Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon backs CLARITY Act ahead of Senate vote
Goldman Sachs chief executive David Solomon has publicly backed the U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act ahead of an expected vote, lending one of Wall Street’s most prominent voices to the push for digital asset market-structure legislation in the United States.
Solomon’s support for the CLARITY Act, first reported as part of Cointelegraph’s daily crypto roundup, signals a meaningful shift in how major traditional finance institutions are positioning themselves relative to U.S. crypto regulation. The CLARITY Act is aimed at providing clearer rules for how digital assets are classified and regulated, addressing a gap that has persisted for years as regulators, courts, and market participants have debated whether various tokens should be treated as securities, commodities, or something else entirely.
The fact that the head of Goldman Sachs is weighing in directly on a Senate bill matters for several reasons. Goldman Sachs is not a peripheral player. It is one of the largest and most influential investment banks in the world, and its public stance on financial regulation tends to carry weight with lawmakers, regulators, and institutional investors alike. When a figure of Solomon’s stature endorses a specific piece of crypto legislation, it provides the industry with a level of institutional credibility that has often been in short supply.
It also suggests that the conversation around crypto regulation in Washington has moved beyond the fringes. For years, digital asset policy was treated by many in traditional finance as a niche concern. That has changed. The involvement of Goldman Sachs’ leadership indicates that market-structure legislation is now being read as a mainstream financial policy issue, one with implications for capital markets, institutional trading, and the broader architecture of U.S. financial regulation.
The CLARITY Act is expected to face a Senate vote, though the precise timing and procedural path remain subject to the usual legislative dynamics. What is clear from Solomon’s endorsement is that the bill has attracted support from corners of the financial establishment that once kept crypto at arm’s length. That kind of backing can influence how lawmakers and regulators frame rules for digital assets, especially as the industry pushes for clearer oversight in the United States.
For the crypto sector, the political dimension of this story is significant. The industry has spent years arguing that regulatory ambiguity in the U.S. has driven innovation offshore and left domestic firms operating under legal uncertainty. Having Goldman Sachs’ chief executive publicly align with a legislative effort to resolve that ambiguity strengthens the case that market-structure reform is not merely an industry wishlist but a broader financial-market concern.
The regulatory implications extend beyond the CLARITY Act itself. If the bill progresses with visible Wall Street support, it could set a template for how other digital asset legislation is drafted and debated. It could also shape how agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission approach their respective mandates, particularly around the boundaries between securities and commodities in the context of tokenised assets.
Read more in our regulation coverage.
BitMEX to shut down after 11 years in crypto derivatives
BitMEX has announced that it will shut down after 11 years as one of the most influential platforms in the crypto derivatives market, marking the end of a major chapter in the sector’s history.
The closure is notable well beyond the immediate operational impact. BitMEX was one of the earliest and most consequential venues for crypto derivatives trading. In the years following its launch, the platform helped define what leveraged crypto trading looked like, offering products that were at the time innovative and that attracted enormous volumes from traders around the world. Its influence on the development of the crypto derivatives market was substantial, and its exit from the space removes a name that has been associated with the sector since its formative period.
The decision to shut down comes at a time when the competitive landscape for crypto derivatives has shifted considerably. A number of exchanges have entered the market over the past several years, many of them backed by larger capital bases, broader product suites, and increasingly sophisticated trading infrastructure. The derivatives market that BitMEX helped pioneer is now populated with platforms that offer a wide range of perpetual futures, options, and structured products, often with deeper liquidity and more advanced risk-management tools.
BitMEX’s departure therefore reflects broader dynamics in the exchange sector. The platforms that defined the early years of crypto trading are not guaranteed to remain dominant as the market matures. User expectations have evolved, regulatory scrutiny has intensified, and the technical demands of running a derivatives venue at scale have grown. An exchange that was once at the forefront of innovation can find itself outpaced by newer entrants or by incumbents that have adapted more quickly to changing conditions.
The historical significance of BitMEX should not be understated. The platform was instrumental in popularising perpetual swaps, a product that has since become a cornerstone of crypto derivatives trading across the industry. Its trading engine and product design influenced how many subsequent platforms approached leveraged trading. For a significant period, BitMEX was synonymous with crypto derivatives in the minds of many traders.
Its closure also carries a symbolic weight. The crypto market has seen numerous exchanges come and go, but few have been as closely identified with a particular segment of the market as BitMEX was with derivatives. The fact that a platform of its stature is exiting after 11 years underscores how much the sector has changed. What was once a relatively small corner of the crypto ecosystem has become a large, competitive, and institutionally relevant market.
From a market-structure perspective, the shutdown is unlikely to cause significant disruption to overall derivatives volumes, given the depth of alternatives now available. However, it does remove a long-standing participant and a recognisable brand from the landscape. For traders who have been active in crypto for years, BitMEX’s exit will be read as a milestone, a signal that the era in which the platform was a dominant force has passed.
The strategic implications for other exchanges are worth noting. BitMEX’s closure reinforces the reality that longevity in crypto markets is not assured simply because a platform was early or once dominant. Sustained competitiveness requires continuous investment in technology, compliance, product development, and user experience. The exchanges that endure are those that can adapt to a market that is simultaneously becoming more professional, more regulated, and more crowded.
For more on exchange developments, see our exchanges coverage.
Cross-chain bridge exploits see more than $31.6 million stolen in hours
Hackers stole more than $31.6 million in two cross-chain bridge exploits that occurred just hours apart, underscoring that interoperability infrastructure remains one of the most persistent security weaknesses in the crypto sector.
The two incidents, highlighted in Cointelegraph’s daily roundup, demonstrate that cross-chain bridges continue to present an attractive target for attackers. Bridges are designed to enable assets and data to move between different blockchain networks, a function that is technically complex and that often involves locking assets on one chain while issuing corresponding representations on another. That architecture, by its nature, creates large pools of locked value that can be exploited if the underlying code or access controls are compromised.
The speed with which the two exploits occurred is itself notable. The fact that two separate bridge hacks could take place within hours of each other illustrates the scale of the vulnerability surface across interoperability protocols. It also suggests that attackers continue to view bridges as high-value, comparatively accessible targets, particularly when measured against the security posture of more established on-chain protocols.
The $31.6 million figure represents a significant sum, and while it is lower than some of the largest bridge exploits recorded in previous years, it is substantial enough to reinforce concerns about the security model underpinning cross-chain infrastructure. The pattern of bridge hacks has been a recurring feature of the crypto security landscape, and the latest incidents make clear that the problem has not been resolved.
Cross-chain infrastructure remains a major security weakness, with attackers still able to extract large sums quickly from interconnected blockchain systems. The fundamental challenge is that bridges concentrate risk. By holding assets in escrow or smart contracts that span multiple networks, they create single points of failure that can be exploited through code vulnerabilities, compromised keys, or manipulation of the verification mechanisms that govern cross-chain transfers.
The market implications of these hacks extend beyond the immediate financial losses. Each high-profile exploit erodes confidence in cross-chain technology at a time when interoperability is widely regarded as essential to the sector’s growth. The ability to move assets seamlessly between blockchains is a core requirement for many decentralised finance applications, and persistent security failures in the bridges that enable that movement create friction for users and developers alike.
For developers and protocol teams, the repeated exploitation of bridges raises difficult questions about how interoperability should be architected. Some projects have explored alternative approaches, including more decentralised verification models, multi-signature arrangements with broader participation, and zero-knowledge-based proof systems designed to reduce trust assumptions. The latest hacks are likely to accelerate scrutiny of these alternatives and to increase pressure on bridge operators to demonstrate that their security models can withstand sophisticated attacks.
From a regulatory perspective, bridge hacks also complicate the picture. As policymakers in the United States and elsewhere consider how to regulate digital assets, the vulnerability of cross-chain infrastructure introduces questions about accountability, investor protection, and systemic risk. If bridges continue to be exploited at scale, regulators may take a more active interest in how these protocols are designed, operated, and audited.
The broader lesson from the two exploits is that the crypto sector’s security challenges have not diminished even as the market has matured in other respects. Institutional adoption, regulatory progress, and product innovation have all advanced, but the underlying infrastructure still contains weaknesses that can be exploited for significant sums. Addressing those weaknesses is likely to remain a priority for the industry for the foreseeable future.
For ongoing reporting on security incidents, visit our security coverage.
Market structure, security and institutional convergence
Taken together, the day’s three developments paint a picture of a crypto sector moving on multiple fronts simultaneously. Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of the CLARITY Act points to a regulatory landscape that is becoming more engaged with traditional finance. BitMEX’s shutdown reflects an exchange market that is consolidating and maturing. The bridge exploits demonstrate that security remains an unresolved challenge even as other dimensions of the industry advance.
What connects these stories is the theme of convergence. Regulation, institutional adoption, and security are not separate threads. They interact and shape one another. Legislative clarity can encourage institutional participation, but persistent security failures can undermine the confidence that institutions require. Exchange consolidation can signal market maturity, but it also concentrates activity among fewer platforms, raising questions about resilience and competition.
The day’s events suggest that the crypto sector is entering a phase where progress on one front is increasingly contingent on progress on others. Regulatory clarity without improved security will not be sufficient to sustain institutional engagement. Exchange innovation without competitive pressure will not guarantee that the market remains dynamic. The industry’s trajectory will depend on how effectively it can address these challenges in parallel rather than in isolation.
