Senate Committee Puts Crypto Bill on Ice—Housing Takes Priority

Lawmakers hit pause on digital asset regulation, shifting focus to the housing crisis. The delay throws another curveball at an industry hungry for clarity.

Regulatory Limbo

The move sidelines a long-awaited framework that could define how cryptocurrencies are treated under U.S. law. No new timeline was given—just a vague promise to revisit it later.

Market Reaction: A Collective Shrug

Traders barely flinched. The industry has grown accustomed to Washington's slow dance, building around regulatory gray areas instead of waiting for permission. It's the financial equivalent of 'move fast and break things'—until you can't.

The Bigger Picture

This isn't just about scheduling. It signals where political capital is being spent. When housing headlines dominate, crypto gets back-burnered—a reminder that, for all its hype, digital assets still fight for a seat at the adult policy table.

So the waiting game continues. Innovation won't stop, but legitimacy gets delayed another quarter. In the meantime, the market does what it always does: adapts, speculates, and occasionally rolls its eyes at the pace of bureaucracy.

The Senate committee delayed the crypto bill to focus on housing work

The Senate Banking Committee’s scope comprises not only financial market regulation but also housing regulation. Therefore, the committee has to allocate its time between regulating financial systems and addressing issues affecting the cost of living and housing.

In the past few weeks, members of the committee have pushed back their broader market structure legislation for the crypto industry. At the same time, they were focusing on proposals to alleviate consumer costs of living and, subsequently, reduce their overall cost of living, specifically on an everyday basis.

According to sources outside the Senate Banking Committee, the postponement of pending crypto legislation has led to a shift in the committee’s calendar, reflecting how members are managing their workloads.

This gives employees more time to examine residential development schemes, but it also pushes back the hours of the workforce and committee hearings for the pending regulations on digital currency.

The change in the schedule is a result of the Senate Banking Committee rescheduling its hearings on digital assets to align with other housing-related hearings.

The upcoming session WOULD focus on initial designs for housing strategies, with ideas from experts considered. The process would involve ideas from experts who would provide in-depth perspectives. Preparation is in motion, leading to in-depth discussions in upcoming sessions.

Even though it doesn’t affect all cryptocurrency-related legislation currently before the Senate, certain committees and roles should proceed as scheduled, regardless of the Banking Committee.

Disagreements slowed progress on crypto market rules

Support from the crypto-community for the Digital Asset Market Structure Act dropped off after mid-January, further slowing the legislative process.

Coinbase, a leading US cryptocurrency exchange, publicly withdrew its support for the proposed legislation. They highlighted concerns that some provisions could stifle decentralized finance and the development of new financial instruments on the blockchain.

Coinbase’s withdrawal of support reveals an underlying pattern of concern among industry players, making it difficult for federal legislators to find a middle path. This is an important implication because Congress needs to revisit parts of the law that aim to achieve an appropriate balance between promoting innovation and providing an appropriate degree of regulation.

Banking organizations want Congress to limit the interest rates or yields that stablecoins can offer to depositors. The reason for this request is that if crypto companies are permitted to pay returns to investors, deposits may leave banking institutions, creating potential systemic risk.

On the other hand, crypto firms claim that limiting stablecoin yields will stifle innovation in the United States and, therefore, US-based companies won’t be as competitive globally as they would be without any limitations.

This conflict is causing disagreements during the drafting of the legislation, as both sides try to ensure it includes clauses that safeguard their interests, thereby delaying the process.

However, some legislators are concerned about the governance standards and conflicts of interest contained in the bill. These legislators are advocating for standards that ensure these principles are enforced in a transparent manner.

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.