Lobbying Map: Which Crypto Firms Are Backing — or Blocking — the Senate Bill

Hook: If you trade, invest in, or build with crypto, the Senate’s draft market-structure bill is the single policy risk that can reshape custody economics, token listings, and which firms dominate U.S. retail flows. This interactive-style lobby map breaks down who’s pushing for — or pushing back against — the bill, why they care, and what investors and compliance teams should watch next.

Topline: What changed in early 2026 — and why lobby activity matters now

In late 2025 and early 2026 lawmakers circulated a long-awaited draft that would define how tokens are classified, give the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) new authority over spot crypto markets, and close or clarify rules that affect stablecoins and interest-bearing products. The bill stalled after prominent industry players reacted publicly — most notably Coinbase’s CEO — and a committee markup was delayed.

The immediate consequence: a wave of lobbying, public statements, and private meetings. That activity is not theater. Lobbying shapes precise legal language that can make or break business models: custody vs. broker-dealer rules, who can offer tokenized securities, whether simple tokens are commodities or securities, and how stablecoins are treated under deposit-law concerns.

How to read this lobby map

This article profiles major firms and coalitions in an interactive-style format — each profile answers a short checklist:

• Public position (support / oppose / conditional)
• Lobby tactics (public statements, meetings, filings, ad buys)
• Strategic rationale — why the outcome matters to them
• Signal to watch next — what a change would mean for markets

Major players: who’s for, who’s against, and why

Coinbase — Opposed (publicly withdrew support)

Public position: Withdrawn support; publicly said the bill as written would be “materially worse than the current status quo.”

“Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written. This version would be materially worse than the current status quo. We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.” — Brian Armstrong, Coinbase (X)

Lobby tactics: High-visibility public posts, private meetings with senators and staff (reported), coordination with industry trade groups, legal memos outlining operational impacts.

Why they care: Coinbase’s U.S. business depends on broad token listings, staking and custody revenue, and a competitive edge in retail flows. Language that narrows token listing permission or forces onerous broker-dealer or custodian rules would raise compliance costs and reduce product scope.

Signals to watch: Any re-introduction of restrictive token-listing standards or a broker-dealer expansion would likely keep Coinbase publicly opposing the bill; conversely, clearer CFTC jurisdiction with permissive listing carve-outs could bring them back to the table.

Circle (USD Coin issuer) — Conditional supporter

Public position: Generally supportive of clarity for stablecoins and regulatory certainty, but focused on preserving operational flexibility for payment rails and international settlements.

Lobby tactics: Direct lobbying for stablecoin clarity, technical comments submitted to staff, coalition work with fintech players, and emphasizing operational resilience and consumer protection.

Why they care: Circle wants a legal framework that recognizes tokenized dollars as payment instruments while avoiding bank-like constraints that would limit product innovation or international flows. Cross-border settlements language affects USDC’s role in on- and off-ramps and cross-border settlements.

Signals to watch: Provisions that restrict yields on stablecoins or implicitly push consumer deposits into banks would be opposed by Circle; language clarifying issuer responsibilities and reserves would be welcomed.

Paxos and other stablecoin issuers — Support for clear rules, wary of constraints

Public position: Favor clear, enforceable rules for reserve practices and issuer responsibilities but will resist provisions that make issuance commercially untenable.

Why they care: Regulatory certainty reduces legal risk and enables institutional adoption; too-strict bank-like rules could push stablecoin issuance offshore.

Binance (and Binance.US) — Mixed, strategic approach

Public position: Likely to support jurisdictional clarity that preserves exchange access to tokens, but wary of enforcement structures that could disadvantage global platforms. Binance.US, which operates in U.S. markets, favors workable U.S. rules that allow competitive product lines.

Why they care: Exchange business models hinge on token listing flexibility, global product lines (derivatives), and settlement mechanics. A CFTC-dominated regime for spot trading may help some exchanges; onerous custody/registration rules would not.

Kraken, Gemini, Bittrex — Cautious technocratic engagement

Public position: These exchanges generally advocate for predictable rules, robust compliance pathways, and a regulatory regime that enables staking and custody under clear supervision.

Why they care: Predictable custody law, labeling of tokens, and how staking income is treated will affect product roadmaps and revenue from institutional clients.

Ripple — Pro-securities-clarity advocate

Public position: Wants explicit non-security status for XRP-like tokens and clarity that narrow, network-native tokens are not securities — building on Ripple’s long legal battles.

Why they care: Legal classification was the crux of Ripple’s dispute with the SEC. A statute that narrows securities definitions would vindicate Ripple’s position and unlock markets.

Consensys, MetaMask and DeFi tooling firms — Pro-innovation, wary of custody-first rules

Public position: Strongly favorable to functional definitions that protect non-custodial DeFi activity from broker-dealer style regulation.

Why they care: DeFi tooling relies on clear lines between protocol code and centralized intermediaries. A regime that treats wallets or RPC providers as financial intermediaries would dramatically reshape business models.

Traditional banks and bank lobby groups — Oppose interest-on-stablecoins; favor deposit protections

Public position: Concerned by language that would allow intermediaries to pay interest on stablecoins or treat stablecoin liabilities as bank-like deposits without appropriate oversight.

Lobby tactics: Intensive meetings with committee staff, red-team memos about deposit flight, and public statements about financial stability risks.

Why they care: Interest-bearing stablecoins could pull deposits out of FDIC-insured banks — a core competitive and regulatory risk. Banks are lobbying to close perceived loopholes after the 2025 stablecoin framework.

Asset managers and custody players (BlackRock, Coinbase Custody, Fidelity) — Favor clear custodian standards

Public position: Supportive of rules that create an audited, trusted custodian model and enable institutional product markets like tokenized securities and ETFs.

Why they care: Institutional adoption requires custody clarity and capital-market-friendly rules. Custodians want clear liability and solvency standards rather than ad hoc enforcement.

Trade groups: Blockchain Association, Coin Center, Chamber of Digital Commerce — Influencers in both directions

Public position: Mixed: some groups push for pro-innovation language and CFTC jurisdiction; others (with more industry members who favor conservative rules) push for guardrails on stablecoins and listings.

Why they matter: Trade groups organize coalition letters, submit technical comments, and broker compromise between competing commercial interests.

Why firms pick sides: six strategic fault lines

1. Token classification: A definition that pushes tokens into securities removes them from everyday exchange markets and adds broker-dealer friction.
2. Regulatory home: SEC vs. CFTC: Firms prefer the CFTC for market-structure oversight; the SEC’s enforcement posture is viewed as less predictable.
3. Custody & broker-dealer requirements: Custodial rules raise capital and compliance costs.
4. Stablecoin rules and banking overlap: Provisions limiting yields or classifying stablecoins as deposit-like benefit banks, not crypto-native issuers.
5. Cross-border friction: Firms that run global platforms want rules that don't force exodus of listings or liquidity to offshore venues.
6. DeFi delineation: How law treats non-custodial protocols affects software businesses and developers.

Lobby tactics that matter in 2026

Late 2025 and early 2026 saw a blend of old and new tactics: public-post pressure (social media executives), high-level meetings with Senate Democrats and staff, formal technical comments, PAC and lobby disclosures, and targeted op-eds. Expect more:

• Rapid public signaling (tweets, blog posts) to reshape the narrative and force lawmakers to pause.
• Private redlines and legal memos sent to staff; the precise language often matters more than headline support.
• Coalition letters combining tech firms, asset managers, and payments companies to produce cross-sector leverage.
• Ad buys and grassroots campaigns aimed at moderates in pivotal states.

How to track the lobbying in real time — an actionable playbook

For investors, compliance officers, and market-watchers, being first to notice a language change is a competitive advantage. Follow these steps.

Step 1 — Set real-time alerts

• Use Google Alerts and X/Twitter lists for key figures (e.g., Brian Armstrong, CEOs of Circle/Paxos, committee staffers).
• Set bill-tracking alerts on Congress.gov for the Senate draft and amendments.

Step 2 — Monitor lobbying disclosures and PAC filings

• Search the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act database and OpenSecrets.org for week-to-week filings.
• Track PAC contributions and FEC reports for lawmakers on the Banking Committee.

Step 3 — Read the amendment redlines, not press releases

Press headlines are loud; amendment text matters. Download committee drafts and compare redlines to see if custody language, token-definition thresholds, or stablecoin clauses moved.

Step 4 — Follow trade groups and law-firm client memos

Trade-group comment letters and law-firm advisories reveal how commercial interests would operationalize the law. These are early indicators of likely litigation points.

Step 5 — Watch for behavioral signals from markets

• Delistings, trading halts, or product announcements can indicate a firm adjusting to anticipated rules.
• Funding rounds or hiring freezes can signal political risk assessments by firms.

Investment and compliance playbook: tactical moves

Whether you’re managing portfolio risk or compliance exposure, follow these recommendations.

For investors (traders, funds)

• Re-evaluate exchange concentration risk: If a bill would impose heavy U.S. custody rules, expect transactional volumes to shift to non-U.S. venues. Hedge exchange counterparty exposure accordingly.
• Stress-test token classification: Run scenario analyses: token stays a commodity vs. becomes a security. Estimate listing, lending, and custody revenue impacts.
• Keep liquidity buffers: Regulatory uncertainty can quickly widen spreads on tokens tied to enforcement risk. Avoid overleveraging in margin-sensitive positions.

For compliance/legal teams

• Map product features to proposed statutory triggers: staking, lending, custody, order routing, and settlement all map to different clauses.
• Prepare for segmented operations: Consider playbooks to ring-fence U.S. customers or run non-U.S. product variants if U.S. constraints are severe.
• Document intent and control: If your product is a protocol, maintain records showing lack of central control — this matters for regulatory safe harbors.

What a compromise could look like — and who wins

A likely compromise in 2026 will balance three things: (1) CFTC authority over spot markets for market-structure rules, (2) a clearer but limited securities test that excludes many native tokens, and (3) stablecoin issuer responsibilities with bank-like safeguards short of full deposit treatment.

Winners under that compromise: exchanges with strong compliance programs, stablecoin issuers that can meet reserve and transparency standards, and asset managers able to offer tokenized products under clear custody regimes. Losers: smaller token issuers that rely on lax listing rules and any intermediary that relies on regulatory gray areas for yield-bearing stablecoin products.

Case study: How Coinbase’s public push reshaped the calendar

In January 2026, a single public statement by Coinbase’s CEO led the Senate Banking Committee to postpone a markup. That single move illustrates two 2026-era lobbying realities:

• Visibility equals leverage: High-profile firms can use public channels to force re-negotiation of language.
• Staff-level changes matter more than headlines: The lobbying game is won or lost in staff redlines and line edits, not in the press room.

Red flags and escalation triggers to monitor

Watch for these rapid-escalation events — they indicate a higher chance of market-moving outcomes.

• Coordinated withdrawal of support by multiple major exchanges
• Banking-industry letters threatening legal challenges or systemic risk claims
• Amendments that change token-definition thresholds (e.g., from functional tests to transaction- or profit-focused tests)
• Late-night redlines that appear in committee drafts without public consultation

Final takeaways — what to watch over the next 90 days

1. Track amendments to custody and token-definition language — a single phrase can flip business models.
2. Monitor PAC and lobbying disclosures for concentrated spending around key senators' offices.
3. Watch for operational moves (delistings, product freezes) — firms signal regulatory expectations through actions before they announce positions.
4. Expect more public-private calls: industry leaders will keep pressing lawmakers for narrow, operationally workable language.

Call to action

If you want to stay ahead: set alerts for the bill text on Congress.gov, follow the public filings on OpenSecrets and the Senate Lobbying Disclosure database, and subscribe to targeted updates from law firms and trade groups. For market participants, run scenario stress tests this week and update your compliance playbooks for both restrictive and permissive outcomes.

Want a weekly lobby map update? Subscribe to our briefing for a concise, actionable summary of language changes, new disclosures, and which firms are increasing pressure. The next 30 days will determine whether the bill becomes a predictable framework — or a patchwork of risky obligations that push liquidity offshore.

Related Reading

• Interoperable Asset Orchestration on Layer‑2: Practical Strategies for 2026
• Edge Identity Signals: Operational Playbook for Trust & Safety in 2026
• Monetizing Credit Union Relationships: Lessons from HomeAdvantage and Affinity FCU
• Beyond Filing: The 2026 Playbook for Collaborative File Tagging, Edge Indexing, and Privacy‑First Sharing
• From the Drakensberg to the Chilterns: Comparing South Africa’s Ridges with UK Hikes
• Smart Plug Guide for Landlords: Automate Renters’ Comfort Without Voiding Agreements
• E-Bikes and Dogs: The Complete Guide to Transporting Your Pet Safely
• Beyond the Hype: How to Tell If a Wearable Health Feature Actually Helps You
• Subscription Energy: What Goalhanger’s Subscriber Boom Says About the Money Houses in Your Chart