The U.S. Senate wants to advance the CLARITY Act (the Crypto Market Structure Act), but procedural voting has once again failed to move forward. To pass it requires 60 votes, and the Republicans hold only 53 seats; meanwhile, the Democrats insist on first inserting a provision that would bar federal officials from profiting from digital assets.
My judgment may run counter to most people in my circles: the fact that the bill is stalled may not necessarily be bad news for ordinary investors. The reason is rather mundane— the more ambiguous the rules are, the higher the compliance costs become. If this were to be implemented for real, licenses, lawyers, audits, and KYC systems would all need to be rebuilt from scratch. Who would pay for all that? Small projects can’t afford it, so they either go overseas or disappear, and the remaining slots were originally only for the biggest players. The so-called “regulatory certainty” is there to protect those who are already seated at the table.
So what I care about more is the fine print: once it gets through, which side will the provisions favor? Would you change your portfolio composition because of a bill like this?
My judgment may run counter to most people in my circles: the fact that the bill is stalled may not necessarily be bad news for ordinary investors. The reason is rather mundane— the more ambiguous the rules are, the higher the compliance costs become. If this were to be implemented for real, licenses, lawyers, audits, and KYC systems would all need to be rebuilt from scratch. Who would pay for all that? Small projects can’t afford it, so they either go overseas or disappear, and the remaining slots were originally only for the biggest players. The so-called “regulatory certainty” is there to protect those who are already seated at the table.
So what I care about more is the fine print: once it gets through, which side will the provisions favor? Would you change your portfolio composition because of a bill like this?
