policy

A key bill on the structure of the US crypto market (the CLARITY Act) might be delayed until 2027. According to analysts at TD Cowen cited by The Block, the main stumbling block has become the Democrats' demand to ban the president and officials from owning crypto assets.
This norm is critical for Donald Trump, whose family companies have already earned over $1 billion from crypto projects. Democrats insist on strict anti-corruption restrictions, while Republicans are trying to soften them.
One potential compromise is to postpone the law's effective date by three years so it doesn't affect Trump's current term. However, experts doubt the "blues" will agree to such a deal without additional concessions.
Here's the adapted post for Binance Square (1500 characters limit):
🇺🇸 Fate of the US Crypto Market in Hostage: Trump vs. Democrats
The key cryptocurrency regulation bill (the CLARITY Act) risks becoming a long-term construction project. According to forecasts from TD Cowen analysts, the document's adoption could be delayed until 2027.
What's the reason for the discord?
The "conflict of interest" clause has become the stumbling block. Democrats have put forward a strict demand: ban the US president and high-ranking officials from owning crypto assets.
Why does this hit Trump?
For Donald Trump, this issue is personal. His family business structures have already earned over $1 billion from crypto projects (including the launch of World Liberty Financial and NFT collections). Adopting the law in its current form would force him to either liquidate assets or go into direct conflict with the legislation.
Compromise options:
Republicans propose "freezing" the entry of this norm into force for 3 years. This would allow Trump to keep his crypto earnings during the current presidential term. However, the Democrats ("blues") are unlikely to agree to such a concession without serious political bonuses in other areas.
What does this mean for the market?
Uncertainty: The lack of clear rules of the game (CLARITY Act) maintains regulatory fog.Volatility: News about the progress of negotiations in Congress will locally affect the price of BTC and altcoins.Institutional delay: Big capital is waiting for a legal basis, which might only appear in a couple of years.
It seems the "crypto-friendly" administration has run into its first serious internal barrier.
Do you think the president should have the right to own crypto? Write in the comments! 👇
#CryptoNews #Regulation #Trump

#Policy

Recently, a social media post went viral claiming that the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) injected $105 billion into the economy overnight, labeled as the biggest liquidity move since COVID. The eye-catching message has been shared with trader tags and emojis, stirring excitement — and confusion — across online investing communities.
But what’s really happening? Let’s break it down.
💸 Claim your $4 bonus now! Check the first pinned post on my account — good luck! 🚀
1. What Does “Fed Injection” Even Mean?
When people talk about the Fed “injecting money,” they’re usually referring to liquidity operations — tools the Federal Reserve uses to influence interest rates and financial conditions.
This can include:
Open Market Operations (OMO) — buying/selling government securities.
Repurchase Agreements (Repos) — short-term loans to banks using securities as collateral.
Discount Window lending — direct lending to banks.
Quantitative Easing (QE) — large-scale asset purchases.
These are not direct payments to citizens or businesses but banking system liquidity adjustments.
2. $105 Billion: Big or Not So Big?
$105 billion is a large-sounding number — but in the context of the U.S. financial system, it’s not unprecedented.
For comparison:
During the peak of the COVID pandemic, the Fed’s balance sheet expanded by trillions of dollars in a matter of months.
Typical daily repo operations can fluctuate by tens of billions depending on banking demand.
So yes, a $105B operation can occur, but calling it the “biggest since COVID” without context is misleading.
The size alone doesn’t tell us whether it’s stimulative, corrective, or routine.
3. Why Did the Fed Do It?
If true, such a liquidity move would typically happen for one of these reasons:
🔹 To stabilize short-term interest rates
If banks are short on reserves, overnight rates can spike. The Fed steps in by temporarily supplying funds.
🔹 To ensure the smooth functioning of money markets
Liquidity injections can calm stress in Treasury or repo markets that might ripple into broader finance.
🔹 To support price stability or credit flow
Less common at such short notice, but possible during market stress.
The key point: this is technical financial plumbing, not a macro stimulus like tax cuts or consumer checks.
4. What It Doesn’t Mean
Despite the dramatic wording online, this is NOT:
❌ A direct stimulus to the economy
❌ A bailout or bank rescue
❌ New quantitative easing on the scale of 2020–2021
❌ A guarantee of stock market gains
Liquidity operations are tools for financial stability, not direct economic spending.
5. So Should Investors React?
Short-term price movements can happen around Fed operations. Traders might respond to:
Expectations of rate changes
Shifts in money market rates
Changes in yield curves
Market sentiment and risk appetite
But one injection alone shouldn’t be treated as a bullish or bearish signal by itself.
Always consider:
What the Fed actually said in official statements
How markets reacted in interest rate markets
Broader economic conditions (inflation, employment, growth)
Conclusion
The idea that the Fed “overnight injected $105B — biggest since COVID” is a simplification at best, and misleading at worst.
Fed liquidity operations are normal parts of how modern central banks manage financial systems. Big numbers make headlines — but without context, they can distort reality.
If you’re trading or investing based on these claims, make sure to check:
📌 Official Fed press releases
📌 Money market and Treasury data
📌 Credible economic analysis from trusted sources
Numbers matter — but interpretation matters more.
Tags:
#FederalReserve #Liquidity #Economy #MoneyMarkets #Investing #Finance #Policy

Crypto executives are confident that enforcing a ban on self-custodial stablecoins in Brazil will not be easy, with many examples proving that further decentralization is inevitable.
A potential decision by Brazil to ban transfers of stablecoins to self-custodial wallets would only trigger a greater move toward decentralization, industry executives say.

The Central Bank of Brazil (BCB), on November 29, officially proposed to ban transactions of stablecoins, such as Tether's USDt, to self-custody wallets like MetaMask or Trezor.