The Market Structure Bill & BTC

背景知识： 西方任何一项法规的出场过程： 提议与咨询-> Bill的撰写-> ACT/Regulations -> Policies 。

------

 

The Market Structure Bill, formally known as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) or its evolved versions like the CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act, is a bipartisan U.S. legislative effort to establish clearer regulatory frameworks for digital assets. It draws lines between the SEC (for securities-like tokens) and the CFTC (for commodities like Bitcoin), sets up rules for custody, trading platforms, and stablecoins, and aims to prevent the kind of regulatory ambiguity that's plagued the crypto space. As of early November 2025, FIT21 passed the House in June but has hit Senate roadblocks, with negotiations stalling amid broader political tensions and a potential government shutdown. A related GENIUS Act was signed into law in July 2025, providing some initial clarity on innovation, while senators are pushing to finalize a comprehensive version before year-end. A new draft building on FIT21 was introduced in May, and there's talk of Senate Agriculture Committee input by early September, but progress remains uncertain.

On its critical impact for Bitcoin's current and future price: If fully enacted, it could be a major bullish catalyst. Regulatory clarity would reduce enforcement risks (like the SEC's past "regulation by enforcement" approach), making it easier for institutions, banks, and even governments to allocate to BTC without fear of legal gray areas. This might accelerate ETF inflows, spot Bitcoin adoption in corporate treasuries, and even pave the way for proposals like a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve.

Short-term, passage could spark a relief rally, pushing BTC through resistance levels as uncertainty fades—analysts have linked similar clarity in other assets (e.g., gold ETFs) to sustained price uptrends.

Longer-term, it supports mainstream integration, potentially driving BTC toward $200K+ by 2030 via increased liquidity and demand, though critics warn of unintended effects like market bifurcation or over-centralization that could cap upside if it favors TradFi over decentralization. Without it, ongoing delays could keep BTC range-bound or volatile, as seen in recent chops around $100K-$110K amid Senate stalls.

Regarding the online noise about BTC "hitting a price wall" and suspicions of suppression for institutional accumulation: There's plenty of chatter on this, with posts highlighting massive sell walls (e.g., above $105K stretching to $112K), derivative-driven dumps, and claims of orchestrated cascades to shake out retail holders. Some attribute it to Wall Street tactics—using ETFs, futures, and perps to compress volatility (down to 30-35% projected by 2026) and create dips for cheap buys, mirroring gold's post-ETF trajectory where supply centralized and cycles smoothed out. BlackRock alone holds over 800K BTC via IBIT, and total U.S. spot ETFs control ~6% of supply, often in centralized custody like Coinbase. This has led to theories of a "silent seizure," where in-kind transfers （权势与富人们的30% 避税天堂之路）and arb desks suck up self-custodied BTC, reducing on-chain activity and node counts while institutions accumulate during fear phases.

Is it deliberate smoke to suppress prices? Possibly in part—markets have always had manipulation vectors, and unregulated offshore exchanges exacerbate it, allowing wash trading and liquidity raids that benefit big players. But it's not purely conspiratorial; institutional entry naturally tames volatility (e.g., 15% drop in on-chain volume), shifts price discovery to CME/ETFs (now 55% of volume), and creates smoother trends as BTC evolves into a "yield asset" via covered calls.

 

The four-year cycle may indeed be dead, replaced by consolidation-heavy bull runs driven by passive inflows rather than retail FOMO. If the bill passes, it could mitigate some suppression by enforcing better surveillance and reducing offshore casino influence, letting natural demand (e.g., from hodlers and treasuries) dominate. In the meantime, dips like recent ones are often accumulation opportunities, as evidenced by BlackRock's $3B+ weekly buys amid panic.

 

-----

 

### 市场结构法案对当前和未来比特币市场价格的关键影响

市场结构法案，全称为《21世纪金融创新与技术法案》（FIT21）或其演变版本如《清晰法案》（CLARITY Act）和《天才法案》（GENIUS Act），是一项两党推动的美国立法努力，旨在为数字资产建立更清晰的监管框架。它在SEC（针对证券类代币）和CFTC（针对比特币等商品）之间划清界限，制定了托管、交易平台和稳定币的相关规则，并旨在防止加密领域长期存在的监管模糊。截至2025年11月初，FIT21已于6月在众议院通过，但面临参议院障碍，谈判因更广泛的政治紧张局势和潜在政府关门而停滞。 相关的《天才法案》于2025年7月签署成为法律，为创新提供了一些初步清晰度，而参议员们正在推动在年底前敲定全面版本。 5月引入了一个基于FIT21的新草案，并有传言称参议院农业委员会将在9月初提供意见，但进展仍不确定。

关于其对比特币当前和未来价格的关键影响：如果全面通过，它可能成为主要的利好催化剂。监管清晰度将降低执法风险（如SEC过去的“执法式监管”方法），使机构、银行甚至政府更容易在没有法律灰色地带的情况下分配资金到BTC。 这可能加速ETF资金流入、企业金库中的现货比特币采用，甚至为美国战略比特币储备等提案铺平道路。

短期内，通过可能引发救济反弹，推动BTC突破阻力位，因为不确定性消退——分析师已将类似资产（如黄金ETF）的清晰度与持续的价格上涨趋势联系起来。

长期来看，它支持主流整合，可能通过增加流动性和需求推动BTC在2030年前达到20万美元以上，尽管批评者警告可能产生意外影响，如市场分化或过度中心化，从而限制上涨空间，如果它更偏向传统金融而非去中心化。 如果没有它，持续延误可能使BTC保持区间震荡或波动加剧，正如最近在参议院停滞期间围绕10万美元至11万美元的震荡所示。

关于网上关于BTC“撞击价格墙”的噪音，以及对压制价格以便机构在底部买入的怀疑：网上充斥着此类讨论，帖子强调了巨额卖单（如10.5万美元以上延伸至11.2万美元）、衍生品驱动的抛售，以及有组织级联抛售以甩掉散户持有者的说法。 一些人将其归因于华尔街的策略——利用ETF、期货和永续合约压缩波动率（预计到2026年降至30-35%），并制造低点以廉价买入，类似于黄金ETF后供应中心化和周期平滑的轨迹。 贝莱德（BlackRock）通过IBIT持有超过80万枚BTC，美国现货ETF总计控制约6%的供应，通常由Coinbase等中心化托管。 这导致了“无声没收”的理论，其中实物转移和套利台吸走自托管BTC，减少链上活动和节点数量，同时机构在恐慌阶段积累。

这是故意制造烟雾来压制价格吗？可能部分是——市场总有操纵向量，未受监管的离岸交易所加剧了这一点，允许洗售和流动性突袭以惠及大玩家。 但这并非完全阴谋论；机构进入自然会驯服波动率（例如，链上交易量下降15%），将价格发现转移到CME/ETF（现占55%的交易量），并创造更平滑的趋势，因为BTC演变为通过覆盖性看涨期权产生“收益资产”。 四周期可能确实已死，取而代之的是由被动流入驱动的整合为主的牛市，而非散户FOMO。 如果法案通过，它可以通过加强监控并减少离岸赌场影响来缓解一些压制，让自然需求（如持有者和金库）主导。 与此同时，像最近这样的低点往往是积累机会，正如贝莱德在恐慌中每周买入30亿美元+所示。

------------

 

如果/当 CLARITY法案通过， 对IBIT等ETF的影响， 银行方面的资金会抽出ETF而自行托管BTC吗？：

 

**不，正好相反。** 如果《2025年数字资产市场清晰法案》（Digital Asset Market Clarity Act，通常简称 CLARITY Act，法案编号 H.R. 3633）获得通过，更多银行和传统金融机构反而会积极参与比特币现货ETF（如 BlackRock 的 IBIT）的托管业务，而不是撤出。

### 当前比特币ETF托管现状
现货比特币ETF（如IBIT）持有的是真实比特币，目前绝大多数使用专业的加密托管机构（如Coinbase Custody），而非传统银行。银行此前基本不参与的主要原因是监管不确定性，包括：
- SEC 的 SAB 121 指引（要求托管的加密资产必须计入资产负债表，造成资本金压力）
- SEC 与 CFTC 的管辖权不清

### CLARITY Act 对托管最关键的条款
该法案为比特币等“数字商品”建立了更清晰的框架：
- 明确将比特币定义为受 CFTC 监管的数字商品（现货市场），而投资合约仍归 SEC 管
- 设立“合格数字资产托管人”制度，联邦或州监管的银行、信托公司等均可申请
- 明确客户数字资产通常无需计入负债（实质上废除或大幅缓解 SAB 121 的资本要求）
- 要求某些中介机构必须使用合格托管人，但同时大幅降低银行进入门槛

这些变化正是银行多年来一直呼吁的“监管清晰度”，会让它们放心进入或扩大加密资产托管业务。

### 实际影响证据（截至2025年11月20日）
- 大型银行（如 BNY Mellon、U.S. Bank、State Street）已在2025年恢复或扩大比特币ETF托管服务，理由正是 SAB 121 被废除 + 期待市场结构法案落地
- 行业评论及备案文件（如 BlackRock 推动实物创建/赎回）均显示，规则清晰后银行托管会更高效、成本更低
- 该法案没有任何条款会迫使或激励现有托管人撤出

### 关于自托管（Self-Custody）比特币
CLARITY Act 对个人在私人钱包持有私钥的自托管完全没有影响，自托管依然100%合法。  
但随着监管更清晰、银行托管更安全便捷，更多主流投资者会倾向选择受监管的ETF，而非自己承担丢私钥、被黑、继承困难等风险。有些机构甚至可能把公司金库的比特币从自托管转向ETF曝光（但这属于市场行为，而非法律强制）。

### 总结
CLARITY Act（或最终类似的市场结构法案）一旦通过，会显著增加银行参与比特币ETF托管的意愿，而非减少。IBIT 等产品将受益于更多托管人选择、更低成本和更高效率。自托管仍然是想完全掌控资产的人的最佳选择，但受监管的ETF产品对普通投资者会变得更有竞争力。

------

English version

**No, the opposite is more likely.** If the **Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025** (commonly called the **CLARITY Act**, H.R. 3633) passes into law, it would probably encourage more banks and traditional financial institutions to participate in custodying Bitcoin for products like spot Bitcoin ETFs (such as BlackRock's IBIT), rather than prompting them to withdraw.

### Current Situation with Bitcoin ETFs and Custody
Spot Bitcoin ETFs like IBIT hold actual Bitcoin (not futures) through a qualified custodian — currently, most use specialized crypto custodians like Coinbase Custody, not traditional banks. Banks have largely stayed away due to past regulatory uncertainty, including the SEC's SAB 121 guidance (which required on-balance-sheet accounting for custodied crypto, creating capital burdens) and unclear jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC.

### Key Provisions of the CLARITY Act Relevant to Custody
The bill establishes a clearer framework for "digital commodities" like Bitcoin:
- It explicitly defines Bitcoin as a digital commodity under CFTC oversight for spot markets (while preserving SEC rules for investment contracts).
- It creates "qualified digital asset custodians" that can include federally or state-regulated banks, trust companies, or other entities meeting custody standards.
- It addresses balance-sheet treatment concerns by clarifying that customer digital assets generally do not need to be recorded as liabilities in most cases (effectively overriding or mitigating SAB 121-style restrictions).
- It requires certain intermediaries (e.g., futures commission merchants) to use qualified custodians but opens the door wider for banks to qualify and offer these services.

These changes provide the regulatory clarity banks have long requested to enter or expand crypto custody without excessive risk or capital penalties.

### Evidence of Likely Impact
- Major banks (e.g., BNY Mellon, U.S. Bank, State Street) have already resumed or expanded Bitcoin ETF custody services in 2025, citing improved regulatory clarity post-SAB 121 rescission and in anticipation of market-structure legislation like CLARITY.
- Industry commentary and filings (e.g., BlackRock's push for in-kind creations/redemptions) indicate that clearer rules would make bank custody more viable and efficient for ETFs.
- No provisions in the bill force or incentivize withdrawal — it reduces barriers that previously kept banks out.

### On Self-Custody of BTC
The CLARITY Act has no direct impact on individuals' ability to self-custody Bitcoin (holding it in personal wallets with private keys). Self-custody remains fully legal and unaffected. However, clearer rules and more bank/institutional involvement could make ETFs even more attractive to mainstream investors who prefer regulated, insured-like options over the operational risks of self-custody (lost keys, hacks, inheritance issues, etc.). Some institutions might even shift from pure self-custody treasury holdings to ETF exposure for simplicity, but that's market-driven, not mandated.

In summary: Passage of the CLARITY Act (or a similar final market-structure bill) would likely increase bank participation in Bitcoin ETF custody, not decrease it. IBIT and similar products would benefit from more custodian options and potentially lower costs/efficiency gains. Self-custody remains an option for those who want full control, but regulated vehicles like ETFs become more competitive.