Crypto Regulation Showdown: Over 75 Amendments Slam Landmark Bill Days Before Critical Senate Hearing
Washington's crypto reckoning just got a whole lot messier. With a pivotal Senate hearing just days away, lawmakers have thrown a legislative grenade into the chamber—slapping more than 75 amendments onto a landmark digital asset bill. This isn't tweaking; it's a full-scale rewrite in real-time.
The Amendment Avalanche
Forget gentle revisions. This barrage of changes targets everything from DeFi oversight and stablecoin issuance to tax reporting and consumer protections. Each amendment represents a faction, an interest, or an ideological line in the sand. The original bill's architects now face a scramble to salvage their core framework before the gavel drops.
Hearing Day Drama
The timing couldn't be more theatrical. Senators will now debate a moving target, a document morphing by the hour. Expect fiery exchanges, pointed questions about last-minute changes, and classic political maneuvering—all under the bright lights of a national policy debate on crypto's future. It's high-stakes poker with the industry's rulebook on the table.
Behind the Scenes: What's Really at Stake
This amendment frenzy reveals the brutal fight for control. Banking committees, agriculture panels, and tech-focused caucuses all see a piece of the crypto pie. The amendments are their weapons. Some aim to tighten the leash, others to carve out safe harbors for innovation. The outcome will dictate whether the U.S. framework is a clear on-ramp or a regulatory maze.
Zero-hour negotiations are now the name of the game. Staffers are burning midnight oil, and lobbyists are working their phones raw. The final text that reaches the hearing room might look nothing like the draft from a week ago—a testament to how fiercely contested every comma in crypto law has become.
One cynical take from the finance trenches? Watching traditional banks fund amendments to stifle crypto while simultaneously ramping up their own blockchain divisions. The old guard loves competition—just not on a level playing field.
The clock is ticking. These next few days will either forge a coherent path forward or kick the can down the road with a patchwork of conflicting proposals. One thing's certain: the process just got a lot more interesting.
Markup session set for Thursday
On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee will convene for a markup session. Legislators will debate the suggested amendments, cast votes on whether or not to approve any of them, and then determine whether or not the main measure should proceed. A similar meeting had been scheduled by the Senate Agriculture Committee, but it has been rescheduled until the end of January. Just before midnight on Monday, the Banking Committee’s original legislation became accessible. Legislators and business officials have been attentively examining the specifics ever since.
Several of the proposed modifications have support from members of both parties. Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks have jointly submitted three changes. Two of them focus on the part of the bill dealing with stablecoin rewards. One WOULD take out the word “solely” from the current language, which states that “a digital asset service provider may not pay any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) solely in connection with the holding of a payment stablecoin.”
Their other proposal would change reporting rules and introduce risk guidance requirements for yield payments. Several additional proposed modifications also target the stablecoin rewards section, with some aiming to remove yield payments altogether.
During typical congressional markup sessions, most proposed amendments fail to pass. Many could also be withdrawn based on agreements made during the meeting. This means most items on the long list probably will not make it into the final version.
Ethical concerns remain unresolved
What remains uncertain is whether lawmakers have reached an agreement on concerns Democrats raised earlier during negotiations. The main issue involves ethical questions Democrats have about President Donald TRUMP and his family’s connections to the cryptocurrency industry. They formally outlined this worry in a document last fall. Senator Ruben Gallego reportedly helped negotiate ethics provisions, but none of his proposed changes appear to address this topic based on their descriptions.
Senator Chris Van Hollen has submitted a proposal calling for an “anti-corruption provision” and another requiring disclosure of financial interests labeled as an “anti-touting requirement.”
A Democratic staff member said Tuesday evening that ethics discussions are ongoing, but no agreement has been finalized. The staff member called ethics “one of a couple sticking points in these talks.”
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester has proposed changes addressing “quorum requirements.” This relates to Democratic concerns that Trump has not appointed any Democrats to what are supposed to be bipartisan commissions running the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Both agencies currently have only Republicans in leadership positions.
Democratic Senators Gallego, Alsobrooks, Blunt Rochester, Jack Reed, Andy Kim, Raphael Warnock, Catherine Cortez Masto, Elizabeth Warren, and Van Hollen submitted proposals before Tuesday’s deadline. From the Republican side, Tillis, Mike Rounds, Bill Hagerty, Pete Ricketts, Katie Britt, John Kennedy, Cynthia Lummis, Kevin Cramer, and Tim Scott filed provisions.
Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program
