List of questions about [Cryptocurrency News]

Crypto at Davos 2026: When Power, Politics and Money Collide

The World Economic Forum in Davos has always been a stage for global power dynamics, but in 2026, cryptocurrency quietly emerged as one of the most revealing fault lines between governments, central banks and the private sector. While geopolitical disputes and security tensions dominated headlines, digital assets surfaced as a secondary theme that exposed deep disagreements over who should control the future of money.

Crypto was not the headline act at Davos this year, yet its presence was impossible to ignore. From presidential speeches to tense panel discussions, the industry became a mirror reflecting broader anxieties about sovereignty, competition and the balance between innovation and control.

Trump’s Davos Message: Crypto as a Strategic Weapon

US President Donald Trump used his appearance at Davos to reinforce a message he has repeated since returning to office: the United States intends to lead the global crypto race. Speaking to an audience of political leaders and financial executives, Trump framed digital assets not as a speculative trend, but as a geopolitical necessity.

According to Trump, crypto regulation is no longer a domestic policy issue. It is a strategic competition, particularly against China. He expressed confidence that the US would soon finalize a comprehensive crypto market structure bill, commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act, despite recent delays and resistance from major industry players.

Trump’s rhetoric made one thing clear. In his view, whoever controls the regulatory framework for crypto will shape the future of global finance. Allowing rival nations to take the lead, he warned, could permanently weaken US influence over emerging financial infrastructure.

Notably, crypto occupied only a small portion of Trump’s lengthy Davos speech. Yet the symbolism was powerful. His appearance was introduced by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, underscoring how deeply traditional finance and political leadership are now intertwined with the digital asset conversation.

Central Banks Push Back: Sovereignty Over Innovation

If Trump’s speech framed crypto as opportunity, the response from Europe’s central banking establishment emphasized risk. Nowhere was this contrast clearer than during a panel discussion featuring Banque de France Governor François Villeroy de Galhau and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

Villeroy de Galhau acknowledged that tokenization and stablecoins are likely to play a major role in modernizing financial infrastructure. He even described tokenization as one of the most significant financial innovations of the coming year, particularly for wholesale and institutional markets. Europe’s progress on central bank digital currencies was presented as evidence that innovation can occur within state-controlled systems.

The tone shifted sharply when the conversation turned to monetary sovereignty. Villeroy de Galhau argued that money cannot be separated from democratic authority. Allowing private entities to issue widely used digital currencies, especially yield-bearing stablecoins, would undermine a core function of the state.

In his view, financial stability depends on governments maintaining control over money creation. Surrendering that role to decentralized or corporate systems would weaken democracy itself.

Bitcoin, Gold and the Battle Over Trust

Brian Armstrong offered a fundamentally different interpretation. He described Bitcoin as a modern evolution of the gold standard, a decentralized alternative that protects societies from excessive government spending and long-term currency debasement.

According to Armstrong, Bitcoin’s structure makes it more neutral and independent than fiat currencies, which are subject to political incentives and fiscal pressure. He framed the debate not as a threat to democracy, but as a healthy competition between systems of trust.

The exchange highlighted the core ideological divide that ran through Davos 2026. While US political messaging increasingly treats crypto as a strategic asset, European monetary authorities remain deeply cautious about private money gaining systemic importance.

Yield-bearing stablecoins became a particular point of contention. European officials warned that interest-paying digital currencies could disrupt banking systems by drawing deposits away from traditional institutions. US crypto executives countered that such incentives are necessary to remain competitive, especially in a world where China is advancing its own state-backed digital currency.

Tokenization Takes Center Stage

While debates over sovereignty dominated headlines, tokenization emerged as one of the few areas of broad consensus. Central bankers and crypto executives alike described tokenization as the next major phase of financial evolution.

Real-world assets, from bonds to state-owned enterprises, are increasingly being represented on blockchain networks. Zhao revealed that he is in discussions with multiple governments about tokenizing public assets as a way to unlock value and fund economic development.

This convergence was notable. Even critics of private digital money acknowledged that blockchain-based infrastructure could improve efficiency, transparency and settlement speed in traditional markets.

Stablecoins and the Fear of Bank Runs

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire addressed one of the most persistent criticisms of stablecoins: the fear that they could trigger bank runs. Speaking at Davos, Allaire dismissed these concerns outright.

He argued that the incentives offered by interest-paying stablecoins are too small to meaningfully disrupt the banking system. According to Allaire, such rewards function primarily as customer retention tools rather than mechanisms capable of draining deposits at scale.

He pointed to money market funds as a historical comparison. Despite decades of warnings, trillions of dollars have flowed into these instruments without collapsing the banking sector. In his view, the shift away from banks toward private credit and capital markets was already underway, independent of stablecoins.

What Davos 2026 Revealed About Crypto’s Future

Just a few years ago, stablecoins were associated with crisis and collapse, most notably during the implosion of the Terra ecosystem in 2022. That episode damaged the public image of digital dollars and fueled skepticism among regulators.

Davos 2026 painted a different picture. Stablecoins and tokenization were no longer fringe topics. They were embedded in discussions among presidents, central bankers and corporate leaders shaping global policy.

The divide remains clear. The US political establishment increasingly views crypto as a tool of strategic competition, while European central banks emphasize caution, sovereignty and control. Regulation continues to move slowly, constrained by domestic politics and ideological disagreement.

Yet one conclusion stood out. Crypto is no longer asking for a seat at the table. It is already there, influencing debates about power, money and the future of the global financial system.

US Senate Judiciary Pushes Back Against Crypto Developer Protections

A growing divide within the US Senate is threatening to reshape the future of crypto regulation, as top lawmakers from both parties move to strip developer safeguards from a key digital asset bill. The dispute highlights rising concerns that proposed protections could unintentionally weaken law enforcement’s ability to combat illicit financial activity in decentralized crypto markets.

At the center of the debate is the Senate’s long-anticipated crypto market structure legislation, which aims to clarify how regulators oversee digital assets and blockchain-based platforms. However, Senate Judiciary Committee leaders argue that parts of the bill could open dangerous loopholes for criminals operating through decentralized systems.

Bipartisan Warning From the Senate Judiciary Committee

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Grassley and the committee’s senior Democrat, Richard Durbin, issued a rare bipartisan warning to leaders of the Senate Banking Committee. In a letter sent to Banking Chair Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren, the lawmakers urged major revisions to the bill’s language.

According to Grassley and Durbin, the current draft risks undermining long-standing unlicensed money transmitter laws by shielding certain crypto developers and network operators from liability. They warned that this could severely limit the government’s ability to pursue bad actors who exploit decentralized platforms for illegal purposes.

The letter, first reported by Politico, described the proposed protections as creating a  significant enforcement gap  that sophisticated criminal organizations could take advantage of.

Lawmakers Fear Criminal Exploitation of Decentralized Platforms

Grassley and Durbin emphasized that criminal groups already rely on advanced methods to hide illegal transactions, including the use of complex financial structures and anonymizing technologies. They argued that the bill, as currently written, would make it even harder for prosecutors to trace and punish unlawful activity tied to decentralized digital assets.

In their view, removing accountability from developers and network maintainers could turn decentralized platforms into attractive safe havens for illicit actors, including transnational criminal organizations and cartels. The senators stressed that regulatory clarity should not come at the cost of weakening public safety or financial crime enforcement.

The Role of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act

The controversy largely stems from the inclusion of provisions inspired by the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, or BRCA. This proposal seeks to clarify that individuals who develop blockchain software or maintain decentralized networks are not automatically classified as money transmitters under federal or state law.

Supporters argue that such protections are necessary to foster innovation and prevent developers from being punished for how others use open-source technology. Critics, however, warn that overly broad exemptions could shield individuals who play a more active role in facilitating illicit transactions.

Grassley and Durbin contend that the bill fails to clearly distinguish between neutral software development and conduct that effectively enables unlicensed money transmission.

Judiciary Committee Says It Was Left Out of the Process

Adding to the tension, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said they were not consulted during the drafting of the bill, despite their committee’s authority over federal criminal statutes and the Department of Justice.

They expressed frustration that proposed changes affecting criminal enforcement were advanced without giving the Judiciary Committee a meaningful opportunity to review or weigh in. In their letter, they urged the Banking Committee to reject any language that could weaken the government’s ability to hold culpable actors accountable.

This procedural dispute has further complicated efforts to move the legislation forward.

Legislative Delays and Political Uncertainty

The crypto market structure bill has already faced setbacks, with both the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees postponing scheduled markups in an effort to build broader bipartisan support. The latest objections from the Judiciary Committee add another obstacle to an already fragile legislative path.

If the bill eventually reaches the Senate floor, it will require at least 60 votes to pass. That threshold would likely demand unanimous Republican support and backing from several Democrats, making any internal disagreement particularly consequential.

Crypto Industry Support Begins to Fracture

Industry reaction has also been mixed. Coinbase, one of the most influential lobbying forces in the crypto sector, withdrew its support for the bill earlier this week, citing concerns over multiple provisions. While the company has since indicated that negotiations with lawmakers are ongoing, the move underscored growing unease within the industry.

The combination of political resistance and shifting industry alliances raises questions about whether the bill can survive in its current form.

What This Means for the Future of US Crypto Regulation

The clash over developer protections reflects a broader struggle to balance innovation with enforcement in the rapidly evolving crypto space. Lawmakers face mounting pressure to define clear rules without creating blind spots that criminals can exploit.

As negotiations continue behind closed doors, the fate of the crypto market structure bill remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the debate has entered a critical phase—one that could shape how decentralized technologies are regulated in the United States for years to come.

Crypto Whales Turn to Gold as Bitcoin Hits a Rare Stall

As Bitcoin struggles to find momentum, crypto whales are increasingly turning their attention to gold, creating a fascinating intersection between traditional safe-haven assets and the digital economy. Recent blockchain data shows a surge in tokenized gold withdrawals from major centralized exchanges, signaling that high-net-worth crypto investors are hedging during uncertain macroeconomic conditions.

Massive Gold Moves Spark Attention

21Shares Introduces Europe’s First Jito-Staked Solana ETP

Solana Slides Under $130 — But Onchain Signals Suggest the Sell-Off May Be Temporary

Solana’s price briefly slipped below the psychologically important $130 level on Jan. 21, marking its lowest point since early January. At first glance, the move appeared to confirm growing bearish pressure across the broader crypto market. However, a deeper look beneath the surface tells a very different story.

Why Trade Finance Could Become Blockchain’s Most Powerful Use Case

Blockchain has already proven that it can disrupt finance. From cryptocurrencies to decentralized finance and cross-border payments, the technology has introduced faster settlement, greater transparency and open access to markets that were once reserved for institutions. Yet, despite these advances, blockchain’s most transformative opportunity may still lie ahead.

That opportunity sits quietly at the core of the global economy: trade finance.

Trade finance is the engine that keeps international commerce moving. It enables exporters, importers, manufacturers and distributors to operate across borders by providing credit, liquidity and risk mitigation. The sector is massive, essential and deeply flawed — a rare combination that makes it uniquely suited for blockchain-driven change.

A Trillion-Dollar Industry Still Stuck in the Past

Global trade finance is estimated to be a $9.7 trillion market, supporting the movement of goods and services worldwide. Despite its scale, the industry remains heavily dependent on paper-based processes, manual verification and fragmented systems that have barely evolved over decades.

Letters of credit, invoices, bills of lading and purchase orders still pass through multiple intermediaries, often taking weeks to reconcile. Each transaction involves banks, insurers, shipping companies, customs authorities and auditors, all operating on disconnected systems. Delays, errors and duplicated documentation are not exceptions — they are routine.

This inefficiency creates more than inconvenience. It creates exclusion.

An estimated $2.5 trillion global trade finance gap continues to block small and medium-sized enterprises from accessing the capital they need. SMEs form the backbone of global trade, especially in emerging markets, yet they are often deemed too risky or too costly to serve by traditional banks. When financing is denied, production slows, contracts are lost and entire supply chains weaken.

Why Blockchain Fits Trade Finance Better Than Any Other Sector

Trade finance and blockchain are not just compatible; they are naturally aligned.

At its core, trade finance relies on trust, verification and timing. Blockchain excels in all three. By recording trade documents on an immutable, shared ledger, blockchain removes the need for constant reconciliation between parties. Documents can be verified instantly, ownership can be tracked transparently and fraud becomes significantly harder to execute.

When invoices, shipping documents and receivables move onchain, the entire lifecycle of a trade transaction becomes visible and auditable in real time. This reduces disputes, shortens settlement cycles and lowers operational costs for all participants.

More importantly, blockchain introduces tokenization, which fundamentally changes how trade assets are financed.

Tokenized Receivables and the Flow of Global Liquidity

Tokenization allows real-world trade assets such as receivables and invoices to be represented digitally and transferred instantly. Instead of remaining locked within local banking systems, these assets can be accessed by a global pool of investors seeking yield.

For exporters, this means faster access to capital without waiting months for payment. For investors, it opens exposure to real economic activity rather than speculative instruments alone. For SMEs, particularly in developing economies, tokenized trade assets create a bridge between their businesses and global liquidity markets.

This evolution mirrors what has already happened with other asset classes. Tokenized government bonds, funds and private credit instruments have grown into tens of billions of dollars. Yet trade finance, despite being significantly larger, remains underrepresented onchain. This imbalance signals not a lack of demand, but untapped potential.

As blockchain adoption expands, trade finance appears poised to become the next major wave of real-world asset tokenization.

Regulation Is No Longer the Barrier It Once Was

For years, legal uncertainty prevented digital trade instruments from gaining widespread adoption. If an electronic document had no legal standing, tokenizing it offered little real value.

That reality has changed.

Global policy frameworks now recognize electronic trade documents as legally enforceable. International standards such as the UN Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records have laid the groundwork for cross-border digital trade. National legislation, including the UK’s Electronic Trade Documents Act, has reinforced the legal equivalence of digital records.

In parallel, regulatory clarity around stablecoins has strengthened blockchain-based settlement. With fully reserved, regulated stablecoins now recognized as compliant payment instruments, onchain settlement can be integrated into global trade flows with confidence.

This combination of legal recognition and financial regulation removes one of the final structural barriers to tokenized trade finance.

Institutional Infrastructure Is Catching Up

The shift is no longer theoretical. Ports, logistics providers, customs authorities and multinational banks are actively digitizing trade processes. Institutional decentralized finance platforms are emerging to connect real-world trade credit with blockchain-based liquidity.

Bitcoin Quietly Climbs While Online Buzz Fades in 2025

Bitcoin spent 2025 rewriting price history, yet something unusual happened beneath the surface. Despite breaking multiple all-time highs and surviving one of the most violent market crashes in recent memory, public attention toward Bitcoin weakened instead of growing. Search trends declined, social media mentions dropped, and online enthusiasm cooled, creating a striking disconnect between price action and public interest.

This paradox reveals a deeper shift in how the market interacts with Bitcoin, suggesting that maturity, not hype, may now be driving the world’s largest cryptocurrency.

Search Interest Slows After Post-Election Surge

Obscure Laws Continue to Delay the Creation of a US Bitcoin Reserve

A Strategic Idea Trapped Inside Legal Complexity

The concept of the United States establishing a national Bitcoin reserve has evolved from a fringe discussion into an official government initiative. Yet, despite growing political acknowledgment and increasing global interest in Bitcoin as a strategic asset, the plan remains stalled. According to Patrick Witt, Director of the White House Crypto Council, the delay has little to do with political resistance and everything to do with complicated and often overlooked legal frameworks.

In recent remarks, Witt confirmed that multiple federal agencies are actively engaged in discussions about the reserve. However, conflicting legal authorities and outdated statutory provisions continue to slow progress. What seems like a simple decision from the outside quickly becomes a maze once federal law and agency mandates are examined in detail.

Inside the White House Crypto Council’s Struggle

Witt revealed that agencies such as the Department of Justice and the Office of Legal Counsel are deeply involved in evaluating whether existing laws allow the government to formally establish and manage a Bitcoin reserve. Each agency operates under strict legal boundaries, many of which were written long before digital assets existed.

The challenge lies in determining which agency has the legal authority to hold Bitcoin, how it should be classified on federal balance sheets, and whether current laws permit long-term custody of a decentralized asset. These  obscure  provisions, as Witt described them, have become the main obstacle rather than political disagreement.

Despite the complexity, Witt stressed that the initiative remains active and has not been abandoned.

Trump’s Executive Order: A Historic Yet Limited Step

In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that formally created a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve alongside a broader Digital Asset Stockpile. This move marked the first time Bitcoin was recognized at the executive level as a potential strategic reserve asset.

The order required the federal government to retain all Bitcoin already in its possession and explicitly prohibited selling those holdings. However, it also placed strict limitations on how the reserve could grow. The government was only allowed to add Bitcoin obtained through asset forfeiture cases, effectively banning direct market purchases.

While symbolic and historic, the order failed to satisfy much of the Bitcoin community, which had expected a more aggressive and forward-looking accumulation strategy.

Why Bitcoin Supporters Felt Let Down

For many Bitcoin advocates, the announcement felt incomplete. A reserve that relies solely on seized assets lacks the strategic intent associated with national reserves like gold or foreign currencies. Critics argue that refusing to acquire Bitcoin on the open market undermines the credibility of the entire initiative.

Bitcoin maximalist voices were particularly vocal. Some claimed that the administration’s approach reflected caution bordering on avoidance, suggesting that Washington was unwilling to fully commit to a fixed-supply asset that exists outside traditional monetary control.

The disappointment intensified when a long-anticipated digital asset policy report released in mid-2025 made no meaningful reference to expanding the Bitcoin reserve. For many investors, this confirmed fears that progress was largely symbolic.

Treasury Signals a Possible Shift in Strategy

Momentum briefly returned in August 2025 when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent proposed the idea of acquiring Bitcoin through budget-neutral strategies. These approaches would allow the government to accumulate BTC without increasing the national deficit or burdening taxpayers.

Such strategies could involve reallocating existing reserve assets, converting portions of traditional holdings into Bitcoin, or using gains from revalued metals reserves to fund purchases. Although no official plan has been implemented, the proposal reopened serious discussion about whether the US could become an active participant in Bitcoin markets.

If adopted, this approach could dramatically reshape global perceptions of Bitcoin’s role in sovereign finance.

Why a US Bitcoin Reserve Would Change Everything

A fully operational US Bitcoin reserve would represent a turning point not only for cryptocurrency markets but for the global financial system. It would signal that Bitcoin has matured beyond speculation and is now considered a legitimate strategic asset by the world’s largest economy.

Bitcoin Open Interest Drops Sharply, Fueling Expectations of a Market Rebound

Bitcoin’s derivatives market has undergone a significant reset over the past three months, with open interest falling by nearly one-third from its October peak. While such a decline may appear bearish at first glance, analysts argue that this kind of deleveraging has historically laid the groundwork for stronger and more sustainable recoveries.

According to on-chain data provider CryptoQuant, the 30%–31% contraction in Bitcoin derivatives open interest reflects a broad unwinding of leveraged positions that had accumulated during last year’s speculative surge. This process, often referred to as deleveraging, reduces systemic risk in the market and can signal the formation of a potential price floor.

Deleveraging Clears Excess Risk From the Market

US Regulators Push for Unified Crypto Oversight Amid Growing Market Interest

In a landmark move signaling closer cooperation on digital assets, the heads of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) appeared together at a joint event on Thursday, emphasizing the need for a coordinated approach to crypto regulation. This event marked a significant step toward clarifying oversight in a rapidly evolving market that has long been mired by fragmented rules and regulatory uncertainty.

CFTC Joins SEC’s Project Crypto

Michael Selig, the chair of the CFTC, announced that his agency would actively participate in the SEC’s ongoing initiative, Project Crypto, which was launched in July to provide regulatory clarity for digital assets. According to Selig, this partnership aims to create a clear taxonomy for crypto assets, define jurisdictional boundaries, and eliminate redundant compliance requirements that have long burdened the market.

Fragmented oversight imposes real economic costs, Selig explained.  It raises barriers to entry, reduces competition, increases compliance expenses, and encourages regulatory arbitrage rather than productive investment. Recognizing this, the CFTC intends to work closely with the SEC to align regulatory requirements across markets.

Selig emphasized that the goal is not to blur statutory boundaries but to reduce unnecessary duplication that does not enhance market integrity.

Harmonizing Crypto Rules for the Future

SEC Chair Paul Atkins echoed these sentiments, stating that the industry must move beyond  turf wars  of the past and embrace a new era of cooperation. The collaboration is also aligned with Congress’ ongoing work on legislation aimed at clarifying the roles of the SEC and CFTC in overseeing the digital asset market.

The Senate Agriculture Committee recently voted along party lines to advance the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, a bill designed to establish a framework for digital asset market structure. Although the measure still requires coordination with the Senate Banking Committee before a full chamber vote, the legislation reflects the growing urgency for unified oversight.

Addressing Prediction Markets

Selig also addressed the regulatory challenges surrounding prediction markets, including political and sports-related event contracts. Since taking office in December, he directed the CFTC staff to withdraw a 2024 rule prohibiting such contracts and a 2025 advisory cautioning registrants due to ongoing litigation.

“For too long, the CFTC’s framework has been difficult to apply and has failed market participants,  Selig said.  I aim to establish clear standards for event contracts that provide certainty and clarity.

His remarks come as several U.S. states have moved to crack down on prediction market platforms, arguing that operators require gaming licenses to offer sports wagers. By clarifying the federal framework, the CFTC hopes to reduce regulatory confusion and protect market participants.

CFTC Leadership and Legislative Scrutiny

The question of CFTC leadership has been a hot topic amid the push for new digital asset regulations. The agency has been understaffed following multiple resignations in 2025, including acting Chair Caroline Pham, leaving the commission with only one Republican member.

During Thursday’s markup, Senator Amy Klobuchar proposed an amendment requiring the CFTC to be fully staffed with at least four commissioners before the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act could take effect. The amendment narrowly failed, highlighting the tension between lawmakers over the scope of regulatory authority.

As of now, the White House has not announced nominations to fill the remaining vacancies, leaving the CFTC in a delicate position as it navigates an increasingly complex crypto landscape.

Looking Ahead

The joint appearance of the CFTC and SEC chairs signals a more cooperative approach to digital asset regulation in the United States. By aligning standards, reducing duplication, and clarifying roles, regulators hope to support innovation while protecting investors and maintaining market integrity.

For crypto investors and companies, these developments could mean clearer rules, less regulatory uncertainty, and a more predictable environment for launching and managing digital asset projects. The era of fragmented oversight may soon give way to a more unified and structured regulatory framework, potentially shaping the future of the U.S. crypto market for years to come.