# stablecoins — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-14 02:22 UTC)
## @EleanorTerrett (Eleanor Terrett) · 09-14 02:02 · ♥757 ↻169 💬47 🚨NEWS: Senate Republicans have released new Clarity Act text featuring a revised ethics proposal agreed to by President Trump.
The text also contains changes to the sections on the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), stablecoin yield, and the so-called “Ag title.”
Republicans are calling it their “last, best and final” offer to Democrats ahead of Tuesday’s cloture vote.
Some high-level details.👇🏼
On BRCA: The provision has been narrowed to the Bank Secrecy Act and civil enforcement. Specific language extending its protections to criminal cases, including prosecutions under Section 1960, has been removed.
On ethics: Trump has agreed to what a GOP aide describes as “80%” of the Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal including to either divest “substantial” crypto-related financial interests or place them in a blind trust. It would also allow a role for state attorneys general to enforce ethics provisions, something which the White House had previously balked at.
On yield: Added “circuit breaker” language (floated by Tillis in July) that would effectively act as a backstop by allowing federal regulators to intervene if there was evidence of widespread deposit flight from community banks to stablecoins. The federal regulator that will be the arbiter of this: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
On Ag: The updated text adds tighter guardrails around vertical integration, including affiliate trading and conflicts of interest involving digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. It also clarifies that state consumer protection laws still apply and that developer protections do not create exemptions from derivatives laws or impact prediction markets.
More to come in the @CryptoAmerica_ newsletter tomorrow AM. https://x.com/EleanorTerrett/status/2099317875202756650
## @hufhaus9 (huf) · 09-13 22:48 · ♥44 ↻4 💬5 big week
Tuesday is not a vote on passing the Clarity Act. It is "cloture" on the motion to proceed i.e. whether the bill even gets onto the floor. 60/100 votes needed. Of those, only about 50 are guaranteed.
The objections to Clarity are largely around 1. ethics (e.g. officials having conflicts of interest with their own bags) and 2. from banks (who do not want deposits to flee to yield bearing stablecoins)
I'm not convinced those 2 sticky points will be able to swing at least 8-10 dems, when only 2 were in favour of it getting to this stage (2 republicans are also against it). The market already prices low odds but the vote still matters for headlines and possibly ETF flows.
Then Wednesday is the FOMC presser. I think we are in a lose-lose scenario where if Fed holds steady then Fed credibility is in the toilet i.e. they will not do what they said they will do to tackle inflation and that all of Warsh's hardline chatter is over-ridden by political interests. I think it would be a policy mistake and the bond market would hammer long tenor bonds in particular which has a knock on effect on yields and risk. If they do hike, I think the initial reaction will be down as most market participants think in simple terms i.e. "rate hike bad, usd up, risk assets down".
Together with growing AI narrative risk (from Dario, Musk, Sam etc) - that could reprice the hot equities market a bit lower too
In crypto we can always go lower than ppl expect
ETH 2270 BTC 71.5k ZEC 888
Thats the dip I want to GIGA LONG. Market will likely turn the lose-lose Fed to a win-win (either credibility restored or we have lower rates guys, chill) and SEC/CFTC will most likely come out with soundbites about how they are proceeding with pro-crypto regulation anyway.
BID THAT.
My play is ladder orders on the basket I like and so I've just done that. https://x.com/hufhaus9/status/2099269134546509873
## @BullBrezza (BullBrezza | Macro & Crypto) · 09-13 15:49 · ♥43 ↻3 💬7 $SUI WILL OUTPERFORM OTHER L1s.
Not because I love the logo.
Not because of the chart.
Not because someone told me “Move is faster.”
My thesis begins much deeper:
CRYPTO IS ABOUT OWNERSHIP. MOVE MAKES OWNERSHIP A PROPERTY OF THE LANGUAGE.
Read that again.
This may be the most underpriced technological difference in crypto.
Most smart-contract languages were inherited from a world where software manipulates DATA.
Move was designed for a world where software manipulates ASSETS.
That distinction is enormous.
In Solidity, your token balance is fundamentally represented through numbers and contract logic.
The developer must correctly enforce the rules around those numbers.
Move introduced resources.
A digital asset can be defined so the language itself restricts whether it may be copied or discarded.
Meaning:
YOU DON'T JUST ASK THE DEVELOPER TO RESPECT SCARCITY.
YOU MAKE SCARCITY PART OF THE PROGRAMMING MODEL.
Now think from first principles.
If trillions of dollars of stocks, bonds, stablecoins, gaming assets, property rights and machine-owned assets eventually move onchain...
What should the programming language underneath them understand natively?
Web pages?
Or...
OWNERSHIP?
That's why I'm obsessed with Move.
It was born after crypto had already spent years discovering how badly smart contracts can fail.
Reentrancy.
Access-control mistakes.
Broken asset accounting.
Improper permissions.
Entire fortunes disappearing because one assumption inside the code was wrong.
Move's answer was not:
“Let's teach programmers to be more careful.”
Its answer was closer to:
“LET'S REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DANGEROUS THINGS THE PROGRAMMER IS ALLOWED TO DO.”
Resources.
Explicit abilities.
Module-controlled asset creation.
Capability-based authorization.
Ownership-aware programming.
Formal-verification tooling.
Then Sui took that philosophy another step.
Instead of treating the entire blockchain primarily as accounts fighting over shared state...
SUI MADE OBJECTS THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMY.
Your game sword can be an object.
Your ticket can be an object.
Your credential can be an object.
Your financial position can be an object.
Your AI agent's asset can be an object.
And when transactions touch independent objects, Sui's architecture can exploit that independence for parallel execution.
MOVE WAS DESIGNED FOR DIGITAL ASSETS.
SUI WAS DESIGNED FOR A WORLD FULL OF THEM.
That's why comparing L1s purely by today's TPS, TVL or token price misses my entire thesis.
I'm asking a different question:
WHAT ARCHITECTURE WOULD YOU DESIGN TODAY IF YOU ALREADY KNEW CRYPTO'S FIRST 15 YEARS OF MISTAKES?
Because technology generations rarely win forever.
The first smartphone wasn't the final smartphone.
The first search engine wasn't the final search engine.
The first social network wasn't the final social network.
And the first successful smart-contract architecture does not automatically become the final architecture for digital ownership.
That is why I believe SUI can outperform.
Not because Ethereum is useless.
Not because Solana is weak.
Both proved enormously important things.
But markets make one brutal mistake repeatedly:
THEY CONFUSE THE CURRENT WINNER WITH THE FINAL ARCHITECTURE.
If the future brings billions of digital assets...
tokenized RWAs...
autonomous AI agents...
machine payments...
onchain games...
financial applications...
and ownership moving from databases into programmable objects...
then security around what an asset is, who owns it, who can modify it and whether it can be duplicated stops being a developer preference.
IT BECOMES INFRASTRUCTURE.
And that's why I keep telling SUI fudders:
Stop studying my price targets.
STUDY MOVE.
Because if Move's philosophy becomes the natural programming model for the ownership economy...
you won't need me to explain why SUI was undervalued.
THE MARKET WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU-AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE. https://x.com/BullBrezza/status/2099163455882186959
## @saintniko (niko) · 09-14 00:22 · ♥40 ↻3 💬3 the number one DEX for stablecoins serving as the liquidity layer for the chain built for stablecoins
makes sense to me > 引用 @Uniswap: Uniswap is ready for @arc on day one https://t.co/SBkApdcHNE https://x.com/saintniko/status/2099292579132997893