2026-01-17 05:34:16

Progress in US cryptocurrency market legislation faces new waves. Industry insiders recently stated in media interviews that although the Senate's Crypto Market Structure Act still has room for improvement, "having flaws doesn't prevent us from moving forward first; it can be refined later." This voice reflects the industry's urgent desire to establish a regulatory framework as soon as possible.

However, not all market participants are optimistic. The head of a leading compliant trading platform recently voiced opposition to the current draft, mainly due to vague definitions of provisions related to tokenized stocks, DeFi protocols, stablecoin incentive mechanisms, and SEC jurisdiction, which could lead to confusion in enforcement.

This disagreement essentially reflects the complexity of the entire crypto ecosystem—from centralized exchanges to decentralized finance, from payment tools to asset tokenization, the regulatory demands across segments vary greatly. Whether US regulators can find a balance in legislation directly impacts the future development space of the industry.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FloorPriceWatcher

· 01-20 01:24

Ha, they’re arguing again. This time, is it the compliant platform stepping out to oppose? First push, then modify? Listen to this... In the end, it’s probably the politicians who call the shots. The DeFi clause is really ridiculously vague, no wonder some people are panicking. Wait, it might be revised three more times before it actually gets implemented, maybe even regressed. Can anyone tell me if this bill will really pass in the end? Everyone has their own reasoning, and we retail investors are just waiting to be exploited. Vague clauses + SEC authority issues, this combo is likely to take a long time to resolve. But on the other hand, isn’t it better than having no framework? Or is it more comfortable to stay in the gray area...

View OriginalReply0

PumpingCroissant

· 01-18 15:13

First push, then revise? Ha, just listen to it, but when it comes to actual implementation, it's a different story. --- The DeFi terms are so vague, do you really think everyone doesn't know who will suffer in the end? --- The industry is eager to establish a framework, but if the framework is poorly designed, it might become a shackle. This is really a tough dilemma. --- The big players are anxious because they are centralized exchanges, as for DeFi users, just haha. --- The SEC hasn't even clarified its jurisdiction, yet they dare to push this out. Are they trying to modify it as they go? --- If there's a flaw, just put it out first. Typical move of acting first and reporting later, especially in the stablecoin sector, which is a minefield. --- I respect the owners of compliant platforms who oppose me; this guy still has some conscience. --- The US process, to put it plainly, is a game among the big players. We retail investors are just spectators. --- Tokenized stocks are probably the most complex. When it officially launches, both the stock and bond markets will tremble. --- Once the regulatory framework is in place, exchanges will thrive, but DeFi developers will have to hide abroad to write code.

View OriginalReply0

ParanoiaKing

· 01-17 14:28

Coming back with the same "advance first, then improve" approach? Sounds just like an excuse in a casino. Am I the only one who thinks this bill is full of loopholes? The DeFi part isn't explained clearly at all. If regulatory authorities really find a balance point, I’ll eat my keyboard live. "Defects don't necessarily hinder," okay, but in the end, it's the small retail investors who suffer. This round of legislation is basically a transaction between big institutions and the SEC, with centralized platforms laughing the most. Wait, is the incentive part for stablecoins really unregulated, or did I misunderstand?

View OriginalReply0

ser_we_are_ngmi

· 01-17 05:59

Push forward first and then improve? It sounds like they’re rushing into something without proper planning. The DeFi clause is so vague—who dares to touch it? Once the SEC flips out, everything’s doomed. It’s the same old balancing argument—basically, no one can really take care of anyone. Regulation isn’t something to rush; rushing could make things worse. Wait, has the SEC really figured out the stablecoin issue? If this continues, Cefi and DeFi will become completely two different worlds. They talk about finding a balance, but it’s really just a synonym for compromise. The demands across different segments are indeed quite different, but do the legislators really understand?

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-17 05:55

First promote, then improve? Just hearing that, I know it's another "patching game" coming. Can they get a clear grasp of DeFi? I really don't believe it. It's the SEC jurisdiction again; these guys never seem to understand it every time. See, after the bill passes, it will need to be revised again, and it will just be a round of fussing. "Defects don't necessarily hinder"—this is probably a gambler's mentality. Wait, how are the clauses about stablecoins written? Has anyone understood them? After all this talk, we're still just arguing with each other. Centralized trading and DeFi protocols can't be governed by a single set of rules; it's unrealistic.

View OriginalReply0

CrossChainBreather

· 01-17 05:47

Here we go again with the "buy first, pay later" approach... really impatient, huh? Even with flaws, pushing forward? That's funny. Will DeFi be directly KO'd or will the SEC change the legislation again? Isn't this just the difference in bargaining power between large exchanges and small retail investors? Who ultimately foots the bill, isn't it clear in everyone's mind? Talking only about the balance point, what's the use? The key is who defines that point... Wait, is the clause about stablecoin incentives really that vague? Feels like we're about to go through another round of turmoil.

View OriginalReply0

JustHereForAirdrops

· 01-17 05:43

Push first, then revise? I’m familiar with this trick; in the end, it still ends up stranded. Another big shot wants to compromise, but the guy from the compliant platform is right—vague terms are a minefield. The SEC’s jurisdiction needs to be clearly defined, or DeFi work can’t go on. The big players each say their piece, but in the end, it’s still us small retail investors who suffer. It’s already good if this can be implemented, but when will there be a real regulatory framework?

View OriginalReply0