The United Arab Emirates is building a bitcoin reserve in a way that looks very different from most governments. Instead of getting coins from seizures, the UAE’s reported stash comes from mining. Arkham-linked reporting says wallets tied to the UAE’s Royal Group hold 6,782 BTC, and most of it appears to have stayed in place for months. At the current bitcoin price of about $67,041, that reserve is worth about $454.7 million, which is close to the earlier estimate and still one of the larger state-linked holdings tracked on-chain.

Arkham’s estimate also says the mining operation is sitting on about $344 million in unrealized profit, not counting power and operating costs. That matters because it shows how a mining strategy can build a bitcoin reserve without buying on the open market every time price moves up. If the cost to mine is lower than the market price, the reserve grows with less direct market impact. It also means the profit can shrink fast if bitcoin drops, since this is a paper gain until coins are sold.

The mining pace helps explain why the story is getting attention. Arkham-linked coverage says the UAE-connected wallets produced about 4.2 BTC per day over the last week. That points to a large and active mining setup, not a one-time stockpile. It also fits with the UAE’s long-term push to become a digital asset hub, where the focus is not just trading crypto but building the infrastructure behind it.

That infrastructure story goes back a few years. In 2023, Marathon Digital and Abu Dhabi-based Zero Two announced a joint venture to build two immersion-cooled mining sites in Abu Dhabi with a combined capacity of 250 megawatts. Marathon said the sites would use immersion cooling to handle desert heat and improve mining performance. This is an important link in the bigger picture: mining capacity creates the flow of newly mined bitcoin, and the reserve grows if the operator keeps most of what it mines.

At the same time, Abu Dhabi is also taking a second path into bitcoin through public markets. Recent reporting on 13F filings says Mubadala raised its BlackRock IBIT stake to 12,702,323 shares at the end of 2025, and Al Warda Investments also increased its position to 8,218,712 shares. Together, that is nearly 21 million IBIT shares. Using the current IBIT price of $38.07, the two holdings are now worth about $796.5 million. That is down from the year-end value because IBIT moves with bitcoin, but it still shows strong exposure through regulated ETF shares.

These two paths fit together. Mining gives the UAE a direct bitcoin reserve. IBIT gives Abu Dhabi entities a simple market vehicle that can be held in traditional portfolios. One path is industrial and on-chain. The other is financial and exchange-traded. Both increase bitcoin exposure, but they do it with different tools and different risk profiles.

The chart action also supports why this story matters now. Bitcoin is trading near $67,041, with an intraday range of about $65,683 to $68,241. That range shows a market that is still volatile but finding buyers above the mid-$65,000 area. Volume is also active. CoinGecko data shows roughly $40 billion in 24-hour bitcoin trading volume, and it notes volume is up versus the prior day. When price holds a key zone while volume stays elevated, it often means the market is still engaged and watching for the next move, not going quiet. For miners and ETF holders, that matters because price and volume together shape both sentiment and liquidity.

The UAE story stands out because it connects production, storage, and market access in one place. Mining builds the reserve. Holding limits sell pressure. ETF buying adds another layer of exposure. In a market where many governments hold bitcoin only because of court cases, the UAE model looks more like a planned strategy. If bitcoin stays firm and mining output continues, the UAE’s bitcoin reserve could keep growing even without large spot purchases.

The Bitcoin price slipped in early Thursday trading as short-term sellers stayed in control. On the 15-minute chart, the Bitcoin price closed near 65,853 after opening around 65,982. The session high came near 66,039, while the low dipped to about 65,632. That left a small daily change of about -0.19% and a tight range near 0.61%, even though the move felt sharp on the right side of the chart.

The chart shows a bigger story than the last candle alone. Earlier, the Bitcoin price spiked to about 68,348 and then dropped fast. After that drop, the Bitcoin price spent hours moving sideways, then climbed in a steady grind toward the 67,000 area. That bounce did not last. The Bitcoin price rolled over again and pushed lower into the mid-65,000s as red candles stacked up.

Moving averages help explain why momentum stayed weak. The Bitcoin price is trading below the MA(7) near 66,049, below the MA(25) near 66,606, and below the MA(99) near 66,753. When the Bitcoin price sits under several moving averages, many traders read it as a bearish setup. A moving average tracks the average price over a set number of candles and can smooth out noise, which makes trend direction easier to spot.

The spacing between those lines also matters. The longer average sits above the shorter ones, and they slope down. That pattern often shows that rallies in the Bitcoin price may face selling pressure near key levels. On this chart, the first nearby ceiling for the Bitcoin price looks like the 66,000 handle. Above that, the area around 66,600 to 66,750 lines up with the MA(25) and MA(99), which can act like resistance when price trades underneath.

Support is clearer on the downside. The Bitcoin price already tested near 65,632, which stands out as the recent low. If the Bitcoin price breaks that level with force, traders may look for the next round number zones and prior bounce areas for support. The chart does not show those lower levels in detail, but the slope and candle pattern suggest sellers may try to press their advantage if buyers stay quiet.

Volume adds another key piece. The volume bars grew larger near the selloff on the right edge of the chart. That jump in trading activity suggests more traders joined the move as the Bitcoin price fell. Rising volume during a drop can mean panic selling, forced exits, or stop-loss triggers getting hit. In some cases, it can also mark a “selling climax,” where the strongest selling happens near the end of a slide and then fades as sellers run out.

The candle shapes show how fast the mood changed. Candlesticks summarize four prices in each time block: open, high, low, and close. Long red bodies often show strong selling during that period, while wicks show where price probed but could not hold. On the latest move down, the Bitcoin price printed several solid red candles with only brief pauses, which fits the idea of a short-term downtrend.

For traders watching the next steps, the Bitcoin price now sits in a decision zone. If buyers can defend the 65,600 to 65,700 area and volume cools off, the Bitcoin price may attempt a relief bounce. In that case, many will watch whether the Bitcoin price can reclaim 66,000 and then hold above it. If it does, the next test may come near the moving averages around 66,600 to 66,750. A failure there could turn into another lower high and keep the Bitcoin price under pressure.

If selling stays heavy and volume expands again, the Bitcoin price could revisit the 65,632 low and try to break it. Traders often watch for a clean breakdown, followed by a failed retest from below, as a sign that sellers still control the tape. Others watch for the opposite: a dip below support followed by a quick reclaim, which can hint at a trap and a fast bounce.

In the short run, this chart shows one clear theme: the Bitcoin price is sliding under key averages while volume wakes up on the selloff. That mix tends to keep traders cautious until the Bitcoin price either regains the moving averages or prints a stronger base with lower selling volume. For now, the Bitcoin price action points to a market that is still searching for balance.

Dubai police have detained Israeli private investigator Michael Greenberg as part of a widening case tied to the deaths of Russian crypto figure Roman Novak and his wife, Anna Novak. Reports say the couple vanished after a trip to the Hatta area in early October 2025 and were later found dead in the United Arab Emirates. Russian investigators say several people helped set up the abduction and move evidence across different emirates.

Greenberg is best known as the founder of Bangkok-based Mike Green Private Investigation, a firm that has operated in Thailand for more than two decades. According to reporting from Intelligence Online and Israeli media, Emirati special forces arrested him during a raid in Dubai. After his detention, contact with him stopped for a period, which raised concern among relatives. Israeli sources later said they received confirmation that he was being held, but UAE authorities have not publicly detailed the charges or shared the status of any court process.

Investigators have not accused Greenberg of carrying out the killings. Instead, reports say authorities suspect he had links to people involved. Russian investigators have said phone evidence from suspects helped push the case forward, and some of that data reportedly pointed toward Greenberg. Other private investigators working in Dubai were also questioned or detained in related sweeps, based on the same reporting.

The case centers on Novak’s past in the crypto world. Russian authorities convicted him in 2020 in a fraud case tied to a crypto-related scheme that involved about $100,000. After he received parole, he moved to the UAE in 2023 and worked the investor circuit again. Business contacts later alleged he raised large sums for a fast crypto transfer app called Fintopio, then disappeared with investor money. Some reports put the claimed amount at about $500 million, though that figure remains an allegation rather than a confirmed court finding.

Russian investigators say Roman Novak and Anna Novak were lured to Hatta under the promise of meeting investors. The driver who brought them to a parking area near a lake on October 2 said the couple switched into another vehicle and did not return. The Investigative Committee later said a group abducted the couple and tried to force access to crypto wallets. Several suspects were arrested in Russia, including Russian citizens and a Kazakh citizen, according to reporting that cited official statements. Some suspects reportedly admitted involvement while another denied it.

The Novak case also drew attention because it sits at the crossroads of crypto fraud, private security, and cross-border crime. In Dubai, money moves fast and global networks mix. People who sell investment deals, run “recovery” services, or offer private investigations can overlap in the same circles. That overlap matters when a case turns into an international hunt for accomplices, phones, and money trails.

Greenberg has faced scrutiny before. In Thailand, he was linked in past reporting to a 2021 kidnapping plot tied to a failed business deal involving gloves. Thai police arrested several suspects, including two former U.S. Marines and a Thai citizen, and some reports said Greenberg helped plan the operation. Other outlets reported that authorities could not locate him at the time. Greenberg has not been convicted in that matter in the public reporting, but the episode added to his profile in the private investigation world.

While investigators chase suspects, traders keep watching the crypto market, and the price action has stayed focused on bigger forces than one crime story. A recent Bitcoin price chart shows tight but choppy movement, with clear swings that match risk mood and liquidity. Data from mid-February 2026 shows Bitcoin moving from the mid-$60,000s up toward the low-$70,000s, then pulling back. On February 15, Bitcoin traded roughly between about $68,000 and $71,000 before closing near $68,800. Volume on that day was higher than some nearby sessions, suggesting active selling into rallies and steady demand near support. Earlier in the week, volume was even stronger as price dipped, which often signals forced exits and fast repositioning. After that spike, volume eased as Bitcoin drifted back into a range, a common sign that traders are waiting for the next catalyst.

This pattern fits the broader 2026 tape. Reports this week described Bitcoin struggling to hold above $70,000, with investors watching macro data and risk trends. That matters for a case like Novak’s because it highlights a hard truth: crypto crime stories can be shocking, but the market usually moves on liquidity, rates, and leverage. For everyday users, the bigger takeaway is practical. If someone claims they can “recover” stolen crypto, asks for wallet access, or pushes a rushed “investment meeting,” that is a red flag. So is any demand for seed phrases, codes, or remote access to your device. A crypto wallet is not like a bank password reset. If you lose control of keys, you can lose the funds.

The Novak investigation now spans Dubai and Russia, with suspects in custody and more questions about who arranged introductions, transport, and cover. For Dubai authorities, the case is also a test of how they handle high-profile crypto-linked crime while the city remains a major hub for global capital. For traders, it is a reminder that headlines and charts often tell different stories at the same time: one about people and risk, and the other about price, volume, and the next move.

X is getting ready to mix social posts with trading. On February 14, 2026, X head of product Nikita Bier said the platform will launch Smart Cashtags “in a couple weeks,” letting people trade stocks and crypto right from the timeline.

Smart Cashtags are meant to make tickers on X do more than link to chatter. With Smart Cashtags, a tag like $BTC or $NVDA can become a tap-to-trade tool. Smart Cashtags are expected to show real-time prices, simple price charts, and a feed of posts that mention that asset. Smart Cashtags have also been shown in early concept images with “Buy” and “Sell” buttons built into the same view, which points to in-app trading instead of sending users elsewhere.

Bier’s comments landed during a public argument between X and parts of the crypto community. Some users have accused X of cutting off crypto apps while not adding enough native crypto features. Bier answered that he wants crypto to grow on X, but he does not want growth that comes from spam, raids, and harassment. He said some apps create incentives to attack random users, and that this harms the experience for millions of people. In that same thread, he tied the near-term product plan to Smart Cashtags and said X will keep tightening rules that target spam incentives.

That sets up a clear split in X’s strategy. On one side, Smart Cashtags push X deeper into fintech by putting stock trading and crypto trading inside the feed. On the other side, X is trying to reduce “post-to-earn” behavior that turns the timeline into a cash grab. The big idea is that Smart Cashtags can offer a clean path for trading without rewarding people who flood replies, tag strangers, or coordinate harassment to farm fees.

The spam fight matters because it links to how trading features can be abused. If Smart Cashtags make it easy to trade what you see, then bad actors have a bigger reason to push fake hype. That is why X is pairing Smart Cashtags with stricter API rules and enforcement. In January, X also moved against InfoFi-style apps that paid users to post, after reports of heavy AI-generated spam tied to those tools. Several tokens linked to those projects fell after the clampdown, which shows how fast market sentiment can change when a large platform cuts distribution.

Smart Cashtags also fit Elon Musk’s “everything app” plan, where one app handles chat, media, and money. Trading inside a social feed is a big step toward that vision, but it also adds legal and compliance work. Money services in the United States often require state-by-state licensing for money transmission, and reports say X has been building that base through money transmitter licenses across many states. That groundwork supports features like payments, transfers, and other financial tools that could sit next to Smart Cashtags.

If Smart Cashtags arrive as described, the user experience could feel simple: you see a post, tap the Smart Cashtags label, check the price, and trade. That quick loop may pull more retail traders into both crypto and stocks, because it removes steps. Smart Cashtags could also change how market news spreads on X, since price moves and viral posts would sit closer together. Smart Cashtags, in that sense, are not just a feature. Smart Cashtags are a new way to connect attention to action.

Still, Smart Cashtags will face trust questions from day one. Users will want to know who executes the trades, how prices are sourced, what fees apply, and what protections exist when scams spread. Smart Cashtags will also raise concerns about market manipulation and “pump” behavior, since social networks can move sentiment fast. Smart Cashtags may bring strong demand from enthusiasts, but Smart Cashtags will also bring strong scrutiny from regulators and from users who want a cleaner timeline.

X’s scale makes the impact larger. Public estimates vary, but recent reporting around advertiser materials and third-party tracking puts X at roughly the high hundreds of millions in monthly reach, with daily use far lower than that. Even so, Smart Cashtags could reach a huge audience compared with most trading apps, because Smart Cashtags would sit where people already scroll.

For now, the key signal is the pairing: Smart Cashtags for native trading, plus tougher rules against apps that turn crypto into spam. If X can deliver Smart Cashtags without turning every reply thread into an ad, it could pull more mainstream users into stocks and crypto while keeping the timeline usable. If it fails, Smart Cashtags may become another battleground in the fight between open crypto culture and platform safety.

Dutch lawmakers have backed a major rewrite of the Box 3 tax, the part of the Dutch personal income tax that covers savings and investments. The bill is called the “Actual Return in Box 3 Act” (in Dutch: “Wet werkelijk rendement box 3”). If the Dutch Senate approves it, the Box 3 tax will switch on January 1, 2028, with a flat 36% rate on what the government defines as an investor’s actual return.

The change follows years of legal pressure. In December 2021, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the old Box 3 tax system could violate basic rights under the European Convention on Human Rights because it taxed people on assumed returns they did not earn. Later rulings kept that pressure on the government. With the court rejecting fixes, lawmakers faced a problem: the state still needed a legal way to charge the Box 3 tax and protect the budget.

The new plan tries to solve that by taxing actual results instead of a made-up formula. Under the updated Box 3 tax, “actual return” includes cash income like interest, dividends, and rent. It also includes changes in value during the year for many assets, even if the owner does not sell. That means the Box 3 tax can apply to “unrealized gains,” also called paper gains. If someone owns shares that rise by €10,000 in a year, the Box 3 tax would treat that €10,000 increase as taxable income, even if the shares stay in the account.

This is where the debate gets sharp, especially for people who own crypto. Crypto prices can jump or drop fast. A person could face a large Box 3 tax bill after a strong year, even if they never converted any crypto to euros. Critics say that creates a liquidity risk: the Box 3 tax can demand cash when the gain is not cash. Supporters answer that the state needs a workable system and that the law adds tools to soften the impact.

One big softener is a new tax-free rule. The reform removes the old tax-free asset threshold and replaces it with a tax-free annual return of €1,800 across all Box 3 tax assets. If total actual return stays below €1,800, no Box 3 tax is due. The bill also adds an unlimited loss carryforward. If an investor has a net loss in one year, they can carry it forward and use it to reduce taxable gains in future years, with no time limit. Only losses above €500 qualify; smaller losses get written off. Lawmakers say these features make the Box 3 tax less harsh for small savers and help investors recover after downturns.

The bill also treats some assets differently. For real estate and shares in qualifying startups, the government chose a capital gains approach for value increases. Under that approach, the Box 3 tax on the appreciation of value is charged when the asset is sold or disposed of, not every year. But regular income from those assets, like rent or dividends, still faces the Box 3 tax in the year it is received. The government said it picked this split approach in part because of the same liquidity risk critics raise: it can be hard to pay the Box 3 tax every year on assets that do not produce steady cash.

The reform sits inside a wider system that divides personal income into three “boxes.” Box 1 covers wages and home ownership rules, with progressive rates. Box 2 covers “substantial interest,” meaning at least 5% ownership in a company, with its own rate structure. Box 3 tax is the piece now set for the largest redesign, and it matters to anyone holding savings, stocks, bonds, funds, or crypto as a resident.

Crypto exposure is one reason the Box 3 tax debate draws attention beyond tax experts. De Nederlandsche Bank (the Dutch central bank) reported that indirect crypto investments held by Dutch companies, institutions, and households reached about €1.2 billion by the end of October 2025, up from €81 million at the end of 2020. It also reported the financial sector held €113 million in direct crypto holdings at the end of the third quarter of 2025. Even with that growth, the central bank said crypto securities remain a small slice of the wider Dutch securities market.

Lawmakers also approved an amendment to shorten the law’s review period from five years to three. The goal is to allow faster changes if the Box 3 tax rollout causes problems once it begins. Several parties that supported the bill have said they do not love the idea of taxing unrealized gains. Still, they argue that after court rulings, the government needs a legal framework, and delays add budget strain.

For now, the plan is not final. The Dutch Senate still must vote. If senators approve, residents and advisers will have about two years to prepare for a Box 3 tax that shifts from assumed results to actual return, and that may tax paper gains for many common assets.

Michael Saylor says he is not worried about Strategy’s credit risk even as Bitcoin slides. He says the company planned for ugly markets. In his view, Bitcoin can drop hard and stay low, and the company can still operate. His plan is simple: if Bitcoin stays weak for years, Strategy will refinance its debt and push maturities forward.

Saylor made the comments on CNBC as Bitcoin traded below $70,000 in early February 2026. He said Strategy will keep buying Bitcoin every quarter and will not sell what it already owns. Strategy holds about 714,644 Bitcoin. The company paid an average price near $76,056 per coin, so the position moves into an unrealized loss when Bitcoin stays below that level.

Debt sits at the center of the debate. Strategy used equity sales and large amounts of convertible notes to build a Bitcoin treasury. Saylor says the firm can “roll” debt forward if Bitcoin drops 90% and stays down for four years. He also says the balance sheet includes enough cash to cover interest and preferred dividends for more than two years, which reduces near-term pressure. Critics counter that refinancing depends on market access and investor appetite, which can change fast in a deep risk-off cycle.

The market has turned more defensive. Strategy’s stock often trades like a high-beta version of Bitcoin, so it can rise faster in rallies and fall harder in sell-offs. That link helped drive a huge run from 2020 to 2024, but it also made the stock a popular short. Recent reporting shows short interest rose as Bitcoin fell and as investors focused on the company’s leverage and the size of its convertible debt stack.

At the same time, traders are looking for a clear reason behind the latest Bitcoin drop. One theory points to a blow-up tied to Bitcoin ETF options. Parker White, a former equities trader who now works in crypto, posted that Hong Kong hedge funds may have built large, leveraged bets using call options on BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, often called IBIT. The theory says those funds borrowed in Japanese yen to fund the trade. That strategy is known as the yen carry trade: borrow in a low-rate currency, then invest elsewhere and hope the spread pays off. If funding costs rise or the trade moves against you, losses can snowball.

White’s idea links several moving parts. If a fund buys out-of-the-money call options, it is betting on a sharp Bitcoin rebound. If Bitcoin keeps falling, those options lose value fast. If the fund also used leverage, it may face forced selling. White adds that stress in other markets, including moves tied to yen funding and a volatile silver market, could have squeezed the same players at the same time. The result, in this telling, is liquidation that drives more selling of IBIT shares and more weakness in Bitcoin. This remains a theory, not a confirmed chain of events, and past Bitcoin crashes often came from more than one trigger.

Still, the timing matters because the options market around Bitcoin ETFs has been changing. Nasdaq filed to remove the old 25,000-contract position cap on options tied to Bitcoin and Ether ETFs, and reporting says the SEC allowed the change to become effective in late January 2026. If traders can take bigger positions, they can also unwind bigger positions, which can add force to a sharp move in Bitcoin during stressed conditions.

This is where the two stories connect. Strategy represents a long-term, corporate form of Bitcoin demand that uses debt and patience. The Hong Kong hedge fund theory represents short-term, leveraged Bitcoin exposure through ETFs and options. When leverage breaks, it can push Bitcoin down fast. When Bitcoin drops, Strategy’s paper losses grow, and the company faces louder questions about refinancing risk. Saylor says he welcomes the volatility because he believes it draws lenders and traders, not just holders. Markets often see it the other way: volatility raises the cost of capital and makes lenders cautious.

For everyday investors, the key point is not the drama. It is the plumbing. Bitcoin now sits closer to traditional finance than it did in earlier cycles. Bitcoin ETFs, Bitcoin options, and cross-market funding trades can all affect Bitcoin price moves. That can bring more liquidity, but it can also bring faster liquidations. In that world, Strategy’s bet becomes easier to track: if Bitcoin stays weak, the company must keep paying, keep refinancing, and keep convincing markets it can carry the load. If Bitcoin rebounds, the same leverage can look smart again.

The White House is set to host another closed-door session on February 10 as it tries to break a standoff over U.S. crypto regulation. The talks come after a February 2 meeting ended without a deal, even though bank groups and crypto groups said the discussion was useful. The fight has slowed the CLARITY Act, a major crypto market structure bill that cleared the House in July 2025 and still needs a path through the Senate.

At the center of the dispute is one question: can a stablecoin pay interest or other rewards to the person who holds it? That question has turned stablecoin policy into the main roadblock for the wider bill. Lawmakers and lobbyists can agree on many rules for crypto trading and registration, but they keep returning to stablecoin rewards.

A stablecoin is a digital token that aims to hold a steady price, often by staying close to one U.S. dollar. People use a stablecoin to move money fast, trade crypto, and park funds without leaving the blockchain. Many stablecoin issuers say they back each stablecoin with reserves like cash and short-term U.S. Treasury bills. In the GENIUS Act framework, stablecoin reserve rules and public disclosures became a key focus, with the goal of making a stablecoin easier to trust.

Now a newer product is pushing the debate further. A yield-bearing stablecoin is a stablecoin that shares part of its earnings with users. The issuer may earn money on reserves, then pass some of that return back as stablecoin interest or stablecoin rewards. Crypto firms say this feature helps users and helps them compete. Banks say it looks like a deposit product, but without the same guardrails.

Bank leaders warn that stablecoin interest could pull money out of insured bank deposits. Deposits are a main funding source for many banks. If customers move cash into a stablecoin to chase stablecoin interest, banks fear they could face faster outflows during stress. Banks also argue that stablecoin issuers do not face the same capital rules, liquidity rules, and supervision that banks face. In their view, stablecoin interest creates a form of parallel banking that could grow fast outside the usual safety net.

Crypto firms push back and call a ban on stablecoin interest anti-competitive. They say a stablecoin is not a bank account and should not be forced into the same model. They argue that stablecoin interest is a normal result of holding reserves that earn yield, and that users should share in that value. They also say stablecoin interest helps recruit new customers, since rewards make it easier to try a stablecoin for payments, trading, or saving. Some crypto executives warn that if the U.S. blocks stablecoin interest, more stablecoin activity will move offshore, and the next wave of digital finance will be built elsewhere.

That split is why the White House has stepped in. The talks are being run through the administration’s crypto policy effort, with the goal of getting both sides to draft compromise language. People familiar with the first meeting said it did not settle the stablecoin issue, and Reuters reported it ended without agreement. The next session is expected to include more senior executives, including leaders from large banks and top crypto companies.

A compromise, if it comes, may rely on limits instead of a full ban. One option is to allow stablecoin interest only under strict rules, such as clear reserve requirements, tight custody rules, and strong disclosure. Another option is to restrict who can offer stablecoin interest, or how a stablecoin can market rewards, to avoid confusing a stablecoin with a bank deposit. Lawmakers could also add consumer protection rules so users understand the risks, including what happens if a stablecoin issuer fails and how redemptions work under pressure.

The clock matters. The White House has signaled it wants movement soon, and lawmakers face a crowded schedule. If the CLARITY Act stalls longer, it could lose momentum and leave crypto regulation stuck in the same patchwork that firms complain about today. For banks, the stakes are about deposits, funding, and stability. For crypto, the stakes are about whether a stablecoin can act like modern money and whether stablecoin innovation stays in the United States.

The February 10 meeting may not settle every detail, but it could decide the direction. If negotiators agree on a framework for stablecoin interest, the broader bill could start moving again. If they fail, the stablecoin fight may keep blocking the larger effort to set clear federal rules for digital assets at a time when stablecoin use keeps expanding.