocurrency firms. Despite repeated warnings from the regulator, Bithumb failed to take corrective action.

 

"We have continuously requested Bithumb to stop trading with undeclared overseas virtual asset service providers, but it failed to fulfill its legal compliance obligations and demonstrated a markedly insufficient willingness to comply with the law, such as failing to implement effective blocking measures over an extended period," the FIU explained. 

 

In addition to the $24 million fine imposed by the regulator, Bithumb has been ordered to halt all external crypto transfers for new customers from March 27 to Sept. 26. The ban, however, does not affect existing customers trading on the exchange.

 

Despite facing the largest fine ever imposed on a South Korean exchange, Bithumb said it would address the issues highlighted. "We will resolve the issues identified in this inspection and do our best to create a safe trading environment and protect users," the company said.

 

 

South Korea Cracks Down on Compliance Violators

South Korea has been cracking down on compliance violators, particularly cryptocurrency exchanges that breach Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations. In November 2025, the country fined its largest cryptocurrency exchange, Upbit, 35.2 billion won (approximately $25 million) and imposed a three-month partial suspension after the exchange failed to comply with AML and KYC rules.

 

On December 31, 2025, the FIU fined Korbit 2.73 billion won ($1.9 million) and issued a stern institutional warning to the exchange’s executives following a compliance audit that revealed weaknesses in its anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) procedures.

 

The FIU is currently conducting an on-site review of Coinone, which is expected to conclude later this year. Although there are unconfirmed reports that the agency has already flagged violations, no official report or penalties have been issued.

 

 

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has called Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, claiming it has far less value than gold and even Pokémon cards, which he said are more widely recognized.

 

 

 

In a recent Daily Mail article, former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme with no real value, saying it relied on a “supply of new and credulous investors.” He also shared the story of a friend who lost about $26,000 in a crypto investment scam.

 

Johnson shared a story about a retired man from a village in Oxfordshire who initially handed over £500 (about $661) to someone who promised to double the money through Bitcoin investments. Johnson said the man went on to invest £20,000 (around $26,450) over three and a half years but ultimately received nothing in return.

 

The former prime minister also questioned the credibility of Bitcoin, calling it “a string of numbers stored in a series of computers.” “Who can we turn to if someone decrypts the crypto?” Johnson asked. “There’s no one except Nakamoto, who might be nothing more than Pikachu or Charmander.”

 

Since the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, lacked institutional backing, Johnson questioned Bitcoin’s credibility as a tradable asset. According to Johnson, Pokémon cards, which fascinated children thirty years ago and still do today, are a more tradable asset than Bitcoin.

 

“These curious little Japanese cartoon beasties hold the same fascination for five-year-olds as they did 30 years ago. The kids are obsessed with them. They boast and squabble about them,” Boris said.

 

“Even if you remain pretty impervious to the charm of Pikachu, you can just about see why a decades-old Pikachu card is still a tradeable asset,” he added.

 

 

The Crypto Community Responded

While many social media users have ridiculed Boris’ understanding of cryptocurrency, some have offered clearer explanations of why Bitcoin cannot be called a Ponzi scheme.

 

Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, also sought to clarify the issue.

 

“Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones,” Saylor wrote on X.

 

“Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand,” he added.

 

 

Sam Bankman-Fried, the former CEO of the defunct crypto exchange FTX, filed a motion in February seeking a retrial in his case. However, the request is reportedly being opposed by some U.S. prosecutors.

 

Some U.S. prosecutors have filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to block Bankman-Fried’s latest request for a retrial, Bloomberg reports.

 

According to the prosecutors, Bankman-Fried’s argument that new witnesses could change the outcome of his case does not meet the standard for a retrial. They said the two witnesses he wants to call, Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame, both former FTX executives, do not qualify as new witnesses because they were already known to the defense and could have testified at the original trial.

 

“The defense’s decision not to put the witnesses on his witness list or compel their testimony forecloses any claim that their post-trial views are newly discovered,” prosecutors said.

 

The prosecutors also rejected Bankman Fried's claim that he was being weaponized by the Department of Justice, calling it "incoherent."

 

"The defendant was one of the largest Democratic donors in 2020 and 2022, and his campaign finance crimes were in furtherance of making those contributions, so the notion he was targeted for his Democratic politics by the prior presidential administration is fanciful," prosecutors added.

 

Although the motion has just been filed, the judge has not ruled on whether it will proceed. Nevertheless, this is Bankman-Fried’s third attempt to appeal his case.

 

 

Is a Presidential Pardon in Sight? 

After President Trump granted a presidential pardon to Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, rumors circulated that he might also pardon Sam Bankman-Fried.

 

Trump, however, has dismissed these rumors in several interviews, stating that he has no plans to pardon Bankman-Fried. Despite this, some online groups continue to speculate about a potential, well-funded effort to secure a pardon.

 

Until a pardon is issued, Bankman-Fried’s legal options remain limited to filing appeal motions. Otherwise, he must continue serving his 25-year prison sentence on multiple federal charges, including fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering.

 

 

The world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, has appointed Stephen Gregory as the chief executive officer (CEO) of its U.S. affiliate, Binance.US.

 

On Tuesday, March 11, Binance.US announced the appointment of compliance lawyer Stephen Gregory as CEO of the exchange. Stephen will take over from Norman Reed, who, according to the exchange, is stepping down to serve in an advisory role.

 

“I am honored to lead the Binance.US team as we write the next chapter for what we believe is the best platform for U.S. crypto investors to buy, trade, and earn digital assets,” Stephen said. “The Binance.US brand is extremely powerful, with a founder, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), who has continuously advocated for making the U.S. the crypto capital of the world,” he added.

 

Norman, the former Binance.US CEO, also expressed confidence in Stephen. “As we look to the next phase of growth for Binance.US, Stephen brings an entrepreneurial approach to leadership that I am confident will deliver for our customers in a meaningful way,” Norman said.

 

 

About Stephen Gregory

Stephen is a lawyer with nearly two decades of experience in the compliance industry. Before entering the crypto and fintech sectors, he worked in the U.S. Senate as a staff member for Senators Paul G. Kirk and Ted Kennedy and held roles at other government-affiliated agencies.

 

He later transitioned into private practice, working as a litigation and regulatory law expert for several law firms, including D'Ambrosio Brown LLP, McCormick & O'Brien LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Gage Spencer & Fleming LLP.

 

Entering into Crypto

In 2016, Stephen entered the crypto industry as a compliance officer at Gemini, where he helped the exchange navigate regulations and secure licenses for its U.S. crypto operations.

 

He did, however, move up the ranks in the compliance industry, serving as Chief Compliance Officer at crypto exchange CEX.IO, where he led the company’s global compliance program and oversaw its regulatory frameworks, including Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) programs.

 

In 2021, Stephen joined Currency.com as CEO, where he led the exchange’s U.S. operations, oversaw regulatory strategy, and expanded its services in the United States before its acquisition by CXNEST Ltd in May 2025.