The final quarter of 2025 was initially heralded by some prominent voices as the dawn of an unprecedented crypto bull run, yet it concluded not with a bang but with a significant market downturn that left many investors questioning the underlying fundamentals. What was once forecasted as an “unbelievable” period of growth, driven by favorable macroeconomic conditions, devolved into a period of substantial losses for major digital assets. As the dust settled on the unfulfilled prophecy, a new narrative emerged, shifting the blame from flawed market analysis to a powerful, behind-the-scenes legislative struggle. The focus has now turned to Washington, where a stalled crypto market structure bill is being portrayed as the primary culprit, with accusations that incumbent financial giants are actively sabotaging progress to protect their long-held dominance over the global financial system. This legislative gridlock has become the new focal point, transforming a conversation about market cycles into a complex story of political maneuvering and the clash between traditional finance and decentralized technology.
The Unfulfilled Prophecy of a Bull Run
A Forecast Meets a Harsh Reality
In late September 2025, Eric Trump confidently predicted a massive fourth-quarter rally for the cryptocurrency market, building a case on several key economic indicators that historically signaled growth. His forecast pointed to a rising M2 money supply and the Federal Reserve’s anticipated return to quantitative easing as the primary catalysts that would inject significant liquidity into the financial system, with digital assets poised to be major beneficiaries. Compounding this optimism was the historical tendency for cryptocurrencies to perform strongly in the final quarter of the year. However, the market’s response starkly contradicted these expectations. Instead of the anticipated surge, Bitcoin experienced a significant correction, plummeting approximately 20% from a high of around $113,400 to a low of about $89,900 by the end of the period. Ethereum, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, also failed to find momentum, registering a modest decline of 3.5%. The widespread uptrend that was supposed to define the quarter never materialized, leaving investors to grapple with unexpected losses and a market sentiment that had turned decidedly bearish.
Shifting Blame to Legislative Hurdles
Following the market’s failure to rally, the narrative from Trump and other proponents of the bull-run theory has pivoted from economic fundamentals to the political arena. The new argument posits that the market’s underperformance was not a result of misjudging economic conditions but a direct consequence of a concerted effort by large financial institutions to stifle the digital asset industry through legislative obstruction. According to this view, powerful banks are actively lobbying to block the passage of a comprehensive crypto market structure bill. The rationale presented is one of self-preservation; these established institutions allegedly see the efficiency and transparency of cryptocurrency as an existential threat to their traditional business models. By delaying regulatory clarity, they can maintain the status quo and slow the mainstream adoption of digital assets. This shift in explanation effectively recasts the market’s downturn as a battle between disruptive innovation and entrenched financial interests, with a critical piece of legislation caught in the crossfire.
Navigating the Legislative Labyrinth
The Battle Between Old and New Finance
The core of the argument against traditional banks centers on their vested interest in the inefficiencies of the current financial system. Trump alleges that these institutions derive substantial profits from outdated processes, such as the delay in wire transfers over weekends and holidays. During these periods, banks hold onto customer funds, earning interest on the float while transactions are paused. This revenue stream is directly threatened by the advent of cryptocurrency, which operates 24/7 and enables near-instantaneous, low-cost transfers across the globe, regardless of banking hours. The ability to move value seamlessly at any time eliminates the built-in delays that traditional finance has monetized for decades. This fundamental conflict is now seen as the primary driver behind the fierce opposition to the crypto market structure bill. Proponents of the legislation argue that its passage would level the playing field, but its opponents in the banking sector are reportedly fighting to protect a system that, while inefficient for the consumer, remains highly profitable for them.
A Legislative Impasse and Its Consequences
The legislative process for the crypto market structure bill has stalled significantly, reflecting the deep-seated conflict between the digital asset industry and traditional banking. Progress in the Senate Banking Committee was pushed to late February or even March 2026 after a critical supporter, Coinbase, withdrew its backing. This decision stemmed from irreconcilable disagreements with the banking industry, specifically over provisions related to rewards offered on stablecoins. With a key industry player stepping back, the committee’s momentum evaporated, leading it to temporarily shift its focus to more pressing housing legislation. The impasse placed the onus on the crypto and banking sectors to find common ground before lawmakers would reconsider the bill. Despite a separate bill introduced by the Senate Agriculture Committee, sources indicated it lacked the necessary bipartisan support to advance. Nevertheless, a cautious optimism had persisted that the Banking Committee’s bill could eventually pass by late March, with some insiders suggesting a full Senate vote could have occurred by July 4, 2026. The eventual passage of this legislation was widely viewed as a critical catalyst needed to unlock the next phase of market growth.
