No need to gamble: understand the three-part regulatory framework of the clear bill, and see the reshuffling ahead for a layered crypto market

Current market discourse is trapped in a common misconception: everyone keeps debating whether the Clear Bill will ultimately clear the hurdle. Repeated arguments about the 22% probability signal whether the bill is shelved or whether there will be a decisive turnaround, but that all focuses attention on near-term voting outcomes and Bitcoin’s pulse-like price action. However, when you look over a longer time horizon, the question of whether the bill passes in the short term is of limited significance. Whether early or late, building a written regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States is the long-term strategic direction. The real core question that will determine who wins or loses on investments over the next few years is this: in the post-Clear-Bill era, how will the crypto market be reconstructed into layers. The DCOGAI R&D team

The most revolutionary change brought by the clear bill is to end the years-long chaotic situation of “regulation through enforcement.” It clarifies the SEC’s and CFTC’s respective regulatory responsibilities at the legislative level and establishes a standardized system for classifying digital assets. To avoid risks and screen for suitable assets, the first task is to fully understand the asset classification rules embedded in the bill and use them as the measuring stick to categorize and filter the massive volume of tokens. Once the bill takes effect, the crypto industry will face an epic compliance “re-shuffling,” and different types of assets will head down completely separate paths.

First, digital commodities, under CFTC regulation. The bill sets up “mature blockchain testing” as the core standard for judgment: the blockchain network is open-source with no entry threshold; the combined token holdings of the project team and related parties are below 20%; there is no protocol upgrade or transaction rollback controlled unilaterally by a single主体; and the token’s value is derived from the network’s own usage demand rather than relying on the ongoing operations of the team to generate profits. Bitcoin is a typical exemplar of this type of asset—and the target that is “cut down” under the bill’s framework: the law recognizes its digital commodity status, but completely cuts off its digital-currency narrative, capping its asset characterization. Decentralized native tokens that meet the standards, and some community-driven MEME coins, may also be classified into this category, gaining a pathway to compliant trading and entry by institutional capital. First, clarify the bill’s three statutory regulatory boundaries—this is the foundation for all subsequent scenarios:

Second, investment contract assets (digital securities), under SEC regulation. As long as a token’s issuance relies on fundraising, and investor returns are highly dependent on the project team’s continued operations and market promotion—and it meets the Howey investment contract features—it will be classified as a security. These assets must strictly fulfill obligations such as information disclosure, investor suitability management, and ongoing financial reporting disclosures. The issuance threshold and operating costs are extremely high. Many early ICO projects, foundations with heavy control, and altcoins whose valuations are supported by team narratives are highly likely to fall into this category. At the same time, the bill sets up a transitional mechanism: if some projects later continue to decentralize their networks and meet mature-chain standards, they can apply to transfer from securities to digital commodities.

Third, compliance payment stablecoins, separately brought into the regulatory system and governed by banking regulators that set rules for reserves and redemption, independent of the binary framework of commodities and securities.

Many market participants simplify it into a claim: after the bill takes effect, assets fall into three categories—digital assets, securities, and altcoin “air.” A crucial distinction must be made here: “air coins” and shitcoins are not independent classifications under the bill’s legal framework; rather, they are products that are eliminated because they fail to meet the compliance standards of the first two categories. They cannot meet the requirements for a mature decentralized network, are unable to bear the ongoing compliance costs of securities, and cannot be listed on any licensed centralized exchange. In the end, they can only retreat to decentralized markets, leaving the mainstream institutions’ sphere of vision and remaining confined long-term to niche communities.

From this, a crucial conclusion can be derived: once Bitcoin completes its regulatory “accommodation,” it does not mean that all digital assets are simultaneously “officially approved.” Bitcoin receives a digital commodity identity, but it only opens up its own compliance channel and cannot serve as universal endorsement for other tokens. Every token must independently pass decentralized testing; regulatory dividends are definitely not universal. The market is about to move into a clearly bifurcated landscape: a small number of assets will be incorporated into the regular financial system, while a large number of projects lacking fundamentals and being highly centralized will continue to be liquidated.

After the regulatory framework is set, crypto-market infrastructure naturally evolves into three major forms, each matching the market’s two core demands: the demand for compliant participation and the demand for decentralized resistance to censorship.

First, licensed centralized exchanges—becoming the “official forces” of the crypto world. Centralized platforms will obtain a clear registration pathway at the federal level, be brought under CFTC regulation, and establish a complete set of systems for segregating customer assets, anti-money-laundering, and market manipulation monitoring. Traditional Wall Street asset managers, banks, and family offices can legally allocate digital commodities; ETF, spot, and derivatives product lines will continue to expand. Retail investors and institutional capital will mainly participate in market trading through compliant CEXs. This track will absorb most incremental capital and become the core bridge connecting crypto assets to the traditional financial system.

Second, decentralized exchanges and non-custodial DeFi protocols—sticking to the free-narrative front. With the clear bill in place, open-source software developers and node validators are given exemption clauses, and decentralized protocols are not forced to register like financial intermediaries. When Bitcoin is brought into the regulatory framework and becomes traceable and controllable, the belief held by the native crypto circle—“no censorship, no third-party freezing”—cannot be realized on Bitcoin. The decentralized track will absorb part of that spiritual demand and become the choice for anarchists and crypto libertarians. But the boundaries must also be viewed objectively: DEXs are difficult to absorb large institutional capital at scale; they more often maintain development within communities. They will operate independently and in parallel with the centralized compliant market.

Third, cross-sector blockchain underlying infrastructure. Public chains, oracles, custody tools, and on-chain data services—these are the underlying infrastructure that, while serving both centralized and decentralized ecosystems, form the industry’s public foundation. Whether infrastructure projects can develop sustainably depends on whether they can adapt to two sets of regulatory rules: on one hand, meeting compliance institutions’ auditing and risk-control requirements; on the other, ensuring that on-chain decentralized activities can run normally.

Based on the earlier assessment, after Bitcoin’s “currency narrative” was cut down by the bill, the entire crypto ecosystem is set to enter a structural opportunity—yet the opportunity is highly bifurcated. Over the past decade or more, Bitcoin has carried all the narratives of the crypto space, while all altcoins and Meme assets rode on Bitcoin’s price-cycle fluctuations. When Bitcoin is defined as a common digital commodity and no longer as a potential global store of value, the monopoly structure of capital and consensus is broken. But one misconception must be discarded: don’t assume that all altcoins and shitcoins will collectively benefit. Only assets that pass mature-chain testing and are categorized as digital commodities can enjoy incremental capital brought by compliance. Security tokens face stringent regulatory pressure; pure “air” shitcoins will continue to be pushed out by the mainstream market.

From a macro perspective, the bill’s clear establishment of a regulatory framework means that crypto assets are officially brought in from the peripheral gray zone and incorporated into the global mainstream financial system. The old era of broad bull runs driven by regulatory ambiguity is gone. What lies ahead is a structural market that precisely filters for suitable assets. For traders, rather than spending effort betting on the bill’s voting outcome, it’s better to build a set of screening criteria based on the bill’s provisions: continuously determine whether an asset will be classified as a digital commodity, a digital security, or ultimately become an “air” asset that cannot circulate in compliance.

In the long run, it has effectively become a foregone conclusion that the crypto market will permanently split into two camps. To embrace incremental capital from traditional finance, you must move toward compliance; to hold on to the native belief in decentralization and resistance to censorship, you must continue to root yourself in on-chain decentralized ecosystems. Neither path is absolutely better, but the valuation logic of assets, the sources of funding, and the risk structure are fundamentally different. Only by understanding the line the clear bill draws can you avoid the risks of assets being continuously liquidated in the post-bill reshuffle and capture the next round of structural opportunities.