#夏日创作营 The impact on the market after the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Clarity Act) is passed!
First, we need to clarify what the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act) is actually for, before we can know which industries and which assets will benefit.
1. Redefine the regulatory scope of the SEC and CFTC
Securities and tokenized securities will continue to be regulated by the SEC. Network tokens, digital commodities, and their spot trading markets that meet the conditions will mainly be handed to the CFTC. The Senate version also adds the concepts of “network tokens” and “ancillary assets,” allowing projects to prove, through disclosure and certification procedures, that the tokens no longer depend on the project team’s ongoing operations—moving step by step from securities regulation to digital commodity regulation.
This part is definitely beneficial for some “altcoins,” especially public-chain projects, which can go from being inherently regulated by the SEC to being regulated by the CFTC. But for a purely “token-issuing” project, does that matter?
2. Provide a legal route for token fundraising
Project teams can obtain a waiver under the new Regulation Crypto (crypto asset regulatory rules framework). The maximum funding per year is $50 million, with a four-year cumulative cap of $200 million in principle, and it also requires submitting initial and semi-annual disclosures. This will greatly reduce the risk that, when U.S. projects raise funds through token financing, the SEC will determine it to be an illegal securities offering.
The benefit here is a legitimate “ICO” for the project, and whether the project team will pump the price doesn’t really have any fundamental benefit either. For token launch platforms, there’s also not much benefit, because compliant ICO companies will most likely conduct launches on compliant launch platforms.
3. Establish a regulatory framework for U.S. spot crypto exchanges
Digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and market makers need to register with the CFTC, and be required to implement customer asset segregation, conflict-of-interest management, market surveillance, information disclosure, anti-money laundering, and sanctions compliance. When digital commodities held by customers are subject to an exchange bankruptcy, they will also be explicitly recognized as customer property, reducing the risk of another FTX-style mixing of assets.
This is beneficial for compliant U.S. trading platforms like Coinb and Robinhood, but the actual impact on Coinb is very low. Coinb’s compliance is already sufficient; everything that needed to be registered has been registered. Also, Coinb is a publicly listed company, and the market cares even more about performance. So you could say that, on the compliance front, Coinb is already at the top among crypto exchanges in the U.S. Of course, it’s beneficial for platforms like Coinb and Robinhood to launch new businesses—for example, tokenized securities—because it indeed expands the scope. And for other exchanges that are preparing to enter the U.S., or exchange branches that are operating in the U.S., the difficulty has increased.
4. DeFi developers, people running self-custody and non-custodial infrastructure who only develop software, run nodes, validate transactions, or provide non-custodial services will not automatically be deemed securities brokers or funds transmitters just because their code is used by others. Federal agencies also may not generally prohibit individuals from using self-custody wallets. However, teams that can freeze users, control protocols, and have special permissions may still be viewed as centralized controllers, and would need to assume AML, sanctions, and financial institution obligations.
This sounds like a benefit for DeFi, but in reality, if it’s purely DeFi or decentralized wallets, it’s still fine. But if a DeFi project on-chain involves protocols that may have money-laundering risk—like Tornado Cash earlier, and many privacy protocols—it will still be taken seriously. Also, you could say this “benefit” is something that wasn’t really considered before, and now it probably still won’t be considered. Back then it was risk, and now the risk is greater. Would it become a reason for DeFi projects to pump?
5. Stablecoin yield is restricted
At the moment, the biggest controversy in the market is this clause. Exchanges and service providers may not simply pay passive yield similar to bank deposit interest just because users hold stablecoins. But rewards that come from actual payments, trading, or activities are still allowed. Stablecoin issuance regulation is mainly handled by the already passed GENIUS Act (Clarity Act). CLARITY (Clarity Act) focuses more on how stablecoins are used on trading platforms and across the overall market structure.
Many friends think the biggest benefit after the Clarity Act passes is stablecoins—like $CRCL or $USD1 . But in fact, based on current progress, the Clarity Act imposes limitations on stablecoin development, especially for interest-bearing or subsidy schemes that were likely not allowed to continue after the Clarity Act passes. In other words, Coinb’s 3.5% interest to USDC, and USD1’s airdrop of $WLFI to users—fundamentally, both are prohibited by the Clarity Act. This is not a benefit for stablecoin development. While it saves some capital, it may limit market expansion. Of course, if stablecoins and exchanges can find more suitable subsidy schemes and route around the Clarity Act, there is still a chance.
So personally, I think if the Clarity Act includes restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, you won’t find reasons for a boost to Circle. If it’s only about compliance, honestly, Circle is already sufficiently compliant in the U.S. The problems it faces are the same as Coinb’s: for a listed company, the market cares mostly about performance.
6. Banks can participate more clearly in blockchain business
Banks, bank holding companies, and credit unions can conduct blockchain payments, custody, lending, and trading within existing business permissions, while also enabling combination margin between securities, futures, and digital commodity accounts.
Banks may collateralize certain cryptocurrencies or tokenized securities for loans and lending. This is definitely a positive for certain parts, and for some bank stocks it should be good as well—but which ones will benefit from yield, it’s hard to say for sure.
So overall, U.S. compliant exchanges are the most affected in terms of business expansion— the more compliance advantages they have, the easier it will be for them to enter new tracks quickly. So if the Clarity Act is passed, I think it would give $COIN relatively bigger advantages. But for certain decentralized exchanges, it may cause trouble. Custody, RWA, and tokenized infrastructure are positive on a medium- to long-term basis; especially in areas related to tokenized securities.
However, with the compliance of major exchanges’ U.S. listed stocks, on-chain RWA demand or on-chain demand for U.S. listed stocks will gradually be compressed. Next, there will be some help for public-chain categories—at the very least, they won’t be called out and attacked by the SEC. But public chains are more like listed companies. It’s not the case that if the SEC stops regulating them, they will definitely be able to pump. The best example is $ETH : spot ETFs have passed, and the SEC has acknowledged that they are not securities. But now they’re still kind of stuck in limbo—so the policy may have a push effect, yet how long that effect can last is still not something to be optimistic about.
Then DeFi, wallets, and developer infrastructure can also benefit. But personally, I feel it’s more targeted at developers than at any specific field or project. Especially for DeFi projects, whether they pump still depends on the dog-parkers.
As for stablecoins, I believe that when it’s passed, it may let $CRCL get pulled up a bit—but that would be purely emotion-driven. In reality, if there’s no change to the restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, I think the Clarity Act is actually negative for stablecoins.

#夏日创作营 “Two Straits” crisis! Gold bearish news won’t fall—will the wind direction change?
Today, traders’ screens are flooded with alerts about a “Two Straits blockade.” The Iran-U.S. conflict is still escalating, and the U.S. military has launched airstrikes on Iranian targets for the 12th consecutive night. Trump has made it clear that if Iran attacks any ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. will directly destroy Iran’s bridges or power plants. The hardline stance has further tightened the situation.
Meanwhile, Iran-backed Yemeni Houthi forces have opened a new front toward the Red Sea, announcing a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, and claiming attacks on two Saudi oil tankers. Among them, the “Enseria” vessel was hit by missiles in the Red Sea and caught fire; the crew is urgently putting out the blaze. At present, multiple tankers have been forced to reroute or return, and the safety risk for Red Sea shipping has surged. Geopolitical risk is spreading from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, and the risk of disruptions to global energy supply has risen significantly. The appeal of gold as a traditional safe-haven asset has also increased sharply.
Crude oil
Two major energy chokepoints are simultaneously in trouble—an escalation of Iran-related fighting combined with new Red Sea threats is creating an unprecedented risk of a supply chain disruption for crude oil. Oil prices have jumped sharply in a single day, and the nightmare of inflation is returning. On Wednesday, oil prices closed at the highest level since June 11. Brent crude rose 2.72% to $93.84 per barrel, reaching as high as $95.44 during the session; WTI crude rose 2.29% to $86.48 per barrel. In Thursday’s Asia session, Brent opened higher and kept climbing, briefly hitting a new high since June 9 at $96.07 per barrel, before slipping slightly. It is now trading above $95.50. Since last Friday, oil prices have gained more than 12%. With multiple bearish factors resonating together, the near-term international crude oil market is expected to continue maintaining high volatility and a bullish/strong performance pattern.
Gold
On Wednesday, gold prices maintained strong sideways movement, showing a clear “bearish news without falling” pattern—facing the pressure from rate-hike expectations triggered by the surge in oil prices, gold did not fall back despite the headwinds. Instead, it displayed resilience, indicating that the hedging function against geopolitical risks is once again dominating the pricing logic. The severity of the Middle East conflict has already outweighed the bearish impact of rate hikes. During periods when geopolitical crises overlap with economic uncertainty, gold often stays strong; even if the environment is one of potential rate hikes. In addition, the U.S. dollar index fell slightly by 0.1% to 101.12, providing extra support for gold prices. Although rising oil prices strengthen expectations of Federal Reserve rate hikes, which to a certain extent limits gold’s upside, market sentiment is still mainly driven by risk aversion, and the momentum-driven upswings caused by technical breakouts are still ongoing in the short term. The Middle East “Two Straits” crisis is unlikely to be resolved quickly in the short term, and is expected to continue providing safe-haven support for gold. However, it is also worth noting the Fed’s potential hawkish shift. If next week’s FOMC meeting releases stronger rate-hike signals, or if oil prices pull back after supply adjustments, gold may face pressure to take profits.
On Wednesday, gold showed a structure of rally then retracement. During the Asian and European sessions, prices continued the previous day’s strong sideways-to-higher movement, accelerating upward after breaking 4110 to around 4140 to consolidate. In the U.S. session, it made a second push toward 4165, but met resistance and pulled back; near the close it edged down slightly. The intraday fluctuation range was 4077~4165, with a swing of 88 points. On the daily chart, it closed with a bullish candle around 4130 with upper and lower shadows, and the closing price held above the 12-period exponential moving average. On the 4-hour timeframe, it has maintained a continuous bullish single-side advance pattern; the moving average system remains in a bullish alignment, and the intermediate upward structure has not been broken. On the 1-hour cycle, multiple bearish candles appeared and it also fell below the 12EMA; near-term momentum has weakened, and the market shifted from strong to weak. The current rise is part of a trend-continuation move, but this is the first time the hourly level has lost the short-term moving averages, which is a first weakening signal during the recent upswing. Yesterday’s push toward 4165 clearly met resistance; the pressure from profit-taking on the short term increased, and there is a need for a technical correction.
Intraday trading reference: If the price rebounds back to the 4150-4160 area and faces pressure, you can consider a short-term bearish position. The 4060-4080 area forms the core support zone; if the pullback stabilizes there, you can continue to look for long setups. In all likelihood, today will mainly be a tug-of-war consolidation, so it’s better to trade near the two ends of the range, and you should not chase orders at the middle price level.
FX
The U.S. dollar index fell 0.09% to 101.12 on Wednesday. U.S. two-year Treasury yields hit a 17-month high, and 10-year yields rose as well. In early Wednesday trading, money-market pricing showed the probability of a Fed rate hike in July at 24.1%, and the probability of at least 25 basis points of hikes in September has climbed to 69%.
U.S. stocks
On Wednesday, U.S. stocks closed broadly lower. The Nasdaq led the decline, down 0.57% to 25,690.90 points; the S&P 500 dipped slightly by 0.14% to 7,498.96 points; the Dow Jones was basically flat, down just 0.01% to close at 52,218.58 points. Market sentiment was cautious. Investors stayed on the sidelines before major tech firms such as Alphabet and Tesla released their second-quarter earnings reports, to assess whether valuations driven by the AI boom are reasonable. By sector, capital clearly rotated toward defensive sectors such as utilities seeking safe havens, while energy and materials stocks rose, supported by the warming inflation expectations.