advisor

$SOL $JUV $ZK

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said that banks should not fear stablecoin yield products offered by crypto platforms. According to him, these yield offerings do not threaten the traditional banking business model.
What Is the Stablecoin Yield Issue?
Many crypto platforms allow users to earn rewards (yield) on their stablecoin holdings. This has created tension because banks worry customers may move money from traditional bank deposits into stablecoins to earn higher returns.
However, Witt argues that:
Banks can also offer stablecoin products.
Several banks are applying for charters from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to provide similar services.
Instead of viewing stablecoins as competition, banks could use them as a growth opportunity.
He believes both traditional finance and crypto can coexist.
What Is the CLARITY Act?
The CLARITY Act is a proposed crypto market structure bill that aims to:
Clearly define regulatory boundaries between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Establish a formal classification (asset taxonomy) system for cryptocurrencies.
But the disagreement over whether stablecoin issuers and platforms should be allowed to share yield with customers has become one of the biggest obstacles preventing the bill from passing.
Political Risk: 2026 U.S. Midterm Elections
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that if Democrats gain control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections, it could derail crypto legislation progress.
The White House Crypto Council wants the CLARITY Act passed before election campaigns dominate political focus, as the legislative window is narrow.
Bigger Picture
The stablecoin yield debate reflects broader tension between:
Traditional banking institutions
Crypto platforms
The core conflict revolves around customer relationships, financial control, and product innovation.
Final Takeaway
Banks are being encouraged not to see stablecoin yields as a threat.
The dispute over yield sharing is delaying major crypto regulation.
Political uncertainty in 2026 could significantly impact the future of U.S. crypto laws.
The outcome will shape how traditional finance and crypto coexist in the coming years.$

Q: Kā vajadzētu #advisor 's pārvaldīt riskus, kas saistīti ar digitālajiem aktīviem?
A: Konsultantiem jāsāk ar oficiālu kriptoaktīvu politiku, kas nosaka skaidrus ierobežojumus attiecībā uz sadalījumu (piemēram, maksimālā portfeļa procentuālā daļa), apstiprinātiem instrumentiem (spot, biržā tirgoti produkti, fondi), pretpartijām un glabāšanas standartiem (piemēram, kvalificēti glabātāji), saskaņā ar jaunajām regulām.
Viņiem jāveic atbilstošas risku novērtēšanas (tirgus, likviditātes, operacionālas, kiberriskus, juridiskos) un jāizmanto stresa testi un scenāriju analīze, kas specifiski attiecas uz kriptovalūtu svārstīgumu, nevis jāizturas pret to kā pret tradicionālo akciju daļu. Visbeidzot, pastāvīga klientu izglītība un dokumentācija ir izšķiroša: izskaidrojiet riskus vienkāršā valodā, dokumentējiet piemērotību un risku tolerances lēmumus, un regulāri tos pārskatiet, kad regulējumi un produkti attīstās.

#DigitalAssets Treasuries: Separating #hype from Value for #advisor 's

Digital asset treasury (DAT) companies offer public crypto exposure, but how much hype are you buying?

The digital asset treasury (DAT) company is a new invention with a long history. They are public companies pursuing an explicit priority of purchasing digital assets. Back in 1989, Michael Saylor founded MicroStrategy (now Strategy) as a software business. It achieved some success and went public in 1998, only to spectacularly implode in 2000, lose more than 99% of its market cap, and catch an SEC investigation.

Improbably, though, Strategy did not go bankrupt in 2000, and continues to offer obscure software and services today. The magic happened elsewhere, though. In 2020, the firm began purchasing bitcoin, and it hasn’t stopped.

At first, its approach appeared to be rabid evangelism. Saylor would buy bitcoin, go on TV and convince others to buy bitcoin, and that would drive the company’s investment up. But over time, another phenomenon appeared. As Strategy bought more and more bitcoin, and the price of bitcoin climbed ever higher, Strategy increasingly became a box of bitcoins with a vestigial software company stapled onto it. At this point, its share price and market cap should have converged to the price of bitcoin, but it didn’t. It traded at a premium. When this happened, promoters stirred from their hoards like Smaug, and the DAT was born.

This multiple of a DATs net asset value (NAV) and its market cap, known as its multiple of NAV (mNAV), creates a special kind of power. If you can buy an asset for $1, and increase your market cap by $2, then you should do nothing else. You can sell equity, and indeed raise debt, and put it to immediate direct productive use accreting shareholder value. As long as this relationship holds, it is, in essence, a money printer.

And so as Strategy ran this playbook over time, others took notice. They started to get the idea that maybe they could follow it, and make their own DAT. Some used BTC, like Mara Holdings, Inc., but over time others tried it with other assets like Ether (ETH), held by Bitmine Immersion Technologies, Inc., and Solana (SOL), held by Forward Industries, Inc., as well.


For the promoters of these projects, the value proposition is clear. Asymmetric increases in equity value, coupled with public trading, lead to quick profits. BTC has always been highly liquid, but for virtually all other digital assets, creating a public sink to purchase tokens presents the dazzling potential to increase asset values and provide exit liquidity in a single stroke. This is a major reason that the meta has gained so much traction recently. It is good for bagholders.

But what about purchasers? Well, getting access to a DAT stock before its mNAV grows is good, as the company implements its strategy and, hopefully, gains value, equity holders may see gains. But for an ordinary buyer on public markets, after a positive mNAV is established, the value proposition is speculative. You are buying a premium on the underlying asset, and that premium could easily fade.

Historically, access to Strategy was valuable to institutional advisors who were hesitant or legally unable to purchase bitcoin directly for their clients. They could hold Strategy instead. But as old taboos fade, and regulatory disapprobation with it, this proposition may lose luster. At the same time, exchange-traded products (ETPs) that skip the step of wrapping a treasury in an operating company have been approved recently, further diluting DAT’s advantage.

There is also the regulatory question. Strategy is not a ‘40 Act Fund because BTC is not a security, but it is not obvious that the same reasoning would apply to DATs holding other assets. A future administration unfriendly to the industry could test the operating company exemption on which they rely. To the extent that DATs use leverage to acquire assets, future market instability could lead to liquidations, increasing risk. Premiums, too, may be collapsing even now.


For advisors, understanding these different risk vectors is critical to advising clients on a DAT buying strategy. Regulatory risk is unlikely to be significant in the current environment, but premium collapse could be, so understanding a DAT’s mNAV at purchase is critical to evaluating its risk profile. Leverage, too, can increase risk profile. Finally, DATs may change strategy more readily than a comparable ETP, and so monitoring developments in management is another important factor to consider.

"Disclaimer _ Source: Binance News / Bitdegree / #CoinDesk / Coinmarketcap / Cointelegraph / Decrypt & do support by follow, like, comment, share, repost to reach maximum audience, more such informative content ahead"