On January 13, 2026 (East Eight Time), the U.S. "CLARITY Act" once again fell into a legislative deadlock in Congress. At the same time, Nigeria, one of Africa's largest economies, officially promoted the implementation of tax tracking rules for cryptocurrency transactions based on real-name information. These two seemingly unrelated regulatory threads tightened on the same day, creating a stark contrast. On the surface, this is a coincidence of developed and emerging markets advancing regulatory frameworks on different tracks, but behind it lies the same core contradiction: on one hand, the market urgently needs a clear and predictable regulatory framework to support long-term capital and compliant business layouts; on the other hand, legislative gamesmanship, the distribution of regulatory power, and fiscal and tax pressures have made the questions of "should power be delegated, should there be heavy taxation, and who should regulate to what extent" highly politicized. The legislative process in developed economies continues to lag due to political and institutional struggles, while emerging markets are accelerating their embrace of "efficiency regulation" centered on on-chain traceability under fiscal and foreign exchange pressures. These two forces are reshaping the global cryptocurrency landscape, placing the industry at a passive yet critical crossroads.
The Tug-of-War at the Congressional Door
From publicly available information, the "CLARITY Act" was proposed during a previous round of regulatory reflection, with hopes of providing foundational compliance coordinates for token issuance, trading, and custody in the U.S. According to Source A and Source B, the bill has not made substantial progress since entering the new congressional cycle, and its current status is closer to being "stuck at the door": it has not been formally rejected but has yet to enter the formal voting process. Research briefs indicate that if there is no substantial progress in the first quarter (Q1) of this year, the market's probability of the bill's eventual passage will significantly decrease. This time pressure itself has become a variable on the trading desk, rather than a distant institutional background.
The core controversy surrounding the bill has been summarized by Source B (a single source, requiring boundary information) as "whether it excessively weakens the SEC's discretion." In other words, once the legislation writes regulatory standards, token attribute determinations, and enforcement boundaries into a more rigid text, the SEC's maneuvering space in case enforcement will inevitably narrow, directly impacting the existing regulatory framework's demand for flexibility and power, and influencing different parties' value orientations regarding "how much freedom the market should have and how much power should be given to regulators." Therefore, the bill is no longer just a technical industry rule but has been embroiled in partisan positions, institutional power distribution, and differing judgments on future financial innovation paths. The legislative delay has not immediately triggered severe sell-offs; rather, it has gradually accumulated a discount based on the uncertainty of "what tomorrow's regulation will look like." Institutions and project parties have been forced to add wider risk ranges in their valuation and capital expenditure models, while the secondary market has expressed concerns more by lowering long-term premiums and shortening holding periods, rather than through panic selling.
Trading Desk Sentiment Under Regulatory Haze
In the absence of a clear timetable, market sentiment regarding the "CLARITY Act" is spreading. Both Source A and Source B have frequently mentioned the statement, "The slow progress of the 'CLARITY Act' is exacerbating market anxiety," which has appeared often in institutional research reports and community discussions. For large institutions, this anxiety is more reflected in strategy meetings and risk committees, where they must repeatedly adjust their mid- to long-term allocation rhythm for U.S. compliant businesses; for retail investors and small to medium funds, anxiety translates into excessive focus on short-term market trends and over-interpretation of single regulatory news, thereby amplifying the psychological basis for volatility.
Against this emotional backdrop, leveraged behavior has become particularly prominent. A typical case provided by Source A is that some funds established a long position of approximately $13.17 million in ETH using leverage as high as 25 times. This data comes from a single source and is merely a sample from on-chain and exchange public information, unable to represent overall funding behavior, but it still provides a perspective—when long-term uncertainty is difficult to price, some traders tend to use high leverage for short-term bets to "cash in on expectations early," attempting to profit from emotional fluctuations before regulations are implemented. Such behavior amplifies the market's immediate sensitivity to policy news but also raises the risks of forced liquidation and chain liquidations. Meanwhile, more funds have chosen to hit the pause button, turning to wait-and-see, or simply placing incremental business layouts in other jurisdictions with more proactive regulation or clearer paths, viewing the U.S. as a "market to return to once clear signals are received." Thus, on the same global trading desk, the two contrasting paths of short-term high leverage and mid- to long-term "offshore layouts" are magnified simultaneously, forming a typical differentiation picture under regulatory haze.
The Taxation Turning Point from Leniency to Strictness
Unlike the U.S., which is stuck at the threshold of legislative and regulatory power distribution, Nigeria has chosen to quickly implement an operable regulatory framework starting from taxation and real-name systems. According to Sources A, B, and C, Nigeria's new tax law requires local and crypto trading platforms operating in Nigeria to collect and verify users' Tax Identification Numbers (TIN) and National Identification Numbers (NIN) to achieve real-name tax tracking of transaction activities. The executing entities include not only the tax authorities themselves but also licensed exchanges and related intermediaries providing services in Nigeria. These platforms are required to embed verification procedures for TIN and NIN during account opening and withdrawal processes, technically linking on-chain and real-world identities and tax numbers.
In this context, the notion that "the Nigerian model may become a tax regulatory template for developing countries" has begun to circulate in public opinion and research circles. It is important to emphasize that this judgment comes from Source C and is a directional analysis that is still in the verification stage. Whether it will be widely replicated in the future depends on the political structures, technological infrastructures, and assessments of the importance of the crypto market in other countries, and cannot be simply extrapolated. However, it is certain that under the constraints of long-term high inflation, foreign exchange tension, and fiscal pressure, Nigeria's choice to leverage on-chain traceability as a breakthrough is a typical "efficiency regulation" logic: the traditional tax base is narrow, and the high costs of offline collection make it difficult for the government to effectively capture taxes from highly liquid digital asset transactions. By binding real-name information with transaction data and complementing it with the existing financial account system, regulation can expand tax coverage at a lower marginal cost while sending a signal to the market that "funds cannot be completely invisible," thereby somewhat curbing capital flight and tax evasion behaviors. This shift from relatively lenient to tax-centric regulation not only responds to domestic fiscal needs but also objectively changes the behavioral boundaries of participants in Nigeria's crypto ecosystem.
On-Chain Transparency and Global Standard Integration
Nigeria's promotion of real-name tax tracking is not isolated from the global framework. Sources A, B, and C all point out that it has significant synergy with the OECD's Crypto Asset Reporting Framework (CARF) in terms of cross-border information exchange and transaction data sharing. CARF aims to provide a unified reporting and exchange standard for tax authorities in various countries regarding crypto assets, allowing different jurisdictions to share relevant holdings and transaction information of residents on foreign platforms. By binding TIN, NIN, and transaction behaviors domestically, Nigeria is effectively laying the groundwork for future access to a cross-border information exchange network similar to CARF: once a technical and institutional direct connection is established with tax authorities in other countries, domestic residents' crypto transaction data on foreign platforms may also be more efficiently integrated back into the domestic tax system.
If this model is replicated in more developing countries, the compliance costs for exchanges will inevitably rise. On one hand, they will need to customize KYC and tax number collection logic for different countries, develop more complex data reporting interfaces, and bear higher responsibilities for data security and compliance audits; on the other hand, users' expectations for anonymity and privacy will continue to be compressed, making it more difficult to maintain the cross-border arbitrage space that relies on identity ambiguity and regulatory vacuums. The "gray buffer zone" between on-chain and off-chain is being squeezed, and arbitrageurs will need to bear higher tax exposure and compliance risk premiums. As for the privacy controversies that may arise during this process, they currently remain unverified in public materials. Research briefs also specifically caution against fabricating specific protest cases or the scale of grassroots actions, and this article can only point out that there will likely be deeper public discussions in different countries and communities regarding the data sharing mechanisms between identity data, transaction records, tax authorities, and platforms.
The Crossroads of Developed Countries' Delays and Emerging Markets' Pressures
When we place the paths of the U.S. and Nigeria on the same timeline, a highly tense contrast emerges. On one side is the U.S., one of the world's largest capital markets, caught in a dilemma with the "CLARITY Act": unwilling to relinquish its dominant role in formulating crypto rules, yet also reluctant to easily cede the SEC's discretionary space, resulting in a prolonged "regulatory vacuum" where market participants probe, adjust, and wait within ambiguous boundaries. On the other side, Nigeria is rapidly incorporating crypto trading into a "hyper-detailed regulation" track through tax and real-name tools, tightening the previously more lenient space in terms of identity fields, tax number formats, and reporting processes in an engineering manner. These two extremes are not simply good or bad but represent different responses under the same global game: either delaying the implementation of rules in high-level political and institutional struggles, or prioritizing the locking down of capital flows and tax bases based on fiscal and control needs.
Research briefs have repeatedly mentioned that the first quarter (Q1) of this year will be a key window for observing this differentiation trajectory. If the U.S. makes no legislative progress in Q1, the market's expectations for obtaining "ultimate clarity" through Congress may continue to decline, and more funds may turn to rely on judicial precedents and administrative enforcement guidelines to judge regulatory trends, with litigation outcomes, settlement terms, and individual penalties being amplified as de facto "substitutes for principles." Meanwhile, emerging markets may accelerate the advancement of tax and KYC rule construction, leveraging on-chain traceability and international framework synergies to bring funds that would have flowed offshore or into "dark zones" back into a monitorable view. In such a landscape, capital flows are not only driven by prices and interest rates but are increasingly dominated by considerations of "where the rules are clearer and where compliance costs are more controllable."
For investors, the primary task in developed markets is shifting from "predicting which bill will pass" to "managing compliance expectation volatility." This means that when allocating U.S. related assets and businesses, a larger institutional uncertainty buffer needs to be reserved, and the costs of legal, compliance, and information disclosure should be emphasized in the overall return rate. In emerging markets, especially in jurisdictions like Nigeria that clearly leverage taxation and real-name systems, it is essential to more seriously assess the full-process exposure of capital chains and business chains in terms of taxation, understand the data exchange paths between local tax authorities and platforms, and clarify the boundaries of responsibilities for individuals and institutions in data compliance. For project parties, the former requires maintaining flexibility and patience in regulatory dialogue in developed markets, avoiding excessive reactions to short-term policy noise; the latter requires viewing local policies not merely as ancillary conditions for "traffic basins" when entering or operating in emerging markets, but rather treating tax compliance and data governance as essential foundational infrastructure. In the current tightening of global regulation, the crypto industry can no longer rely on "navigating gray areas" as a long-term strategy. Whether choosing to remain in the legislative shadow of great power games or embrace the efficiency regulation of emerging markets, the real challenge lies in finding a sustainable space for funds and businesses amid uncertainty and refinement.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
