On June 17, 2026, leaders of both chambers of Congress publicly announced that a bipartisan agreement had finally been reached on a comprehensive package addressing the housing market and banking regulation. However, what truly pushed this “housing bill” to the top of crypto industry headlines was a provision secretly inserted into the agreement: according to Bloomberg, citing a single source, the negotiated version includes an extension of the ban on the Federal Reserve developing a central bank digital currency until 2030. Over the past few years, debates in the United States over central bank digital currencies have centered on privacy versus surveillance; now, this debate has been embedded within a legislative deal encompassing mortgage lending, restrictions on institutional home purchases, the removal of a seven-year post-construction rental disposal clause, and partial deregulation of certain banks. If this timeline proceeds as Senate Majority Leader has indicated to the media, it means that, against the backdrop of pilot programs for the digital euro and digital renminbi, the official development path for the digital dollar will be politically locked in a consensus of “no progress” for years to come, forcing the technological evolution of the U.S. monetary system to continue relying on existing banking and private-sector infrastructure. On another front, industry groups such as the American Gaming Association simultaneously submitted a joint letter to the Senate, demanding that the proposed crypto market structure legislation, the Clear Act, directly prohibit prediction market contracts tied to sports betting and casino gambling, accusing such platforms of circumventing state and tribal gambling laws under the guise of “federally regulated financial products.” When these two seemingly unrelated threads are combined, they reveal a fragmented landscape of tightening crypto regulation, with different interest groups vying to control the entry points of rulemaking.
The housing bill included a ban on CBDCs.
This housing package, publicly framed by leaders as “comprehensive,” ostensibly addresses the housing market and banking regulation, but in reality inserts central bank digital currency policy against its will. The most easily digestible narrative presented to the public is limiting institutional investors from bulk purchasing single-family homes and responding to voter anger over housing affordability; yet beneath the surface, the seven-year holding requirement for build-to-rent projects has been removed, certain banking deregulatory measures have been quietly inserted, and an unrelated provision—extending the ban on the Federal Reserve’s development of a digital dollar until 2030—has been tucked into the same legislative “bundle.”
From the perspective of balancing interests, these provisions together resemble a multi-party trade: one hand offers restrictions on institutional home purchases to constituents, signaling that Congress is “fighting for young people’s housing”; the other hand eases constraints on large developers and real estate capital by removing the seven-year disposition rule for newly built rental properties; meanwhile, the banking system anticipates some relaxation of capital requirements or community reinvestment obligations—even though specifics remain undisclosed—echoing the financial industry’s long-standing complaints about regulatory burdens. To make this package of concessions palatable to conservative factions, extending the ban on CBDC development becomes the most convenient leverage: it aligns with the political narrative of recent years opposing a digital dollar on grounds of privacy and financial surveillance, while avoiding immediate disruption to the daily lives of most voters, making it ideal to be bundled into a “must-pass”民生 bill for smooth passage.
Once this approach of bundling legislation across unrelated issues is proven viable, it is likely to be repeatedly replicated in future efforts to regulate cryptocurrency and fintech: key provisions related to new financial products will no longer be debated through narrowly focused specialized bills, but instead will be slipped through via housing, banking, or even completely unrelated民生 issues, resulting in industry boundaries being increasingly shaped by legislative deal-making rather than open public debate over the merits of individual policies.
No digital dollar by 2030? The Fed and the dollar system remain on hold
For the Federal Reserve, extending the ban on developing a CBDC all the way to 2030 is not merely a symbolic gesture, but an outright blocking of any public-facing path for a digital dollar over the next four years at the policy level. The problem is that the precise legislative language of the current proposal has not been made public, making it difficult even for the Fed to determine whether backend technical research or prototype development would be considered “development” and thus violate the restriction. If lawmakers intentionally keep the language vague, the most pragmatic self-protective choice is to minimize any action that could be interpreted as advancing the project—turning the digital dollar’s progress from “slow walking” to “standing still.” This kind of institutional uncertainty causes the bureaucratic system responsible for U.S. payment and settlement infrastructure to prefer “watching the wind” rather than “betting on a direction,” channeling resources toward upgrading traditional systems instead of investing in a politically unpopular future product.
The political momentum behind the ban stems from the same familiar faces over the past several years. Between 2020 and 2025, conservative lawmakers repeatedly linked CBDCs to “Big Government” during congressional hearings on central bank digital currencies: once accounts are directly tied to the central bank’s ledger, citizens’ transaction data becomes centrally controlled, fundamentally transforming financial surveillance capabilities. Even as the Federal Reserve repeatedly emphasized that privacy could be protected through technical means, such assurances were viewed by these lawmakers as nothing more than “ropes” self-imposed by the executive branch—easily cut by a future Congress. By embedding the ban within the housing bill and extending it until 2030, this move represents a阶段性 victory for this approach, locking in fears of government overreach by codifying opposition to a specific technological path through a time-based restriction. Meanwhile, as digital euro and digital renminbi projects gradually enter pilot phases worldwide, the U.S. dollar system will still lack an official digital form before 2030, meaning that central banks in other jurisdictions will continue to lead experiments in digital ledgers within global payment and reserve systems. The “digital voice” of the dollar will increasingly be ceded to private products such as encrypted dollar tokens. Whether this gap will reinforce the dollar’s market inertia or open new digital entry points for other currencies remains difficult to assess with simple “bullish” or “bearish” labels.
Europe and China accelerate CBDC implementation, while the U.S. opts to observe
In Europe, central banks have placed the digital euro on the public agenda, progressing through research studies and pilot frameworks step by step; in China, the digital yuan has moved from closed testing to widespread real-world applications, with accumulating operational data from public transit, retail spending, and cross-city pilots. Central banks worldwide are also using small-scale pilots to “secure their positions,” vying for influence over the next-generation cross-border payment and settlement systems. In contrast to this accelerating global trend, the United States has chosen to hit the pause button at the legislative level—if provisions in the housing bill are ultimately passed as currently agreed, extending the ban on the Federal Reserve’s development of a CBDC until 2030, the U.S. would effectively withdraw from this round of official digital currency advancement on the institutional expectation front, ceding exploration rights to foreign central banks and domestic private sectors.
The disparity in pace brings not only technological backwardness but also a shift in the power to set standards. Who defines the interface rules, compliance data formats, and on-chain identity verification for future cross-border payment networks will largely be determined by the currency zones that first successfully implement cross-border CBDC use cases. In the absence of a digital dollar, global clearing participants seeking faster settlement on digital ledgers can only rely more heavily on two alternatives: first, foreign CBDCs already deployed in real-world scenarios; second, dollar-denominated crypto assets. The former will continuously solidify usage habits in regional trade and local currency settlement, while the latter, under the continued dominance of the dollar as a reserve currency, will continue to absorb cross-platform and cross-chain dollar liquidity. For the United States, this “wait-and-see” approach does not mean the digitalization process has halted—it means ceding leadership to Europe, China, and market forces beyond its own regulatory boundaries. Reclaiming the home-field advantage in digital currency standards in the future will require exponentially higher policy costs and negotiation leverage.
Gambling lobbying targets prediction markets, clearer legislation adds risk controls
In the same week that Congress locked in a timeline for central bank digital projects through a housing bill, another lobbying front quietly took shape. Industry groups such as the American Gaming Association (AGA) submitted a joint letter to the Senate around June 17 (according to a single source), specifically naming the pending legislation on crypto market structure, the CLEAR Act, and demanding that it explicitly prohibit prediction market contracts tied to sports betting and casino wagering. The letter’s target is not abstract “blockchain technology,” but rather crypto prediction market platforms that label themselves as “federally regulated financial products”—which, from the gambling industry’s perspective, represent a shortcut to bypass state and tribal gambling laws and licensing systems, as well as a form of regulatory arbitrage that bundles traditional gambling licensing costs into financial regulation.
At the heart of the conflict are two entirely different regulatory narratives vying for control over the definition of the same class of products. The traditional gambling framework relies on state governments and tribal sovereign entities to issue licenses and define geographic and age boundaries, emphasizing “who is qualified to operate and where.” In contrast, crypto platforms seek to reframe prediction markets as contracts subject to federal financial regulation, appealing instead to the language of “investment products” and “risk hedging.” The joint letter warns that this approach undermines existing consumer protection mechanisms—particularly because platforms can reach users nationwide without local licenses or physical entry barriers, creating additional incentives and risks for younger users. If the Senate incorporates the gambling industry’s demands into the CLEAR Act, the relevant provisions could shift from “establishing a unified regulatory framework for crypto markets” to “eliminating entire categories of contracts tied to sports and casino events.” Crypto prediction market platforms would then be forced to meet dual compliance thresholds: federal financial regulation and state-level gambling laws. Ordinary users would face higher institutional barriers when opening accounts, verifying identities, and accessing tradable assets. The entire sector would be pushed from a “gray zone of innovation” into a highly restricted industry characterized by high barriers and stringent licensing requirements.
Where will U.S. cryptocurrency regulation go after the ban takes effect?
If the CBDC ban provision in this housing bill is placed on the same timeline as the gambling industry’s pressure on the Clear Act regarding prediction markets, America’s stance on critical cryptocurrency financial infrastructure has become very clear: it is exceptionally cautious toward a “national payment backbone” and “quasi-gambling financial contracts,” even willing to legislatively lock in technological pathways. Once the housing bill passes both chambers of Congress and is signed by the president, extending the ban until 2030 will no longer be merely a negotiating chip—it will effectively exclude digital dollars from the official policy toolkit for years to come. The real variable lies in whether the final text preserves an exemption for the Federal Reserve to “research, test, or maintain technical reserves.” Meanwhile, the Clear Act remains under negotiation,既要回应博彩业对体育和赌场类预测合约的封堵诉求，也要面对加密行业对统一市场结构规则的期待，条款走向将决定这类合约是被整体归入博彩、还是被部分纳入联邦金融产品框架。In this fragmented landscape of multiple agencies and concurrent bills, platforms and projects entering the U.S. market must first accept the premise that “there will be no digital dollar”: payment and settlement layers must be designed around the existing banking system and commercially issued digital assets. Second, they must closely monitor the Clear Act’s detailed distinctions regarding event contracts, leverage, and settlement methods, ready to adjust whether their products are classified as derivatives or gambling tools. For users, participation in cryptocurrency finance in the U.S. over the coming years will depend more on the dynamic boundaries drawn by these legislative negotiations around “tradeable assets, usable payment tools, and acceptable identity requirements,” rather than the position of any single regulatory body.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid offer: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefit: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the position or opinions of this platform. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind. Any disputes between users and the author are unrelated to this platform. If any articles or images published on this webpage involve infringement, please send relevant proof of rights and identification to support@aicoin.com, and our staff will review the matter.