This week, in the Eastern Time Zone, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee suddenly received over 130 amendments focused on a bill regarding the structure of the cryptocurrency market, and plans to hold a hearing to review it within the week. This intense activity has heated up an already highly sensitive regulatory discussion, laying bare the sharp divisions among lawmakers between regulatory intensity and industry innovation. From the revenue model of dollar-pegged tokens to whether public officials can hold cryptocurrency assets, and the compliance boundaries of mixers and cross-chain routing, the final direction of the bill will directly determine the regulatory framework that U.S. cryptocurrency trading, privacy tools, and licensed businesses must adhere to in the coming years.

130 Amendments Pile Up: Divided Stances Pressure Procedural Rhythm

In this round of legislative back-and-forth, over 130 amendments have been concentrated on this cryptocurrency market structure bill, covering everything from asset definitions and business boundaries to regulatory authority and enforcement tools, with nearly every detail being re-written by lawmakers with differing positions. The sheer number of amendments has been viewed by Washington observers as a clear signal of dissatisfaction with the current draft, indicating a significant divide between bipartisan lawmakers on key technical terms and regulatory paths, rather than mere tweaks to a few phrases. As a result, there is widespread expectation that the core provisions of the bill may be significantly rewritten in the upcoming process, or pulled back and forth through several rounds of negotiation, rather than advancing directly to a vote based on the current text. The Banking Committee plans to filter and debate some key amendments during this week's hearing, but aside from the vague time anchor of "this week," specific voting rhythms and procedural arrangements have not been disclosed, nor is there any credible information indicating a unified internal timetable has been formed, further amplifying market speculation about the final regulatory outline.

Stablecoin Revenue Targeting Regulatory Focus: Revenue Models May Be Reconstructed

Among the many amendments, the battle over the revenue model of dollar-pegged tokens has quickly come into the spotlight. According to a single source, Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks jointly submitted three amendments related to such tokens, two of which directly target revenue restrictions, attempting to legally redefine the boundaries of "interest," "rewards," and "speculative gains." If the revenue restriction clauses are significantly tightened, the space for issuers and platforms to offer interest, revenue plans, or reward points to users may be compressed, forcing a rewrite of the past business narrative based on "dollar-pegged, on-chain settlement, with accompanying revenue" within regulatory gaps. This round of regulatory contention over revenue essentially reflects regulators' long-standing concerns about "shadow banking" and unlicensed deposit businesses, fearing that token products not subject to deposit insurance and capital adequacy constraints could evolve into deposit substitutes, impacting the stability of the traditional financial system. The industry, however, emphasizes that these revenue scenarios are key to attracting users and driving the implementation of payment and settlement scenarios; if they are "one-size-fits-all" categorized into high-pressure zones during the regulatory design phase, it would effectively lock in most innovation space. The collision of these two demands in the amendment texts has made this batch of clauses one of the most closely watched focal points before and after the hearing.

From Public Officials Holding Coins to Mixer Definitions: Testing the Boundaries of Privacy and Power

In addition to revenue issues, some amendments have also turned their attention to the more politically sensitive topic of whether public officials can hold or trade cryptocurrency assets. Some lawmakers have proposed that there should be limits on the coin-holding behavior of public officials in specific positions, arguing that it is to prevent policymakers from profiting from personal holdings while having access to regulatory information and resources, which could lead to conflicts of interest or even the risk of policies being "captured" by the industry. The emergence of such proposals reflects lawmakers' vigilance regarding the relationship between regulators and the market, rather than merely examining the behavior of industry participants. On a more technical level, the proposed modifications to the definitions of mixers and related privacy tools are particularly noteworthy. Reports suggest that related amendments aim to legally strengthen concepts like "mixing" and "obscured paths," which could be interpreted as potentially redrawing the compliance boundaries for such tools, but no more specific scope has been disclosed, nor is there a complete text available for comparison. The balance between privacy protection and anti-money laundering regulation has thus become one of the core points of contention, with market voices generally indicating that how definitions are ultimately penned will directly affect whether on-chain privacy tools can "survive under regulation" within a compliance framework or be pushed into a gray area. Due to the lack of verifiable specific cases and textual details, all parties can currently only make predictions at the principle level, which has intensified discussions around "technological neutrality" and "regulatory penetration."

Delayed Hearings and Licensing: Global Regulatory Rhythms Begin to Diverge

As Washington engages in a tug-of-war over the details of the clauses at the committee level, the legislative rhythm appears somewhat sluggish, while other jurisdictions around the world are sending signals to the market in starkly different ways. The Senate Agriculture Committee's planned hearing on similar topics has been postponed to late January, according to a single source, indicating a temporal misalignment in the pace of regulatory advancement within Congress, meaning discussions related to the delineation of responsibilities concerning commodities and derivatives have also been temporarily put on hold. In sharp contrast, some emerging markets are accelerating their actions within the same time window. According to public reports, Pakistan plans to grant preliminary licenses to Binance and HTX by December 2025 to attract compliant trading businesses, viewing it as a new lever for financial innovation and capital inflow. One jurisdiction hesitates around key hearings, while another clearly provides a timeline and directional commitments for licensing; the global regulatory landscape is thus diverging in this asynchronous rhythm. For the cryptocurrency industry, those emerging markets competing for business migration through licensing systems and regulatory sandboxes are forming a real-world contrast with the U.S., which is entangled in legislative details and releasing uncertain signals, also reserving narrative space for the future migration of business landscapes.

Whale Cross-Chain Rebalancing and Washington's Game: On-Chain Actions Precede Regulatory Decisions

While the legislative game in Washington has yet to settle, on-chain funds have already begun to conduct "stress tests" for future regulation through real trading paths. Data shows that a significant whale in the market has exchanged 282.1 BTC for 8,098 ETH across chains via THORChain, showcasing the real capability of large funds to quickly migrate and rebalance across multi-chain assets. This type of path is particularly noteworthy because once mixers and cross-chain routing are legally redefined, the compliance risks and costs associated with related transactions and liquidity migration could be significantly rewritten. From a compliance perspective, the more complex the on-chain cross-chain paths, the higher the probability of being viewed as "concealing sources" or "evading regulation" in the future; from a market perspective, it is precisely this high degree of freedom in rebalancing that constitutes the appeal of decentralized infrastructure. The proactive actions of whales, to some extent, reflect a forward-looking response to regulatory uncertainties—exploring the boundaries that may be monitored or restricted through real funding paths before regulations are fully formed, reserving experiential data for subsequent strategic adjustments. This "asynchronous game" between on-chain activities and Washington is forming a latent scene of a new round of institutional and technological struggles.

Washington's New Order for Cryptocurrency Still Unfinished: Dual Expectations of Opportunity and Transition

The Banking Committee's hearing this week is unlikely to be seen as the "final moment" for this cryptocurrency market structure bill; rather, it resembles the initial phase of a long game. The accumulation of over 130 amendments indicates that the upcoming period will still involve high-frequency back-and-forth and text rewriting, with all parties needing to continuously seek a compromise that is politically and technically acceptable on issues such as revenue red lines, public officials holding coins, and the boundaries of privacy tools. For the industry, focal provisions such as the revenue cap for dollar-pegged tokens, restrictions on public officials holding coins, and definitions of mixers will collectively determine the compliance cost curve and innovation space ceiling for the U.S. cryptocurrency market in the future. Whether it will be "high threshold, high certainty" or "high uncertainty, high compliance burden" will significantly influence the flow of funds and talent. In a phase where specific clauses, implementation details, and timelines have yet to be locked in, market participants must closely monitor U.S. legislative progress, assess potential pressures for business restructuring, and simultaneously compare the openness and regulatory paths of other jurisdictions, including Pakistan, to reserve chips for compliance agency layouts, business migration, and multi-jurisdictional licensing combinations. Washington's approach to reshaping cryptocurrency trading remains unfinished, while truly forward-looking participants are already preparing with a global perspective and multiple scenarios to build safe boundaries for the potential new regulatory order to come.

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。