Crypto week is about to kick off in Congress. Here are 3 predictions for what it could mean for the market.
Crypto policy has been a key area of focus for the Trump administration, creating a steady tailwind for the market in recent months. Bitcoin prices recently surged to new record highs as it passed $120,000, sparking bullish predictions for how far the rally could go.
Now, a slew of bills aimed to bolstering digital assets could create a fresh positive catalyst for prices.
This week, House Committee on Financial Services Chairman French Hill recently stated that "The House of Representatives looks forward to considering the CLARITY Act, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, and the Senate's GENIUS Act as part of Congress' efforts to make America the crypto capital of the world."
The CLARITY Act is aimed at defining regulatory oversight for digital assets, while the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act would limit the power of the Federal Reserve to create a central bank digital currency.
Already passed in the Senate, the GENIUS Act would establish a regulatory framework for stablecoins.
Here's what crypto pros told Business Insider about what to expect from this week's legislative crypto bonanza.
What regulator changes are being proposed?
While no new crypto bills have been fully passed yet, optimism for legislative support has helped fuel gains for bitcoin and other cryptos this year.
"This growing optimism suggests that clearer rules could restore trust and bring cautious investors back into the fold," Adrian Fritz, head of research at 21Shares, told BI. "US crypto stocks and bitcoin are rallying as traders position themselves ahead of next week's expected publicity."
Fritz also cited stronger global liquidity and lower geopolitical tensions as contributing factors to bitcoin's latest rally past $120,000, but still sees the crypto push on Capitol Hill as an important catalyst.
"[The CLARITY Act] is incredibly important to help further institutionalize and onshore secondary market activity in the US. This should help improve counterparty risk, improve liquidity, and improve the ability for investors seeking risk managed solutions to get them in well regulated vehicles," Tony Fenner-Leitão, president at Cambrian Asset Management, sad.
Which cryptos are most likely to benefit?
A consensus among many crypto experts is that stablecoins are likely to see significant momentum as crypto week unfolds. This could prove highly beneficial to companies like Circle and Coinbase, which have high exposure to the fiat-backed digital assets.
Fritz said that under the GENIUS Act, stablecoins would be recognized as programmable money, likely leading to further integration into payment systems.
"The stablecoin sector is thus positioned for significant expansion, likely experiencing increased institutional adoption for remittances, e-commerce transactions, and decentralized finance (DeFi) collateral" he said.
He added that blockchain networks, such as ethereum and solana, are likely to rise benefit as well, since they serve as the underlying infrastructure for stablecoins.
Chris Kline, COO & co-founder of BitcoinIRA, also flagged a possible boost to stablecoins, highlighting the benefits for stablecoin infrastructure and compliance frameworks that can stem from further regularity clarity.
"Stablecoins and tokenized assets represent the most immediate growth opportunities," he told Business Insider. "These sectors will likely experience complementary rather than competitive development."
Doug Carrillo, co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Bitstop & GoldATM predicts that crypto week will spur growth for stablecoins but also highlighted another asset class that's likely to benefit.
"Tokenized assets (treasuries, real estate, gold, etc.) will experience accelerated growth as clear frameworks reduce perceived legal risks, opening opportunities for new markets," he stated.
What will be the biggest developments?
All three crypto bills being mulled in Congress are expected to garner strong support, and the market implications for such a vote of confidence from lawmakers are powerful.
"Passage in the House would mark a historic milestone as the most comprehensive crypto legislation package ever approved by a chamber of Congress," Fritz noted.
Sahel Ahyaie Assar, an international tax attorney who serves as blockchain and digital asset practice group leader at Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, sees legislation on stablecoins as being particularly important this week.
"As currently drafted, the GENIUS Act's treatment of decentralized protocols and 'digital commodity' classification will be most impactful. If DeFi protocols receive treatment akin to commodities or software platforms—as distinguished from securities issuers—it may change the entire posture of the U.S. crypto enforcement regime," she stated.
Anthony Tuths, a tax principal and digital asset practice leader at KPMG, predicts that even more changes will be coming for the financial sector in the wake of crypto week.
"As the financial system adopts blockchain technology, you will see markets trade 24/7 and the back-office related support shrink," he stated. "The programmable money and intra-day collateral movements will save large financial institutions billions due to greater capital efficiency."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
20 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Censorship for Citizenship
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Not that long ago, believe it or not, Donald Trump ran for president as the candidate who would defend the First Amendment. He warned that a 'sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists, and depraved corporate news media' was 'conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people,' and promised that 'by restoring free speech, we will begin to reclaim our democracy, and save our nation.' On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order affirming the 'right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech.' If anyone believed him at the time, they should be disabused by now. One of his most brazen attacks on freedom of speech thus far came this past weekend, when the president said that he was thinking about stripping a comedian of her citizenship—for no apparent reason other than that she regularly criticizes him. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship. She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her,' he posted on Truth Social. This must have been exhilarating to O'Donnell, who received a brief new grant of relevance and told the Irish broadcaster RTE, 'I am very proud to be opposed to every single thing he says and does and represents.' But once the exhilaration subsides, the fundamental idea is very disturbing: Trump appears to view both free speech and U.S. citizenship as conditional, things he can revoke based on his own whims. Writing off the threat to O'Donnell as just another instance of Trumpian trolling—or an attempt to distract from fatal flooding in Texas, dozens of incomplete trade deals, or intramural MAGA battles over Jeffrey Epstein —is tempting. And the odds that Trump would actually successfully strip O'Donnell of her passport seem slim. But that doesn't mean the threat is irrelevant. What in particular set Trump off here is unclear—he and O'Donnell have been feuding for years—but by all indications, the answer is simply that she has exercised her freedom of speech to jab him. Perhaps this should go without saying, but native-born American citizens like O'Donnell generally cannot be stripped of their citizenship. (Citizens can, however, choose to relinquish their citizenship—something that has become a somewhat popular option for people wishing to avoid U.S. taxes, including former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a New York native.) A president can't just decide that he wants to take it away. In other recent cases where the Trump administration has attempted to suppress speech, officials have at least claimed that they have evidence of criminality (though that's not to say even that was a legitimate standard; such accusations are also dangerous, and judges have dismissed them). With O'Donnell, Trump isn't even pretending she has crossed some sort of criminal line. He's also not (yet) taking action, but Trump often uses initially brash and outlandish threats as a way to acclimate the populace to his overreaching, as I wrote in the January 2024 issue of The Atlantic: 'When a second-term President Trump directs the Justice Department to lock up Democratic politicians or generals or reporters or activists on flimsy or no grounds at all, people will wring their hands, but they'll also shrug and wonder why he didn't do it sooner. After all, he's been promising to do it forever, right?' I wish this argument had aged worse. Trump has begun talking more frequently about revoking citizenship as a means of punishing political speech. He has mused about using the tool against political opponents, including the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, alleging potential fraud, and his former buddy Elon Musk, who had the temerity to insult him. Both of these men are naturalized, which makes their citizenship marginally easier to remove—though, again, not for simple speech. The administration has also been pursuing denaturalizations of citizens whom it believes it can prove lied on their application, which is an established legal basis for stripping their legal status. Even if Trump doesn't normalize taking away citizenship, he is continuing to entrench the idea that the government—or, really, just the president on his own—can punish citizens who criticize it, or him. That's been one of the most prominent themes of his term so far: He has banished the Associated Press from some White House spaces simply for refusing to adopt his preferred terminology, extorted law firms that employed lawyers involved in the criminal cases against him, and demanded huge payouts from news organizations. He'll continue as long as he's successful. 'If we don't have free speech, then we just don't have a free country,' Trump said in a campaign video posted in 2022. 'It's as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominos one by one. They'll go down.' Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News President Donald Trump announced a new weapons-transfer plan for Ukraine and threatened to impose high tariffs on Russia if a peace deal is not reached in 50 days. The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with dismantling the Education Department and firing nearly 1,400 workers. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration for withholding more than $6.8 billion in education funding, which helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs and assistance for students learning English. Dispatches Evening Read The AI Mirage By Ian Bogost 'I'm not going to respond to that,' Siri responded. I had just cursed at it, and this was my passive-aggressive chastisement. The cursing was, in my view, warranted. I was in my car, running errands, and had found myself in an unfamiliar part of town. I requested 'directions to Lowe's,' hoping to get routed to the big-box hardware store without taking my eyes off the road. But apparently Siri didn't understand. 'Which Lowe?' it asked, before displaying a list of people with the surname Lowe in my address book … The latest version of Siri has 'better conversational context'—the sort of thing that should help the software know when I'm asking to be guided to the home-improvement store rather than to a guy called Lowe. But my iPhone apparently isn't new enough for this update. I would need cutting-edge artificial intelligence to get directions to Lowe's. More From The Atlantic Read. Alert the incels! The rest of us love Pamela Anderson, and we will always love her, Caitlin Flanagan writes. Let go. And let your kid climb that tree, Henry Abbott writes. It could actually make them safer. Play our daily crossword.

Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Sen. Schumer Channels Marx
In 'Chuck Schumer's Mamdani Test' (Review & Outlook, July 10), you ask whether the Senate minority leader will endorse Zohran Mamdani, the socialist who has given the OK to globalize the intifada. By doing so, Mr. Schumer would being turning his back 'on a good portion of his life's work.' Maybe. It seems to me that the senator's main achievement is simply getting re-elected. If bending the knee to Mr. Mamdani is what it takes to secure another term, count on it. Dana R. Hermanson
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Backs Bondi, Blames Dems For Epstein List Fiasco
President Donald Trump has sought to calm growing divisions within his political base by defending Attorney General Pam Bondi and dismissing renewed scrutiny over the handling of Jeffrey Epstein-related documents. Trump took to social media over the weekend and posted to support Bondi, writing that Bondi is 'doing a FANTASTIC JOB!' Trump claimed in his post that the Epstein 'client list,' which has recently been claimed nonexistent by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was created by previous Democratic leaders. 'For years, it's Epstein, over and over again. Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration…' wrote the President. 'They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called 'friends' are playing right into their hands. Why didn't these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn't they use it?' Trump also berated a reporter last week when asked about the handling of the Epstein documents, indicating that more important things were to be focused on than Epstein. 'And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?' Trump questioned. 'That is unbelievable.' These statements from the President come shortly after a joint memo from the DOJ and FBI claiming that there is no evidence supporting conspiracy theories about Epstein's death or the existence of a so-called 'client list.' However, the claims made by the FBI and DOJ directly contradict Bondi's previous statement, in which she claimed to have the client list ready for review. 'It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump,' she said in February when asked about the client list. Bondi has since attempted to clarify these comments, claiming that she meant to review more than just Epstein's files. 'I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed – meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that,' she explained, per CNN. Despite the attempt at clarification, many political activists have now called for changes within the Trump administration. 'Blondi [sic] has been very DAMAGING to the admin and she has damaged public trust in the DOJ. She is hurting President Trump and his staff/advisors,' wrote Laura Loomer on social media. 'She lied on national TV and needs to be held accountable for harming the Trump admin and public trust.' Similarly, Tucker Carlson called out Bondi's claims, adding that he now believes that the government does not have 'much relevant information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.' 'Rather than just admit that, Pam Bondi made a bunch of ludicrous claims on cable news shows that she couldn't back up, and this current outrage is the result,' he explained during an interview with NBC News. Currently, there has been no indication made by the White House about plans to move on from Bondi, with many expecting the attorney general to retain her role for the foreseeable future.