The Market Structure Bill & BTC

背景知識： 西方任何一項法規的出場過程： 提議與谘詢-> Bill的撰寫-> 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 （權勢與富人們的30% 避稅天堂之路）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.

 

-----

 

### 市場結構法案對當前和未來比特幣市場價格的關鍵影響

市場結構法案，全稱為《21世紀金融創新與技術法案》（FIT21）或其演變版本如《清晰法案》（CLARITY Act）和《天才法案》（GENIUS Act），是一項兩黨推動的美國立法努力，旨在為數字資產建立更清晰的監管框架。它在SEC（針對證券類代幣）和CFTC（針對比特幣等商品）之間劃清界限，製定了托管、交易平台和穩定幣的相關規則，並旨在防止加密領域長期存在的監管模糊。截至2025年11月初，FIT21已於6月在眾議院通過，但麵臨參議院障礙，談判因更廣泛的政治緊張局勢和潛在政府關門而停滯。 相關的《天才法案》於2025年7月簽署成為法律，為創新提供了一些初步清晰度，而參議員們正在推動在年底前敲定全麵版本。 5月引入了一個基於FIT21的新草案，並有傳言稱參議院農業委員會將在9月初提供意見，但進展仍不確定。

關於其對比特幣當前和未來價格的關鍵影響：如果全麵通過，它可能成為主要的利好催化劑。監管清晰度將降低執法風險（如SEC過去的“執法式監管”方法），使機構、銀行甚至政府更容易在沒有法律灰色地帶的情況下分配資金到BTC。 這可能加速ETF資金流入、企業金庫中的現貨比特幣采用，甚至為美國戰略比特幣儲備等提案鋪平道路。

短期內，通過可能引發救濟反彈，推動BTC突破阻力位，因為不確定性消退——分析師已將類似資產（如黃金ETF）的清晰度與持續的價格上漲趨勢聯係起來。

長期來看，它支持主流整合，可能通過增加流動性和需求推動BTC在2030年前達到20萬美元以上，盡管批評者警告可能產生意外影響，如市場分化或過度中心化，從而限製上漲空間，如果它更偏向傳統金融而非去中心化。 如果沒有它，持續延誤可能使BTC保持區間震蕩或波動加劇，正如最近在參議院停滯期間圍繞10萬美元至11萬美元的震蕩所示。

關於網上關於BTC“撞擊價格牆”的噪音，以及對壓製價格以便機構在底部買入的懷疑：網上充斥著此類討論，帖子強調了巨額賣單（如10.5萬美元以上延伸至11.2萬美元）、衍生品驅動的拋售，以及有組織級聯拋售以甩掉散戶持有者的說法。 一些人將其歸因於華爾街的策略——利用ETF、期貨和永續合約壓縮波動率（預計到2026年降至30-35%），並製造低點以廉價買入，類似於黃金ETF後供應中心化和周期平滑的軌跡。 貝萊德（BlackRock）通過IBIT持有超過80萬枚BTC，美國現貨ETF總計控製約6%的供應，通常由Coinbase等中心化托管。 這導致了“無聲沒收”的理論，其中實物轉移和套利台吸走自托管BTC，減少鏈上活動和節點數量，同時機構在恐慌階段積累。

這是故意製造煙霧來壓製價格嗎？可能部分是——市場總有操縱向量，未受監管的離岸交易所加劇了這一點，允許洗售和流動性突襲以惠及大玩家。 但這並非完全陰謀論；機構進入自然會馴服波動率（例如，鏈上交易量下降15%），將價格發現轉移到CME/ETF（現占55%的交易量），並創造更平滑的趨勢，因為BTC演變為通過覆蓋性看漲期權產生“收益資產”。 四周期可能確實已死，取而代之的是由被動流入驅動的整合為主的牛市，而非散戶FOMO。 如果法案通過，它可以通過加強監控並減少離岸賭場影響來緩解一些壓製，讓自然需求（如持有者和金庫）主導。 與此同時，像最近這樣的低點往往是積累機會，正如貝萊德在恐慌中每周買入30億美元+所示。

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

 

如果/當 CLARITY法案通過， 對IBIT等ETF的影響， 銀行方麵的資金會抽出ETF而自行托管BTC嗎？：

 

**不，正好相反。** 如果《2025年數字資產市場清晰法案》（Digital Asset Market Clarity Act，通常簡稱 CLARITY Act，法案編號 H.R. 3633）獲得通過，更多銀行和傳統金融機構反而會積極參與比特幣現貨ETF（如 BlackRock 的 IBIT）的托管業務，而不是撤出。

### 當前比特幣ETF托管現狀
現貨比特幣ETF（如IBIT）持有的是真實比特幣，目前絕大多數使用專業的加密托管機構（如Coinbase Custody），而非傳統銀行。銀行此前基本不參與的主要原因是監管不確定性，包括：
- SEC 的 SAB 121 指引（要求托管的加密資產必須計入資產負債表，造成資本金壓力）
- SEC 與 CFTC 的管轄權不清

### CLARITY Act 對托管最關鍵的條款
該法案為比特幣等“數字商品”建立了更清晰的框架：
- 明確將比特幣定義為受 CFTC 監管的數字商品（現貨市場），而投資合約仍歸 SEC 管
- 設立“合格數字資產托管人”製度，聯邦或州監管的銀行、信托公司等均可申請
- 明確客戶數字資產通常無需計入負債（實質上廢除或大幅緩解 SAB 121 的資本要求）
- 要求某些中介機構必須使用合格托管人，但同時大幅降低銀行進入門檻

這些變化正是銀行多年來一直呼籲的“監管清晰度”，會讓它們放心進入或擴大加密資產托管業務。

### 實際影響證據（截至2025年11月20日）
- 大型銀行（如 BNY Mellon、U.S. Bank、State Street）已在2025年恢複或擴大比特幣ETF托管服務，理由正是 SAB 121 被廢除 + 期待市場結構法案落地
- 行業評論及備案文件（如 BlackRock 推動實物創建/贖回）均顯示，規則清晰後銀行托管會更高效、成本更低
- 該法案沒有任何條款會迫使或激勵現有托管人撤出

### 關於自托管（Self-Custody）比特幣
CLARITY Act 對個人在私人錢包持有私鑰的自托管完全沒有影響，自托管依然100%合法。  
但隨著監管更清晰、銀行托管更安全便捷，更多主流投資者會傾向選擇受監管的ETF，而非自己承擔丟私鑰、被黑、繼承困難等風險。有些機構甚至可能把公司金庫的比特幣從自托管轉向ETF曝光（但這屬於市場行為，而非法律強製）。

### 總結
CLARITY Act（或最終類似的市場結構法案）一旦通過，會顯著增加銀行參與比特幣ETF托管的意願，而非減少。IBIT 等產品將受益於更多托管人選擇、更低成本和更高效率。自托管仍然是想完全掌控資產的人的最佳選擇，但受監管的ETF產品對普通投資者會變得更有競爭力。

------

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.