Cryptocurrency Regulation in 2026: How New Laws Are Reshaping Digital Asset Investing

Introduction: The Year Regulation Caught Up

In January 2024, the SEC approved the first spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States. It was a watershed moment — one that many thought would never arrive. But what followed was even more remarkable. Within two years, the entire global regulatory landscape for digital assets has been rewritten, reshaped, and in some cases, completely overhauled. If you went to sleep in 2023 and woke up today, you would barely recognize the crypto investing environment.

Here is a number that puts it in perspective: by the end of Q1 2026, combined assets under management across all US-listed cryptocurrency ETFs surpassed $250 billion. That is more than the entire market capitalization of Bitcoin in early 2020. Institutional money did not just trickle into crypto — it flooded in, and regulation was the dam that finally opened the gates.

But regulation is a double-edged sword. For every door it opens for institutional investors, it closes a window for the freewheeling, decentralized ethos that built crypto in the first place. DeFi protocols are scrambling to comply with new rules. Exchanges are spending hundreds of millions on compliance infrastructure. Some projects have left certain jurisdictions entirely. And individual investors are grappling with a tax reporting regime that makes traditional equity investing look simple by comparison.

This article is your comprehensive guide to the cryptocurrency regulatory landscape in 2026. We will break down what has changed, what it means for your portfolio, and how to position yourself in a market where the rules of the game have fundamentally shifted. Whether you are a seasoned crypto investor or someone who has been watching from the sidelines, waiting for regulatory clarity before jumping in, this is the moment to understand what is happening — and what comes next.

The US Regulatory Landscape: SEC, Congress, and the New Crypto Framework

The United States has spent years being the global laggard on crypto regulation. While other countries moved forward with clear frameworks, American regulators engaged in what many called “regulation by enforcement” — suing companies and then using those lawsuits to establish precedent, rather than writing clear rules in advance. That era is, for the most part, over.

The FIT21 Act and Its Aftermath

The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) was the legislative breakthrough that changed everything. After years of congressional gridlock, the bill established a clear division of regulatory authority between the SEC and the CFTC. The core principle is straightforward: if a digital asset is sufficiently decentralized, it is classified as a digital commodity and falls under CFTC oversight. If it operates more like a traditional security — with a centralized issuing entity, expectations of profit from that entity’s efforts — it remains under SEC jurisdiction.

In practice, this means Bitcoin and Ethereum are firmly in the CFTC’s domain. Both networks are considered sufficiently decentralized, and their native tokens are digital commodities, not securities. This resolved the long-standing ambiguity that had plagued the industry since the SEC first started making noise about Ethereum potentially being a security.

For many altcoins, however, the picture is more complicated. Projects like Solana, Cardano, and Avalanche have undergone what the legislation calls “decentralization certification” — a process where they demonstrate to the CFTC that no single entity controls more than 20% of the token supply or exercises unilateral governance authority. Some have passed this test. Others have not, and remain under SEC jurisdiction with all the registration requirements that implies.

SEC Registration Requirements for Digital Asset Securities

For tokens that are classified as securities, the SEC has established a modified registration framework — sometimes called “Reg Digital” in industry parlance. This framework acknowledges that digital assets do not fit neatly into the disclosure categories designed for stocks and bonds. Instead of traditional prospectus requirements, issuers must provide:

• A technical whitepaper audited by an approved third party
• Tokenomics disclosure including vesting schedules, insider allocations, and burn mechanisms
• Smart contract audit reports from registered security auditing firms
• Quarterly reports on network activity, governance decisions, and treasury management
• Real-time disclosure of material token burns, mints, or governance votes

This has created a two-tier market. Well-funded projects with the resources to comply — think tokens backed by major venture capital firms or established tech companies — have embraced the framework. Smaller projects, especially those launched by anonymous or pseudonymous teams, are finding compliance nearly impossible. The result is a consolidation of the altcoin market around larger, better-capitalized projects.

State-Level Regulations and the Patchwork Problem

While federal legislation has provided a baseline, individual states continue to layer on their own requirements. Wyoming remains the most crypto-friendly state, with its special-purpose depository institution (SPDI) charter now hosting over a dozen crypto banks. Texas has emerged as a mining hub with favorable energy regulations. Meanwhile, New York’s BitLicense, once criticized as overly burdensome, has actually become a competitive advantage — companies that survived the BitLicense process are now well-positioned for the federal framework, having already built robust compliance infrastructure.

Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs: From Approval to Market Domination

The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 was just the beginning. What has happened since then represents one of the most successful product launches in the history of financial markets.

The Current ETF Landscape

As of early 2026, the US ETF market for cryptocurrencies has expanded dramatically. We now have spot ETFs for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and even a handful of multi-crypto index ETFs that track baskets of the top digital assets. The competition among issuers has driven fees to remarkably low levels, making crypto ETFs one of the most cost-effective ways to gain exposure to digital assets.

*Fee waiver in effect; standard fee applies after promotional period. AUM and return figures are illustrative estimates for early 2026.

How ETFs Changed the Market

The impact of crypto ETFs on the broader market cannot be overstated. Before ETFs, institutional investors faced a maze of custody solutions, counterparty risks, and compliance headaches that kept many on the sidelines. ETFs eliminated those barriers overnight. Pension funds, endowments, registered investment advisors, and retail investors through their brokerage accounts can now gain crypto exposure as easily as buying shares of Apple or the S&P 500.

This has had several measurable effects on the market:

Reduced volatility. Bitcoin’s 30-day realized volatility has dropped from its historical average of roughly 60-80% to approximately 35-45% in 2026. The presence of long-term institutional holders, many of whom view Bitcoin as a portfolio diversifier rather than a speculative vehicle, has dampened the wild swings that characterized earlier market cycles.

Tighter correlation with macro factors. Crypto prices now respond more predictably to Federal Reserve policy, inflation data, and geopolitical events. This is a double-edged sword — crypto has become easier to model and integrate into portfolios, but the “uncorrelated asset” narrative has weakened considerably.

The premium/discount problem has disappeared. Before spot ETFs, products like the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust traded at significant premiums or discounts to the net asset value of their holdings. Spot ETFs with creation and redemption mechanisms have nearly eliminated this gap, ensuring investors get fair value.

The Staking ETF Debate

One of the hottest topics in the crypto ETF space right now is whether Ethereum ETFs should be allowed to stake the ETH they hold. Staking — the process of locking up ETH to help validate transactions on the Ethereum network — generates yield, currently around 3-4% annually. ETF issuers have argued that not staking the ETH held in trust actually disadvantages ETF holders compared to direct holders, who can stake freely.

The SEC has been cautious. Staking introduces additional risks — the possibility of “slashing” (losing a portion of staked assets as a penalty for validator misbehavior), liquidity concerns during unstaking periods, and questions about whether staking income constitutes a security in itself. As of early 2026, a handful of Ethereum ETFs have received approval for limited staking, with strict requirements around liquidity reserves and risk disclosure. This is a space to watch closely, as staking could significantly boost returns for Ethereum ETF holders.

The EU’s MiCA Framework and the Global Regulatory Race

While the United States was still debating legislation, the European Union moved ahead with the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, which came into full effect in December 2024. MiCA is the most comprehensive crypto regulatory framework in the world, and it is increasingly becoming the template that other jurisdictions study — and in some cases, copy — when developing their own approaches.

What MiCA Actually Requires

MiCA establishes a unified regulatory framework across all 27 EU member states. No more regulatory shopping between countries. The key provisions include:

• Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) licensing: Any entity offering crypto services in the EU — exchanges, wallets, advisory services — must obtain a CASP license. This involves demonstrating adequate capital reserves, cybersecurity measures, governance structures, and complaints procedures.
• Whitepaper requirements: Issuers of crypto assets must publish a detailed whitepaper with mandatory disclosures about the project’s technology, risks, rights, and underlying economics. Misleading information can result in civil liability.
• Stablecoin regulations: This is where MiCA really flexes its muscles. Stablecoins pegged to a single fiat currency (called “e-money tokens” under MiCA) must be issued by an authorized credit institution or electronic money institution. They must maintain 1:1 reserves in secure, segregated accounts. Asset-referenced tokens (stablecoins backed by baskets of assets) face even stricter rules, including capital requirements and limits on daily transaction volumes for “significant” tokens.
• Market abuse provisions: MiCA extends traditional market abuse rules to crypto markets. Insider trading, market manipulation, and unlawful disclosure of inside information in crypto markets are now explicitly illegal across the EU, with enforcement mechanisms attached.

Global Regulatory Comparison

The regulatory landscape varies dramatically from country to country. Here is how major jurisdictions compare as of 2026:

Regulatory Arbitrage and Its Limits

One pattern that has emerged is regulatory arbitrage — crypto companies relocating to friendlier jurisdictions. Dubai, Singapore, and Switzerland have all attracted major crypto firms seeking clearer rules and lower compliance costs. But this strategy has limits. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule, which requires crypto service providers to share sender and recipient information for transfers above certain thresholds, has created a global baseline that is hard to escape regardless of where a company is domiciled.

Moreover, US and EU regulators are increasingly asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction. If a platform serves US or EU customers — even from a Dubai office — it is expected to comply with US or EU rules. Several enforcement actions in 2025 made this point painfully clear, with fines reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars for offshore platforms that marketed to US retail investors without proper registration.

Stablecoin Rules and the DeFi Compliance Challenge

If there is one area where regulation has had the most dramatic impact, it is stablecoins. These dollar-pegged tokens are the backbone of the crypto economy — they facilitate trading, serve as a store of value during market volatility, and power the majority of DeFi protocols. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have decided that stablecoins are too important, and too risky, to leave unregulated.

The US Stablecoin Framework

The US stablecoin legislation, passed in late 2025, establishes a federal framework for “payment stablecoins” — defined as digital assets pegged to the US dollar and designed primarily for payments and transfers. Key requirements include:

• Issuer licensing: Only federally chartered banks, state-chartered banks, or specially licensed non-bank entities can issue payment stablecoins.
• Reserve requirements: Stablecoin issuers must maintain reserves composed exclusively of US dollars, short-term US Treasury securities, and Fed reverse repo agreements. No corporate bonds, no commercial paper — regulators learned from the Tether controversies of prior years.
• Monthly attestations: An independent accounting firm must verify reserve holdings monthly, with full audits required quarterly.
• Redemption rights: Holders must be able to redeem stablecoins for US dollars at par within one business day.

The immediate effect of this legislation was a shakeout. Tether (USDT), which had long faced questions about its reserve composition, initially saw significant outflows as investors moved to competitors with clearer compliance positioning. However, Tether has since adapted, restructuring its reserves and obtaining a license through a state banking charter. Circle’s USDC, already well-positioned with its transparent reserves and US banking relationships, has seen its market share grow substantially.

DeFi’s Compliance Crossroads

The most contentious area of crypto regulation in 2026 is decentralized finance. DeFi protocols — automated software systems that facilitate lending, borrowing, trading, and other financial activities without traditional intermediaries — were designed to operate outside the regulatory perimeter. Regulators are determined to bring them inside it.

The core challenge is philosophical as much as it is practical. Traditional financial regulation assumes there is an identifiable entity — a company, a person — that can be held responsible for compliance. DeFi protocols, at their purest, are just code running on a blockchain. Who do you regulate when there is no company, no CEO, no headquarters?

The answer regulators have arrived at, both in the US and EU, focuses on “front ends” and “governance token holders.” If you operate a website that allows users to interact with a DeFi protocol, you are a service provider and must comply with applicable regulations, including Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements. If you hold governance tokens that give you voting power over protocol parameters, you may be considered a “control person” with associated regulatory obligations.

This has created a fascinating split in the DeFi world. Some protocols have embraced compliance — Aave, for instance, has launched regulated pools that require KYC verification, alongside permissionless pools for users in jurisdictions without such requirements. Others have gone completely “headless,” removing front-end interfaces and operating purely through direct smart contract interaction, accessible only to technically sophisticated users.

The long-term viability of the headless approach is questionable. Regulators are already exploring ways to extend their reach to smart contract developers and deployers. But in the short term, it has created a two-tier DeFi market: regulated DeFi that is accessible, compliant, and increasingly institutional, and unregulated DeFi that is technically demanding, legally risky, and increasingly marginalized.

Exchange Compliance: How Coinbase, Binance, and Others Are Adapting

Cryptocurrency exchanges have been at the center of the regulatory storm, and no two companies illustrate the contrasting approaches better than Coinbase and Binance.

Coinbase: The Compliance-First Approach

Coinbase has positioned itself as the “blue chip” of crypto exchanges since its founding, and that strategy has paid off handsomely in the new regulatory environment. The company’s protracted legal battle with the SEC, which began in 2023, ultimately ended in a settlement that actually benefited Coinbase — the company agreed to certain compliance enhancements in exchange for regulatory clarity on which of its listed assets were securities versus commodities.

Today, Coinbase operates as both a registered broker-dealer for digital asset securities and a licensed commodities exchange for tokens classified as commodities. It has become the preferred custodian for the majority of US-listed crypto ETFs, generating significant custody fee revenue. Its institutional platform, Coinbase Prime, has seen exponential growth as hedge funds, pension funds, and corporate treasuries seek regulated crypto exposure.

Coinbase has also expanded internationally, obtaining MiCA CASP licenses in the EU and equivalent licenses in the UK, Japan, and Singapore. The company’s compliance spending now exceeds $500 million annually — a figure that would have seemed absurd a few years ago but now represents a formidable competitive moat.

Binance: The Rocky Road to Compliance

Binance’s regulatory journey has been far more turbulent. The world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume spent years operating in a regulatory gray zone, maintaining no official headquarters and shifting operations between jurisdictions. That strategy became untenable. The company’s $4.3 billion settlement with the US Department of Justice in late 2023, which included the resignation of founder Changpeng Zhao as CEO, marked the beginning of a new chapter.

Under new leadership, Binance has undergone a dramatic transformation. The company has established its global headquarters in Dubai under the VARA framework, obtained licenses in multiple jurisdictions, and invested heavily in compliance infrastructure. It exited several markets where regulatory requirements were incompatible with its operations, and delisted numerous tokens that could not meet the new compliance standards.

The result is a Binance that looks very different from its freewheeling early days. Trading volumes have decreased from their peaks — a consequence of delisting non-compliant tokens and implementing stricter KYC requirements — but profitability has arguably improved as the company focuses on higher-margin institutional services and regulated products.

The Impact on Smaller Exchanges

For smaller and mid-sized exchanges, the new regulatory landscape has been existential. Compliance costs that are manageable for a Coinbase or Binance are crushing for exchanges with $10 million in annual revenue. The result has been significant consolidation. Several mid-tier exchanges have been acquired by larger competitors, while others have shut down or restricted their operations to a single jurisdiction where they can manage compliance costs.

Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap and dYdX have carved out a unique position. Their on-chain, non-custodial nature means they face different regulatory requirements than centralized exchanges. However, as discussed in the DeFi section, their front-end operators face increasing pressure to implement KYC and compliance measures, particularly for users in the US and EU.

Tax Implications for Crypto Investors in 2026

If you thought crypto taxation was complicated before, the new regulatory era has added several layers of complexity. The good news is that there is now more clarity about how crypto should be taxed. The bad news is that the rules are more detailed and enforcement is more aggressive than ever.

US Crypto Tax Rules

The IRS has significantly expanded its crypto tax enforcement capabilities. Starting in 2025, crypto exchanges and brokers are required to issue 1099-DA forms — a new form designed specifically for digital asset transactions. This means the IRS now receives the same detailed transaction reporting for crypto that it does for stocks and bonds.

The key tax rules for US crypto investors in 2026:

• Capital gains treatment: Selling or exchanging crypto triggers a capital gain or loss. Short-term gains (assets held less than one year) are taxed at ordinary income rates (10–37%). Long-term gains (held more than one year) are taxed at preferential rates (0%, 15%, or 20% depending on income).
• Staking and mining income: Income received from staking or mining is taxed as ordinary income at the fair market value when received. This creates a tax event at receipt, even if you do not sell the tokens. You then have a cost basis equal to the value at receipt for future capital gains calculations.
• DeFi transactions: Every token swap on a DEX, every liquidity pool entry and exit, every yield farming harvest — each is a taxable event. The IRS has issued guidance making clear that the decentralized nature of these transactions does not exempt them from tax reporting.
• NFT transactions: The sale of NFTs is subject to capital gains tax. Collectible NFTs may be subject to the higher 28% long-term capital gains rate applicable to collectibles, though the IRS is still refining guidance on which NFTs qualify as collectibles versus other property.
• Airdrops and forks: Tokens received via airdrops or hard forks are taxable as ordinary income at the time you gain “dominion and control” over them — typically when they appear in your wallet and you have the ability to dispose of them.

The Crypto Wash Sale Rule

One of the most significant changes for US crypto investors is the extension of the wash sale rule to digital assets. Previously, crypto enjoyed a loophole — you could sell Bitcoin at a loss, immediately buy it back, and claim the tax loss. This strategy, known as tax-loss harvesting, was far more flexible with crypto than with stocks, which had been subject to the wash sale rule for decades.

As of 2025, that loophole is closed. The wash sale rule now applies to digital assets, meaning you cannot claim a loss if you purchase a “substantially identical” asset within 30 days before or after the sale. This requires more careful planning around year-end tax strategies and means the aggressive tax-loss harvesting techniques that many crypto investors used are no longer viable.

International Tax Considerations

For international investors or US investors with crypto held on foreign platforms, the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) adds another layer. CARF requires crypto platforms to report user transaction data to tax authorities, which then share it with other participating countries through automatic exchange agreements. Over 50 countries have committed to implementing CARF, creating a global net of crypto tax reporting that makes it increasingly difficult to evade taxes through offshore platforms.

Regulatory-Compliant Investment Strategies

With all these regulatory changes, how should an investor actually approach crypto in 2026? Here are several strategies that balance opportunity with compliance.

The ETF-Centric Approach

For most investors, especially those who are new to crypto or prefer a hands-off approach, crypto ETFs are the simplest and most compliant way to gain exposure. The advantages are compelling:

• No custody risk: You do not need to manage private keys or worry about wallet security. The ETF issuer handles custody, typically through regulated custodians like Coinbase.
• Tax simplicity: ETF transactions are reported on standard brokerage statements. No need for specialized crypto tax software or manual transaction tracking.
• Portfolio integration: ETFs can be held in tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s, offering significant tax benefits that are not available when holding crypto directly.
• Regulatory protection: ETF investors benefit from the protections of the Investment Company Act and SEC oversight, including requirements around fair pricing, liquidity, and disclosure.

A reasonable ETF-centric crypto allocation for a diversified portfolio might look like this:

Direct Holding with Regulated Platforms

For investors who want more control and are comfortable with slightly more complexity, holding crypto directly on regulated platforms like Coinbase or Kraken offers several advantages over ETFs:

• Access to staking: You can stake your ETH or other proof-of-stake tokens directly, earning yield that ETFs may not yet offer.
• Broader token selection: While ETFs cover only the largest assets, regulated exchanges offer dozens of tokens that have passed compliance screening.
• 24/7 trading: Unlike ETFs, which trade during market hours, crypto exchanges operate around the clock — valuable during volatile periods.
• Self-custody option: You can withdraw to your own hardware wallet, removing counterparty risk entirely (at the cost of taking on personal custody responsibility).

The key is to use regulated platforms exclusively. The cost savings of using an unregulated offshore exchange are not worth the legal and counterparty risks. With the regulatory framework now in place, there are enough regulated options to serve virtually every investor need.

Regulated DeFi Participation

For sophisticated investors, the emerging regulated DeFi space offers yields and opportunities that are not available through traditional finance or centralized crypto platforms. Protocols like Aave, Compound, and MakerDAO have established KYC-compliant pools that offer lending and borrowing with transparent, algorithmic interest rates.

The yields are not what they were during the DeFi Summer of 2020 — the days of 100%+ APYs on stablecoin pools are long gone. But regulated DeFi lending can still offer 3-6% on stablecoins and 5-10% on more volatile assets, rates that compare favorably with traditional fixed-income instruments in many environments.

Geographic Diversification

Just as traditional investors diversify across geographies, crypto investors can benefit from understanding and leveraging different regulatory environments. For instance:

• Hold core positions through US-regulated ETFs or exchanges for the strongest investor protections and tax-advantaged account access.
• Use EU-regulated platforms for access to tokens or services that may not yet be available in the US but are compliant under MiCA.
• Consider Singapore or Swiss platforms for specific DeFi activities that may have clearer legal frameworks in those jurisdictions.

However, always remain compliant with your home country’s tax and reporting requirements regardless of where your assets are held. Geographic diversification of platforms does not mean geographic escape from tax obligations.

Conclusion: Navigating the Regulated Crypto Future

The cryptocurrency market of 2026 is a fundamentally different beast from the Wild West environment of just a few years ago. Regulation has arrived — not as the existential threat many crypto purists feared, but as a complex, evolving framework that is simultaneously enabling institutional adoption and constraining some of the industry’s more adventurous corners.

Let us summarize the key developments and their implications:

In the United States, the FIT21 Act has finally provided the clarity the industry desperately needed. The SEC and CFTC have clear lanes, spot ETFs have onboarded hundreds of billions in institutional capital, and stablecoin legislation has established a framework that legitimizes dollar-backed tokens while imposing necessary safeguards. The days of regulation by enforcement are not entirely over — there will always be edge cases and bad actors — but the baseline rules are now written down, and that makes an enormous difference.

In Europe, MiCA has established the global gold standard for comprehensive crypto regulation. Its unified approach across 27 member states eliminates the regulatory fragmentation that plagued the EU crypto market, and its strict stablecoin provisions have set a benchmark that other jurisdictions are studying closely.

Globally, a patchwork of approaches persists, ranging from Dubai and Singapore’s welcoming stance to China’s outright ban. But the trend is clear: more regulation, not less. The FATF Travel Rule and OECD CARF are creating a global net of transaction reporting and information sharing that makes it increasingly difficult for any significant market participant to operate outside the regulatory perimeter.

For investors, the implications are clear. Crypto ETFs offer the simplest, most compliant path to crypto exposure. Regulated exchanges and emerging compliant DeFi platforms offer more options for those willing to accept more complexity. Tax obligations are more clearly defined but also more aggressively enforced. And the wash sale rule closure means that tax strategy requires more careful planning than before.

The crypto market has grown up. Like every asset class before it — from equities to derivatives to real estate — the path from frontier market to mainstream asset runs through regulation. That process is messy, imperfect, and ongoing. But for investors willing to do the work of understanding the new rules and structuring their strategies accordingly, the regulated crypto market of 2026 offers something that the unregulated market never could: a foundation of legal certainty on which to build long-term wealth.

The question is no longer whether crypto will be regulated. It is how quickly the remaining gaps will be filled, and which investors will be best positioned when they are.

References

1. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. “Digital Asset Securities Framework.” SEC.gov, 2025.
2. Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21). U.S. Congress, 2024-2025.
3. European Securities and Markets Authority. “Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — Implementation Guidelines.” ESMA, 2024.
4. Internal Revenue Service. “Digital Asset Reporting Requirements — Form 1099-DA.” IRS.gov, 2025.
5. Financial Action Task Force. “Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and VASPs.” FATF, 2024.
6. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).” OECD, 2024.
7. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. “Digital Commodity Exchange Registration Requirements.” CFTC.gov, 2025.
8. Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. “VARA Rulebook — Full Market Product Regulations.” VARA, 2024.
9. Monetary Authority of Singapore. “Payment Services Act — Digital Payment Token Services.” MAS.gov.sg, 2025.
10. BlackRock. “iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) — Fund Performance and Holdings.” BlackRock.com, 2026.
11. Coinbase Global Inc. “2025 Annual Report — Regulatory Compliance and Institutional Growth.” SEC Filing, 2026.
12. Chainalysis. “2026 Crypto Crime Report — Regulation, Enforcement, and Compliance Trends.” Chainalysis, 2026.