In early 2026, as the United States Senate weighs a comprehensive digital asset market structure bill, leading crypto exchanges pressed lawmakers to remove a provision that could hamper token listings. Politico reported that Coinbase, Kraken and Gemini asked lawmakers to excise language requiring trading platforms to offer only assets that are “not readily susceptible to manipulation.” The appeal underscores how industry stakeholders may influence drafting that governs listing standards, exchange compliance, and market integrity.
The reported intervention followed the US Senate Agriculture Committee’s January vote to advance its version of the bill, signaling that industry input is shaping legislative text even as committees refine policy details. Separately, Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad said on social channels that the issue was “old news” and had already been included in the committee’s markup, highlighting the persistent tensions around tokenized equities and other complex instruments.
Under the market-structure framework, known as the CLARITY Act after its partisan maneuvering, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would gain enhanced authority to oversee digital assets. In March, both the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission announced intentions to coordinate oversight of the crypto markets, denoting a pragmatic approach to regulation in the absence of a comprehensive congressional accord. This coordination would influence licensing, enforcement, and cross-agency policy harmonization as firms navigate a bifurcated regulatory landscape.
Industry and policymakers have also been exploring a path forward on related questions, including stablecoins. Reports of a compromise between crypto and banking representatives on stablecoin yield circulated last week, with some lawmakers signaling a push for ethics language addressing conflicts of interest as the bill advances through the banking committee. Meanwhile, observers have widely anticipated a markup in the banking committee in the near term, with projections that the legislation could reach floor consideration before the Senate recess in August. White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt indicated the administration’s objective of shepherding House passage around early July, contingent on a vote in the Senate in June.
For market participants, these developments carry significant regulatory and compliance implications. The proposed standard that assets be “not readily susceptible to manipulation” would tighten the criteria for listing, potentially constraining smaller or newer tokens and altering traditional exchange onboarding practices. The tension between investor protection and market access remains central to the debate, with industry voices warning that overly aggressive constraints could impair liquidity or hinder innovation, particularly in tokenized assets and new digital-asset classes.
The proposed market-structure framework would reallocate regulatory authority toward the CFTC, enlarging its remit over digital assets that operate outside traditional securities or commodities regimes. In parallel, the agreement among regulators to coordinate oversight reflects a move away from siloed supervision toward a layered, cross-agency approach. For market infrastructure providers—exchanges, liquidity venues and token issuers—this coordination could shape requirements for registration, surveillance, AML/KYC controls, and ongoing reporting obligations.
From a compliance standpoint, the shift amplifies the importance of accurate asset classification, as enforcement actions could hinge on whether a given token falls within a commodity, a security, or a digital asset category with bespoke regulatory rules. Firms may need to align programmatic controls—transaction monitoring, risk assessments, and governance frameworks—with expectations that both the CFTC and SEC will monitor market integrity, disclosure, and conflict-of-interest risks. The prospect of tighter, harmonized oversight also raises questions about licensing pathways for new products and the pace at which firms must adapt their compliance tooling to accommodate dual- or cross-registrations.
The contested provision on manipulation risk reveals a core tension in contemporary market structure debates: balancing investor protection with practical liquidity and innovation. If the requirement to list only manipulation-resistant assets remains in flux or is softened, exchanges could maintain a broader token catalog, including smaller-cap tokens that typically face higher liquidity and surveillance costs. Conversely, stricter standards could narrow the universe of admissible assets, affecting portfolio construction for institutional traders, market-making desks, and fund liquidity programs.
Beyond listing mechanics, the episode underscores how public policy within a highly technical sector depends on input from market participants. Coinbase’s public commentary around the bill’s wording signals that industry players are monitoring both text changes and the process by which committee marks shape final policy. For participants, this means heightened sensitivity to legislative text and the timing of committee actions, with compliance teams tracking changes that affect onboarding, risk categorization, and disclosure obligations tied to asset classes and product design.
With the CFTC and SEC signaling coordinated oversight, firms face an enhanced expectation of consistent implementation across agencies. This alignment bears directly on licensing regimes, registration expectations, and ongoing compliance monitoring. Institutions may need to revisit risk governance frameworks to reflect potential shifts in enforcement priorities, particularly around asset classification, listing standards, and disclosures related to custody and settlement risk. In addition, the broader regulatory stance on stablecoins—an area under intense congressional and executive scrutiny—could influence banking relationships, as regulators assess reserves, liquidity management, and customer protections in stablecoin programs.
Cross-border considerations remain salient. The United States’ regulatory posture often interacts with international frameworks, including MiCA in the European Union and various national regimes. Institutions operating globally must map how U.S. rules interface with overseas jurisdictions, ensuring that policy alignment, risk controls, and reporting obligations satisfy multiple legal regimes while maintaining consistency in risk signaling and governance practices.
Market participants have tracked a signal-rich window as negotiations proceed. Reports of a compromise on stablecoin yields indicate ongoing sector-into-policy dialogue, with the aim of advancing the bill through the banking committee. While some lawmakers advocate adding ethics language to address conflicts of interest, others anticipate a relatively rapid passage timeline, potentially before the August recess. A White House adviser’s comments regarding a July 4 target for House passage, after a Senate vote in June, illustrate the administration’s eagerness to see a coordinated framework come into effect within a defined cycle. For compliance and risk teams, this translates into windows of opportunity for policy finalization and corresponding readiness testing across internal control systems and audit programs.
Closing perspective
As the United States contemplates a broader framework for digital-asset market structure, the interplay between legislative text, industry engagement, and regulator coordination will shape the pace and scope of enforcement, licensing, and risk management. Institutions should monitor committee marks, enforcement signals, and cross-agency guidance to calibrate listing policies, product design, and compliance programs for the evolving regulatory landscape.
This article was originally published as Exchanges Urge Congress to Block Ban on Risky Tokens, Report Finds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
