Mentioned in This Article
1. What did Grayscale and BlackRock say after the midterms?
Grayscale and BlackRock, two of the largest crypto-focused asset managers, said on November 4, 2026, that the Democratic victory in the U.S. midterm elections should not derail the growth of digital assets. Grayscale argued that the industry's future depends more on overseas demand and institutional adoption than on decisions made in Washington, while BlackRock's head of digital assets said the vote would have little effect on its business.
The comments arrive after Democrats won the House and the Senate, a result that could complicate President Donald Trump's legislative agenda for crypto. Grayscale told reporters after Tuesday's vote that progress in the industry extends beyond any single administration or Congress. The Grayscale crypto outlook, in other words, treats legislation as one influence among several rather than the decisive one.
Both firms had expressed their positions before the results were known, which means their statements reflect prepared views rather than a reaction to the final tally. They nevertheless give a picture of how large financial firms are framing the political change for clients and investors.
The timing of the statements is worth noting. Midterm elections often reshape the legislative calendar, so investors were looking for signals about whether the sector's ambitions in Washington had been set back. Responses from established asset managers are therefore a useful gauge of how the institutional world reads the result.
Their message is notably similar even though the firms serve different clients. Grayscale is known for investment products built around digital assets, and BlackRock is a diversified manager that has added crypto to a much larger platform. Both said the business case rests on factors that elections do not control, such as customer demand and the maturity of products already on the market.
2. Why does Grayscale say the GENIUS Act matters?
Zach Pandl, Grayscale's head of research, said in emailed comments that the GENIUS Act was a major step forward for stablecoins. The law, which created a federal framework for dollar-backed payment tokens, passed Congress with bipartisan support. Pandl argued that regulatory clarity and institutional adoption rest on foundations deeper than the work of the last Congress.
He pointed to that bipartisan backing as evidence that crypto does not belong to one party. A research note he published on October 28 said elections can influence crypto only on the margin, in the same way they affect other asset classes. In that note he described the industry as bipartisan, global and increasingly institutional, and concluded that it will keep advancing whatever the outcome of the midterms.
Pandl also cited survey data to support the claim of broad appeal. A February 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 18 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had invested in, traded or used crypto, compared with 17 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Pew describes those figures as statistically equal.
The distinction between stablecoins and the rest of the market runs through the commentary. A stablecoin law is already in place, and Pandl treats it as proof that lawmakers from both parties can agree on crypto policy when the subject is narrow and the rules are clear. Broader market structure is a more contested matter, since it touches on trading venues, intermediaries and the treatment of tokens that are not payment instruments.
3. How much crypto activity happens outside the United States?
Grayscale estimates that 80 to 85 percent of global crypto activity takes place outside the United States. Pandl's pre-election research note made that estimate and offered dollar-pegged stablecoin use in South America and Southeast Asia as examples of demand beyond American borders. The implication is that decisions by U.S. lawmakers, while important, govern a minority of the activity in the market.
The estimate combines 14 indicators, including trading volume, mining and ownership. Across those measures the average U.S. share is 19 percent and the median is 16 percent. Some of the indicators cover North America rather than only the United States, and Grayscale describes the calculation as illustrative, so it is best read as a rough guide to scale rather than a precise measurement.
Pandl argued that demand around the world for alternatives to government currencies, and for better payment systems, will persist. He added that foreign regulators continue to develop rules for digital assets, so the legal environment outside the United States is also evolving.
For a reader trying to judge what this means, the figure suggests that a policy setback in one country is unlikely to stop the activity in the others. It does not imply that U.S. policy is unimportant, since the country hosts the largest financial markets and many of the institutions that build regulated products. It does imply that the industry's trajectory is not tied to a single legislature, and that is the core of the argument Grayscale is making.
4. What is the case that crypto keeps growing despite politics?
Pandl's argument for continued growth has several parts. One concerns public finances: he wrote that federal debt will probably keep rising regardless of which party controls Congress, and he argued that this pushes investors toward alternative stores of value such as crypto. Another concerns integration with mainstream finance.
As evidence of that integration, he named stablecoin services expanded by Visa, Mastercard, Fiserv and Stripe. He also cited tokenized investment funds offered by BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and JPMorgan. Tokenized funds are traditional investment products whose shares are recorded on a blockchain, and their appearance at established institutions indicates that interest is not confined to crypto-native companies.
Growing adoption does not shield token prices from wider market conditions, however. Pandl said earlier this year that digital assets beyond Bitcoin are sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic backdrop. He presented that sensitivity as a sign that such assets have become part of the broader financial system, not as a weakness unique to crypto.
Taken together, these examples support a claim about durability. If payment networks and the largest asset managers have already built services around digital assets, then reversing course would be costly for them, and political shifts are less likely to remove those services. That is a forecast rather than a certainty, and it depends on regulators continuing to allow such products.
5. Does BlackRock expect the election to affect its crypto business?
BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, also played down the potential impact. Robert Mitchnick, the firm's head of digital assets, spoke on Tuesday at the ETF Investor Forum in New York. Asked whether the election results could affect product launches or investment flows, he answered, "Not really, to be honest." His remarks were made before the outcome was known.
Mitchnick argued that Bitcoin and Ether already have much of the regulatory clarity needed to support investment products, even though broader crypto legislation remains stalled in Congress. Exchange-traded products are one of the main ways institutions gain exposure, and he suggested that the existing framework is sufficient for those offerings to continue.
He also said that the more adoption increases and the more use cases add value, the more crypto becomes a bipartisan issue. That reasoning matches Grayscale's: as more households, companies and institutions use digital assets, political support is less likely to divide neatly along party lines.
The statement also reflects how exchange-traded products came about. Investment vehicles for Bitcoin and Ether were able to launch under securities law without a dedicated crypto statute, which is why a manager like BlackRock can say that the stalled bill has limited relevance to what it sells. Products that depend on new categories of regulation would be affected more, but Mitchnick did not suggest that BlackRock's current plans do.
6. What is the outlook for the CLARITY Act?
The picture in Washington is less encouraging. The CLARITY Act, a sweeping proposal for federal digital asset rules, failed to advance in September even when Republicans controlled both chambers. A summary of the episode noted that the main market structure bill stalled at 49 to 50 in the Senate. With Democrats taking control in January, some executives believe the bill has little chance in its current form.
Others see room for a revised bipartisan agreement. More than 70 House Democrats previously backed the legislation, which suggests a base of support that a negotiated version could build on. Obstacles remain, including disputes over rewards paid on stablecoins, consumer protections, and Trump's own interests in cryptocurrency businesses.
The bill matters because it was intended to define which regulator oversees which parts of the market. Without it, agencies and courts continue to fill the gaps, a situation the asset managers say they can work within.
7. What should investors watch next?
The Democratic majorities take over in January, and the fate of the market structure bill will depend on whether negotiators can resolve the disputes over stablecoin rewards, consumer protections and conflicts of interest. Those talks will show whether the optimism expressed by Grayscale and BlackRock translates into a workable legislative path or whether the industry continues to rely on existing laws and regulators.
In the meantime, the two firms' message to clients is consistent. Demand is global, adoption by institutions is expanding, and the products that exist today can operate under current rules. Investors weighing that message should keep in mind that the statements come from companies with a commercial interest in the sector's growth, and that token prices can still move sharply with general market conditions regardless of how Washington behaves.