The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Oversight Subcommittee hearing, titled “Making America the Crypto Capital of the World: Ensuring Digital Asset Policy Built for the 21st Century,” was scheduled for July 16, 2025, at 9:00 AM ET in the 1100 Longworth House Office Building. The hearing aimed to explore the establishment of a modern digital asset tax policy to position the U.S. as a global leader in cryptocurrency.

It was part of a broader “Crypto Week” (July 14-18, 2025), during which Congress focused on digital asset policies, including discussions on the CLARITY Act, the GENIUS Act, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. The hearing focused on creating a clear tax policy framework for digital assets, addressing industry concerns about regulatory uncertainty and exploring industry-friendly policies to foster blockchain innovation.

The hearing focused on establishing a modern tax policy framework for digital assets, addressing a long-standing industry pain point: unclear tax regulations. A clear framework could reduce compliance costs, encourage innovation, and attract institutional investment by providing certainty for crypto businesses and investors.

Legislation like the CLARITY Act, which aims to delineate regulatory authority between the SEC and CFTC, and the GENIUS Act, which provides a framework for stablecoin issuance, could streamline oversight and reduce regulatory overlap, potentially boosting market liquidity and investor confidence. Clearer rules could position the U.S. as a global crypto hub, drawing capital inflows and fostering blockchain innovation, as noted by industry advocates like Jag Kooner from Bitfinex.

A pro-crypto tax policy could encourage broader ecosystem participation, including by institutional investors, potentially stabilizing and growing markets for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). The GENIUS Act, if passed, could enable banks, fintechs, and retailers to issue stablecoins, expanding consumer access and integrating digital assets into mainstream finance.

This could enhance the U.S. dollar’s global dominance through stablecoin adoption. However, without robust consumer protections, there’s a risk of market instability, as seen in past crypto collapses. Witnesses like Timothy Massad have emphasized the need for a regulatory framework to ensure stablecoin stability and prevent systemic risks. The hearing reflects a push to prevent the U.S. from falling behind jurisdictions like Singapore and the UAE, which have clearer crypto regulations.

Senate Banking Committee members, like Sen. Tim Scott, argue that regulatory clarity is essential to retain jobs and innovation domestically. A strategic Bitcoin reserve or national digital asset stockpile, as proposed in the Trump administration’s upcoming report, could further position the U.S. as a crypto leader, though such ideas remain speculative. Critics, including Carole House, highlight risks like cybersecurity vulnerabilities and illicit finance, citing events like the February 2025 North Korean crypto heist.

Robust anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) measures are critical to address these concerns. A balanced framework could mitigate these risks while fostering innovation, but overly lax regulations might exacerbate vulnerabilities in the crypto sector. Republican leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and Rep. Jason Smith, champions an industry-friendly approach, framing the U.S. as a potential “crypto capital.” They support bills like the CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage innovation.

Republicans argue that the Joe Biden administration’s “regulation by enforcement” approach drove innovation offshore, and they advocate for “light-touch guardrails” to protect investors while fostering growth. The CLARITY Act, advanced by bipartisan majorities in House committees, reflects some Republican success in pushing for clearer SEC-CFTC boundaries, though it faces Senate scrutiny.

Democrats, led by figures like Rep. Maxine Waters, express significant concerns about the proposed legislation, particularly citing President Trump’s personal crypto ventures, estimated at $2.9 billion. They argue that his financial interests, including the TRUMP token, create conflicts of interest and risk regulatory capture. A dramatic walkout by Democrats during a May 2025 hearing underscores their frustration, with some labeling the bills “dangerous” and accusing Republicans of prioritizing Trump’s interests over consumer protections.

Democrats advocate for stronger consumer protections, AML/KYC measures, and cybersecurity safeguards, warning that deregulation could exacerbate fraud, manipulation, and systemic risks in the crypto market. While the CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act initially had bipartisan support, Democratic backing has waned due to concerns about Trump’s influence and inadequate protections. This has fractured earlier consensus, as seen in the rejection of Democratic amendments to strengthen consumer safeguards.

The Senate Banking Committee’s separate hearings, featuring industry leaders like Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse, suggest a more cautious approach, with Democrats pushing for comprehensive frameworks over rushed deregulation. However, critics like Rep. Waters highlight risks of corruption and inadequate oversight, resonating with those wary of deregulation. This divide mirrors broader public and industry debates about balancing innovation with accountability.

The July 16, 2025, hearing and “Crypto Week” could set the stage for transformative U.S. crypto policy, potentially making the country a global leader by clarifying tax and regulatory frameworks. However, the political divide threatens progress. Republicans push for deregulation to spur innovation, while Democrats demand stronger protections to mitigate risks, fueled by concerns over Trump’s crypto ventures.

Bybit announced the delisting of several tokens, including Tap (TAP), VaporFund (VPR), Cosplay Token (COT), Souni (SON), Tenet Protocol (TENET), Havah (HVH), Brawl AI Layer (BRAWL), along with others like KCAL, MOJO, SALD, and THN. This decision aligns with Bybit’s periodic review to maintain a robust trading ecosystem, citing factors such as project performance and compliance with listing criteria.

Trading for these tokens has been halted, and users were advised to withdraw their holdings by October 7, 2025, at 10:00 AM UTC, after which any remaining balances will be converted to USDT at the market price. Deposits for these tokens were disabled as of July 8, 2025, at 10:00 AM UTC. For further details, Bybit’s official announcement provides the full schedule and process.

Delisting from a high-volume exchange like Bybit significantly reduces liquidity for these tokens, making it harder for holders to buy or sell them efficiently. This can lead to increased price volatility and wider bid-ask spreads on remaining platforms, if any. Bybit’s global user base of over 60 million means these tokens lose exposure to a large pool of traders, potentially stifling growth and adoption.

For tokens like Tap (TAPS), which gained traction through viral Telegram-based games with over 60 million users, this could hinder momentum post-launch. Delistings often trigger sharp price declines due to reduced market confidence and selling pressure from investors seeking to exit positions before trading halts. For instance, VaporFund (VPR) was trading at $0.00060238 as of May 2025, but delisting could exacerbate downward trends, especially for low-cap tokens.

Delisting signals potential issues with a project’s performance, compliance, or viability, as Bybit’s reviews focus on these factors. This can erode trust in projects like Havah (HVH), which aimed to enhance NFT interoperability, or Tenet Protocol (TENET), which had partnerships with Conflux and Qtum. Bybit’s policy converts remaining token balances to USDT at market price by October 7, 2025, potentially locking in losses for investors who fail to withdraw in time.

Retail investors, in particular, may face challenges navigating this process due to limited awareness or technical expertise. Investors must seek alternative exchanges or decentralized platforms to trade these tokens, which may involve higher fees, lower liquidity, or increased risk. For tokens like Tap (TAPS), rumored to be listed on platforms like Binance, investors may need to monitor other exchanges for continued trading opportunities.

Delisting can disrupt project funding, as reduced liquidity and market exposure often lead to lower token valuations, impacting the ability to raise capital. Projects like Souni (SON) or Cosplay Token (COT), which may rely on niche communities, could face significant setbacks. Teams must address community concerns to maintain support. For example, TapSwap’s anonymity and technical glitches have already drawn criticism, and delisting could amplify skepticism about its legitimacy.

Delistings align with stricter regulatory standards, as seen with tightened crypto listing guidance in some jurisdictions. This could push projects to improve compliance or risk further delistings elsewhere. Bybit’s focus on a “healthy digital asset environment” suggests a trend toward prioritizing high-quality projects, potentially marginalizing smaller or less-established tokens. This could concentrate market activity around major cryptocurrencies like BTC (61.13% dominance) and ETH (8.63%).

Retail Investors often lack the resources or knowledge to quickly adapt to delistings, facing losses or logistical challenges in moving assets to other platforms. The short withdrawal window (by October 7, 2025) may disproportionately affect retail holders who are less active or informed. Institutional Investors typically have better access to alternative markets, diversified portfolios, and professional advice, mitigating the impact of delistings. They may also benefit from shorting opportunities as prices drop post-announcement.

Larger projects with listings on multiple exchanges (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum) are less affected by a single exchange’s delisting. They benefit from Bybit’s focus on robust infrastructure and major protocols. Smaller tokens like Brawl AI Layer (BRAWL) or Souni (SON) face existential risks, as delisting from a major exchange like Bybit can cripple their visibility and viability, widening the gap between established and nascent projects.

Users in regions with strong regulatory frameworks (e.g., New York, where crypto listing guidance is tightening) may see delistings as a sign of market maturation, favoring compliance and stability. In regions with less regulatory oversight, where projects like TapSwap have gained traction through viral adoption, delistings could discourage participation and limit access to Web3 opportunities, deepening global disparities in crypto adoption.

Bybit’s delisting reflects the control CEXs wield over token ecosystems, potentially pushing users toward decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap or Osmosis, which offer greater resilience to delistings. Projects may pivot to DEXs or alternative blockchains, but this requires technical sophistication and community support, which not all projects (e.g., Cosplay Token or VaporFund) may possess, creating a divide between those that can adapt and those that cannot.

Bybit’s delisting of TAP, VPR, COT, SON, TENET, HVH, BRAWL, and others reflects a broader trend of exchanges prioritizing quality and compliance, with significant implications for liquidity, pricing, and project sustainability. The divide highlights disparities between retail and institutional investors, established and emerging projects, developed and developing markets, and centralized and decentralized ecosystems.

The Composite Ether Staking Rate (CESR), which tracks the mean annualized staking yield for Ethereum validators, is reported at 2.89%, down 26 basis points (bps). This reflects a recent decline in staking yields, likely influenced by factors such as increased validator participation or reduced network transaction fees, as CESR accounts for consensus rewards, priority transaction fees, deposits, withdrawals, and slashing events.

CESR has historically fluctuated, with peaks as high as 8% during events like the FTX collapse in 2022, driven by network dynamics. The current rate of 2.89% is notably lower than earlier benchmarks like Pier Two’s 7-day APR of 3.79% or 30-day APR of 3.58% reported in August 2024, indicating a downward trend. The reported 26 basis point (bps) drop in the Ether Composite Staking Rate (CESR) to 2.89% has several implications for Ethereum stakers, the broader Ethereum ecosystem, and market dynamics.

A lower CESR means validators earn less annualized return on their staked ETH (32 ETH per validator). At 2.89%, a validator staking 32 ETH would earn approximately 0.9256 ETH per year (32 * 0.0289), compared to 1.1552 ETH at the prior rate of 3.15% (2.89% + 0.26%). This reduces the financial incentive for staking, particularly for smaller or individual validators with higher operational costs.

Staking yields are influenced by the number of active validators (currently around 1.2 million, staking over 39 million ETH, or ~33% of total ETH supply, per recent data) and network transaction fees. The drop likely reflects increased validator participation diluting rewards or lower network activity reducing priority transaction fees (tips). The lower yield may discourage new validators from joining, especially those with high setup or maintenance costs (e.g., hardware, electricity, or liquid staking fees).

However, Ethereum’s staking is relatively locked-in due to the 32 ETH requirement and potential exit queues, so immediate validator exits are unlikely. Persistent low yields could slow validator growth, potentially stabilizing CESR if fewer new validators join. Conversely, if yields drop further, some validators might exit, though this is constrained by Ethereum’s exit queue mechanism (e.g., ~1,150 validators can exit daily under normal conditions).

Lower CESR may push stakers toward liquid staking protocols (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool), which offer additional yield through DeFi integrations or tokenized staked ETH (e.g., stETH, rETH). Lido currently stakes ~33% of all ETH staked, and lower CESR could accelerate this concentration as stakers seek higher returns. Increased reliance on liquid staking protocols raises centralization concerns, as a few providers dominate the validator pool, potentially threatening Ethereum’s decentralization ethos.

A declining CESR could signal reduced network activity or oversaturation of validators, potentially dampening investor confidence in ETH’s utility or yield-generating potential. This could pressure ETH’s price, especially if paired with broader market downturns. ETH’s price has been volatile, with recent analyses suggesting a 3.5% APR benchmark for staking in Q2 2025. A drop to 2.89% might align with bearish market conditions or reduced transaction volumes post-Ethereum upgrades (e.g., Dencun in 2024, which lowered Layer 2 fees).

High validator counts (despite lower yields) ensure Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) network remains secure, as more validators make attacks (e.g., 51% attacks) costlier. The 39 million ETH staked represents a significant economic commitment to network security. If yields fall too low, smaller validators may become unprofitable, potentially reducing validator diversity and increasing reliance on institutional or centralized staking providers.

Institutional players, staking pools, or liquid staking providers (e.g., Lido, Coinbase) can absorb lower yields due to economies of scale, lower per-ETH operational costs, and additional revenue from DeFi or service fees. They may continue staking profitably at 2.89%. Individual validators running solo nodes face higher relative costs (e.g., hardware, electricity, technical expertise). A 26 bps drop could push their operations closer to or below profitability, discouraging participation and concentrating staking among wealthier or institutional players.

The CESR drop may widen the gap between well-funded stakers and retail validators, reducing the diversity of Ethereum’s validator set. Lower yields incentivize stakers to join large liquid staking protocols for better returns or convenience, increasing the dominance of providers like Lido (which controls ~33% of staked ETH). This centralization risks Ethereum’s core principle of decentralization, as a few entities could influence network governance or validator behavior.

Smaller, decentralized staking pools (e.g., Rocket Pool) or solo stakers may struggle to compete, exacerbating the divide between centralized staking giants and those prioritizing Ethereum’s decentralized ethos. The CESR drop could accelerate centralization unless countered by community-driven initiatives or protocol changes (e.g., reducing the 32 ETH minimum, though not currently proposed). Some stakers prioritize yield and may shift capital to alternative networks (e.g., Solana, Binance Smart Chain) offering higher staking returns if CESR continues to decline.

Others stake to support Ethereum’s security and decentralization, accepting lower yields as a trade-off for ideological alignment. The CESR drop tests this commitment, potentially alienating profit-focused stakers. This divide could fragment the staking community, with long-term implications for Ethereum’s governance and community cohesion. Staking requires significant capital (32 ETH, ~$80,000 at $2,500/ETH) and technical know-how, which excludes many potential validators, particularly in regions with lower wealth or limited tech infrastructure.

A lower CESR reduces the incentive for new entrants, perpetuating this divide. The drop may reinforce staking as an activity for wealthier or technically savvy participants, limiting global participation in Ethereum’s PoS. The CESR drop aligns with Ethereum’s post-Merge (2022) environment, where staking yields have trended downward due to high validator participation and reduced transaction fees post-Dencun upgrade.

For comparison, CESR was ~3.5% in Q2 2024, and earlier peaks (e.g., 8% in 2022) were driven by high network activity. The current 2.89% reflects a maturing PoS system but challenges staker profitability. Ethereum’s community or developers could explore adjustments to counter low yields, such as tweaking reward structures or exit queue dynamics, though no such proposals are currently prominent. Past upgrades (e.g., EIP-1559, Dencun) show Ethereum’s adaptability, but changes to staking mechanics are complex and contentious.

The 26 bps drop in CESR to 2.89% signals reduced staking profitability, potentially discouraging smaller validators and accelerating reliance on liquid staking protocols. This exacerbates economic and centralization divides within Ethereum’s staking ecosystem, pitting large-scale stakers against retail validators and profit motives against decentralization ideals. While Ethereum’s network security remains robust, the lower yield challenges the inclusivity and diversity of its validator pool.

Starknet (STRK) is set to unlock 3.79% of its circulating supply worth $18.29 million could not be verified with the available information. Starknet would unlock 3.79% of its circulating supply, valued at $19.04 million, on July 15, 2025.  As of July 14, 2025, the circulating supply of STRK is approximately 3.59 billion tokens, with a price of around $0.1418 per token, resulting in a market cap of about $509.91 million.

A 3.79% unlock of the circulating supply would equate to roughly 136 million tokens. At the current price, this would be worth approximately $19.29 million. Token unlocks are often scheduled to release locked tokens to contributors, investors, or the community, and Starknet’s tokenomics include a plan for gradual unlocks over time.

The unlock will increase the circulating supply of STRK by 127 million tokens, which could lead to selling pressure if early contributors, investors, or other token holders decide to liquidate their newly unlocked tokens. This may cause a downward price movement, especially if the market is not prepared for the additional supply. Historical data shows that token unlocks can lead to price volatility.

For instance, Starknet’s previous unlock schedule adjustments in April 2024 were made to mitigate community concerns about large token dumps, which initially caused a 10% price increase after the announcement of a more gradual unlock plan. However, the July 2025 unlock could still trigger caution among investors, potentially leading to a bearish sentiment if not accompanied by positive project developments.

If demand for STRK remains strong—due to network growth, staking incentives, or new use cases—the price impact might be minimal. For example, the introduction of staking in Q4 2024 and the potential for liquid staking tokens (LSTs) could encourage holders to stake rather than sell, reducing sell-off pressure. Starknet faced criticism in February 2024 for its original unlock schedule, which was perceived as favoring insiders by allowing a large token release (1.34 billion tokens) shortly after the token became tradable.

The revised, more gradual schedule (0.64% monthly until March 2025, then 1.27% monthly until March 2027) was well-received, boosting the token price by 10% at the time. The July 2025 unlock aligns with this revised schedule, which may reassure investors due to its predictability and smaller size compared to the original plan. StarkWare’s proactive communication about token unlocks and its responsiveness to community feedback (e.g., adjusting the schedule in 2024) could mitigate negative sentiment.

However, any unexpected changes or lack of strategic announcements around the unlock could erode trust, especially if the market perceives the unlock as benefiting insiders over retail investors. The introduction of permissionless staking in November 2024 allows STRK holders (except the Starknet Foundation, StarkWare, and locked token holders) to stake tokens for network security and rewards. This could encourage holders to lock up their tokens rather than sell them post-unlock, potentially stabilizing the token’s value.

Additionally, the availability of liquid staking tokens (LSTs) enables participation in DeFi while staking, which could increase STRK’s utility and demand. Starknet’s roadmap includes significant upgrades like the Stwo prover (expected in Q1-Q2 2025), which aims to reduce transaction costs and improve scalability. If these developments coincide with the unlock, positive sentiment around the project’s progress could offset potential selling pressure.

For example, StarkWare’s efforts to scale Bitcoin with STARK technology and the launch of Starknet v0.13.3 (featuring lower gas fees) have been highlighted as major milestones, potentially boosting investor confidence. Starknet’s integration with major oracles like Chainlink and Pyth, as well as native wallet improvements (e.g., Argent and Braavos), enhances its appeal for developers and users. These advancements could drive adoption, increasing demand for STRK and counteracting the unlock’s supply increase.

The July 15, 2025, unlock is part of a broader wave of token unlocks across multiple projects (e.g., WalletConnect, Cyber, Arbitrum), which could contribute to overall market volatility. If the crypto market is in a bearish phase, the combined effect of these unlocks might amplify downward pressure on STRK’s price. Conversely, a bullish market could absorb the additional supply with minimal impact.

Some analyses suggest a bearish outlook for STRK in July 2025, with projections indicating a potential price drop to $0.08–$0.10 due to the unlock and broader market trends. However, longer-term forecasts remain bullish, with predictions of STRK reaching $1.10–$2.78 by the end of 2025, driven by ecosystem growth and staking adoption.

External events, such as the release of China’s Q2 2025 GDP data or the U.S. Consumer Inflation CPI for June (both scheduled for July 15, 2025), could influence overall crypto market sentiment, indirectly affecting STRK’s price reaction to the unlock. Investors should monitor market sentiment and trading volume around July 15, 2025, as large unlocks can lead to rapid price movements if holders sell en masse.

Historical data shows STRK’s price dropped significantly (89% from its all-time high of $3.66 in February 2024 to $0.3973 by October 2024), partly due to unlock-related concerns and market downturns. The ability to stake STRK or use LSTs in DeFi protocols could provide opportunities for investors to earn yields rather than sell, potentially mitigating the unlock’s impact. Investors should assess the staking rewards and DeFi yields available at the time.

Despite short-term risks, Starknet’s focus on scalability, low-cost transactions, and cross-chain scaling (e.g., Bitcoin and Ethereum) positions it as a strong Layer 2 solution. Investors with a long-term horizon may view temporary price dips as buying opportunities, especially if Starknet delivers on its roadmap. The Starknet token unlock on July 15, 2025, could introduce short-term price volatility due to increased supply, with a potential downward pressure if holders sell their tokens.

However, factors such as staking incentives, ongoing ecosystem developments (e.g., Stwo prover, lower fees), and StarkWare’s history of addressing community concerns could mitigate negative impacts. Investors should closely monitor market sentiment, project announcements, and broader market conditions around the unlock date.