The thing that really stands out about this front-page WSJ story by @KevinTDugan is the way it acts like Congress was doing the digital asset industry a favor by even considering passing Clarity. Crypto is not a volleyball team. It's not a Jeopardy contestant. It's a specific application of mathematics, a technology, and when combined with other technologies, a new way of interacting. What does it mean for a technology and a tool to "choke"? Even the title "Crypto Blew Its Big Moment" sounds like poorly prompted AI slop. Why was this the big moment? And since Armstrong's opposition to the yield provision (on a bill that wasn't even meant to cover stablecoins) is the central story of this article, why is the onus on the industry to prove competition with banks is good—no other disruptive industry has to constantly do that. What's the actual story there? What facts or data can be presented beyond unverifiable quotes from staffers who work for politicians who must spin every outcome? As usual, what the article doesn't do is grapple with what cryptocurrencies and blockchains actually do, or why they might be useful, or how regulations augment adoption. That would require intellectual curiosity, the ability to think outside of a boring bubble, and hard reporting. It would require not doing Jamie Dimon's dirty work. And we should't be surprised, because the author's bio says "Writing about the culture of Wall Street." And if you read the comments, there is 100% consensus that crypto is a scam, a buffoon's assumption this article does nothing to challenge. It's yet another predictable wink to the peanut gallery, by people who are smart enough to seek a greater truth, but choose not to. All of which is to say, another missed opportunity to do real reporting to inform the public of the much more complicated, but also much more interesting, story of what is actually happening.