Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
TL;DR
- The Senate is advancing crypto market structure legislation on two tracks, with the Agriculture Committee moving toward a January 29 markup while the Banking Committee’s timeline remains fluid after cancelling its own markup.
- The Agriculture proposal focuses on commodities-style oversight and market infrastructure, while the Banking approach emphasizes investor protection, disclosure, and securities-style regulation.
- Despite different committee mandates, both proposals overlap on regulating intermediaries, tightening custody standards, and reducing risks from platform failures.
- The near-term path for crypto regulation and market structure now depends on whether the Agriculture markup succeeds and whether the two committee approaches can be reconciled amid broader legislative constraints.
Since mid-2025, the U.S. Senate has been advancing crypto market structure legislation along two parallel tracks. The Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee’s work is based on different statutory mandates. But ultimately, both are grappling with the same question: how US crypto regulation should shape market structure as digital asset intermediaries mature.
This dual-track approach is not accidental. Senate committees are organized by jurisdiction, and digital assets now sit at the intersection of commodities markets, securities law, and consumer finance. As a result, lawmakers have produced two legislative frameworks that differ in emphasis but overlap in scope.
Recent procedural developments clarify the current state of play. The Agriculture Committee has concrete text and a scheduled markup. The Banking Committee has released draft language but faces more open political questions following the cancellation of its markup. Together, these tracks illustrate a process that is active, but uneven.
What the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Crypto Proposal Covers
The Senate Agriculture Committee proposal approaches crypto primarily through the lens of commodities markets. Chairman Boozman released an updated ‘Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act‘ draft on January 20, 2026, building on the bipartisan November 2025 discussion draft. The committee has scheduled a markup for January 29, 2026, rescheduled from January 27 due to severe weather.
The framework treats many digital assets as digital commodities and places primary oversight responsibility with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It focuses on market infrastructure rather than consumer finance. Core coverage extends to exchanges, brokers, dealers, and custodians that facilitate trading or hold customer assets.
Key provisions emphasize registration, operational standards, and supervision of intermediaries. Custody and segregation requirements are central, reflecting lessons from past intermediary failures rather than concerns about price volatility.
The Agriculture proposal also draws explicit boundaries between software development and financial intermediation. Regulatory obligations attach when an entity exercises control over transactions or customer assets, not when it merely publishes code or operates network infrastructure.
Overall, the Agriculture draft functions as a market infrastructure framework. Its objective is to bring crypto trading activity within a defined regulatory perimeter while preserving distinctions between code, protocols, and custodial services.
How the Senate Banking Committee Approaches Crypto Regulation Differently
The Senate Banking Committee proposal reflects a different regulatory tradition. On January 12, 2026, Chairman Tim Scott released an amendment titled the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, building on a July 2025 RFIA-style draft that closely parallels the House-passed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.
The Banking Committee had scheduled a markup for January 15, 2026, but cancelled it following industry opposition. Notably, Coinbase publicly withdrew its support. Since then, the timeline has remained fluid, with consideration potentially slipping to late February as other legislative priorities, including housing and fiscal matters, take precedence.
Substantively, the Banking approach leans more heavily on investor protection and consumer finance concepts. It relies on securities law principles and assigns a larger role to the Securities and Exchange Commission, particularly for securities-like tokens, yield-bearing products, and stablecoin incentives subject to disclosure requirements, as reflected in Clarity Act provisions on stablecoin rewards.
At the same time, the Banking draft does not cede market structure entirely to Agriculture. It carves out a role for the CFTC in supervising digital commodities and addresses token classification directly, recognizing that not all crypto assets function as securities.
The Banking framework assumes that many crypto platforms resemble traditional financial services from a user perspective. As a result, consumer expectations, disclosure, and balance-sheet risk receive greater emphasis than trading mechanics alone.
>>> Read more: Senate Crypto Market Structure Bill in Turmoil Again
Where Senate Crypto Regulation Overlaps Across Both Committees
Despite different starting points, the two proposals share substantial common ground. Both assume that large-scale crypto intermediaries cannot operate indefinitely outside regulatory oversight.
Registration is a shared baseline. Exchanges, brokers, and custodians are expected to operate within defined supervisory frameworks rather than relying on voluntary standards.
Custody and segregation requirements also overlap. Both proposals restrict how intermediaries may use customer assets and emphasize clear treatment of customer property during insolvency or enforcement actions.
Consumer harm is another area of convergence. While the committees prioritize different tools, both recognize that losses at scale can become a public policy issue as adoption expands.
These overlaps exist because both committees regulate the same market actors, even as they approach the task from different statutory angles.
SEC vs CFTC crypto: The Regulatory Divide Shaping Crypto Market Structure
The most visible distinction between the two approaches is the allocation of regulatory authority. The ongoing debate over SEC vs CFTC crypto oversight runs through both proposals.
The Agriculture Committee places the CFTC at the center of oversight for digital commodity markets, particularly spot trading in non-security tokens. The Banking Committee assigns greater responsibility to the SEC where assets or products resemble securities or investment contracts.
Taken together, the drafts trend toward a hybrid jurisdictional model. The CFTC would serve as the primary regulator for specified digital commodities, while the SEC would oversee securities, ancillary services, and consumer-facing products tied to disclosure and investor protection.
This split reflects institutional mandates rather than disagreement over the need for regulation.
>>> Read more: SEC Token Taxonomy: Atkins Says Most Tokens Aren’t Securities
Crypto Market Intermediaries, Custody Rules, and Consumer Protections
Both proposals converge most clearly on the regulation of crypto market intermediaries. Entities that custody assets or execute trades on behalf of users are central to both frameworks.
Crypto custody regulation focuses on asset segregation, record-keeping, and operational controls. These measures are designed to reduce uncertainty when an intermediary fails, not to eliminate market risk.
Consumer protections emerge indirectly through these rules. By constraining how intermediaries handle customer assets, lawmakers aim to reduce the severity of losses without offering guarantees.
As adoption grows, this focus reflects a shift toward users who may not distinguish between custodial platforms and traditional financial services.
Can the Two Committees Reconcile Their Crypto Asset Market Structure Bills?
Reconciliation would require aligning statutory authority rather than replacing either framework. Several paths remain possible.
One approach would involve sequential movement, with one bill advancing first and elements of the other incorporated through amendments. Another would rely on activity-based thresholds to determine when SEC or CFTC oversight applies.
A hybrid outcome is plausible. For example, centralized exchange spot trading in BTC or other non-security tokens would likely fall under CFTC oversight consistent with the Agriculture approach, while a yield-bearing stablecoin resembling a deposit would fall under SEC jurisdiction with disclosure requirements under the Banking framework.
Any reconciliation would clarify boundaries rather than remove trade-offs.
What Happens After Committee Approval
Committee passage is only an early step. Even if the Agriculture Committee advances its bill on January 29, 2026, several hurdles remain.
Senate floor time is constrained, particularly with shutdown risks looming. Bipartisan support will be necessary for passage, and coordination with the House adds another layer of complexity.
Early-2026 Senate votes now hinge on the Agriculture markup succeeding, while Banking delays increase the urgency to reconcile between the two approaches. Implementation would also require extensive rule-making and agency coordination.
As a result, US crypto regulation is likely to shape market structure gradually rather than through a single legislative act.
>>> Read more: Crypto Market Structure Bill Stalls in Senate
Where the Process Stands Now
At present, the Agriculture Committee has concrete text and a scheduled January 29 markup, while the Banking Committee has released draft language but faces a fluid timeline following its cancelled markup.
The two approaches are closer than surface narratives suggest. Both accept regulation of intermediaries as a baseline and emphasize custody and accountability, building on concepts first advanced in the House Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.
The process remains active. With the Agriculture markup occurring tomorrow and Banking negotiations unresolved, the direction of US crypto regulation and market structure will depend on whether the two committees’ approaches can be aligned within a crowded legislative calendar.
