š° Michael Saylorās view is very straightforward: what the crypto industry truly needs isnāt a ācompromiseā version of legislation, but 50 million users who genuinely use digital financial products.
He says that instead of accepting the ever-increasing restrictions stacked in the CLARITY text, itās better to first make use of the existing powers of the SEC, the CFTC, the Treasury, and banking regulatorsāso that lower-cost, lower-barrier, better-to-use products can enter the market.
š„ The controversy is that the September version of CLARITY may limit service providers from offering rewards solely because users hold payment-type stablecoins, and the innovation sandbox also sets caps on employee headcount and the number of annual projects. Saylor believes that protecting bank liquidity and preventing more competitive service providers from entering the market are not the same thing.
In fact, his core judgment is quite simple: if users truly benefit from stablecoin payments, BTC custody, digital credit, and on-chain transactions, they will naturally become supporters of innovation. Laws certainly need to be clear, but rules shouldnāt lock down the scope of experiments before market validation of products.
š” So far, U.S. regulators have already made some room. On September 17, the SEC granted conditional regulatory relief for certain on-chain trading of tokenized stocks; the CFTC is also studying crypto leveraged trading in regulated markets and compliant on-chain finance. None of this means they are abandoning regulationātheyāre letting the market operate first, and then refining the rules based on real experience.
To be honest, by placing BTC, STRC, MSTR, COIN, and USDC under the same financial-innovation framework, Saylor isnāt trying to show how far any single product can go. Heās trying to ask whether custody, lending, exchanges, equity, and payments can truly be connected. The question is: do you think the crypto industry needs a new law more right now, or does it need products that ordinary users are actually willing to use?
#å åÆēē®” #ę°åéč #ēسå®åø #Bitcoin
He says that instead of accepting the ever-increasing restrictions stacked in the CLARITY text, itās better to first make use of the existing powers of the SEC, the CFTC, the Treasury, and banking regulatorsāso that lower-cost, lower-barrier, better-to-use products can enter the market.
š„ The controversy is that the September version of CLARITY may limit service providers from offering rewards solely because users hold payment-type stablecoins, and the innovation sandbox also sets caps on employee headcount and the number of annual projects. Saylor believes that protecting bank liquidity and preventing more competitive service providers from entering the market are not the same thing.
In fact, his core judgment is quite simple: if users truly benefit from stablecoin payments, BTC custody, digital credit, and on-chain transactions, they will naturally become supporters of innovation. Laws certainly need to be clear, but rules shouldnāt lock down the scope of experiments before market validation of products.
š” So far, U.S. regulators have already made some room. On September 17, the SEC granted conditional regulatory relief for certain on-chain trading of tokenized stocks; the CFTC is also studying crypto leveraged trading in regulated markets and compliant on-chain finance. None of this means they are abandoning regulationātheyāre letting the market operate first, and then refining the rules based on real experience.
To be honest, by placing BTC, STRC, MSTR, COIN, and USDC under the same financial-innovation framework, Saylor isnāt trying to show how far any single product can go. Heās trying to ask whether custody, lending, exchanges, equity, and payments can truly be connected. The question is: do you think the crypto industry needs a new law more right now, or does it need products that ordinary users are actually willing to use?
#å åÆēē®” #ę°åéč #ēسå®åø #Bitcoin
