In the week of January 14, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the U.S. Senate entered a high-pressure phase regarding the legislative process surrounding cryptocurrency regulation: the Senate Banking Committee and the Agriculture Committee concentrated on reviewing over 130 cryptocurrency-related amendments before the hearings, described by multiple media outlets as a "rehearsal for the most comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory proposal to date." Among these documents, the ban on yield-bearing dollar-pegged token products, restrictions on public officials holding and trading digital assets, and increased regulation of on-chain mixers quickly became the focal points of controversy. On one side, there is the optimism reflected in Bitcoin's rebound this year and Coinbase's stock price increase of about 4% in a single day; on the other side, Washington is tightening screws on compliance, anti-money laundering, and political ethics. This article will explore the tug-of-war between regulatory strictness and legislative feasibility in this wave of amendments, as well as its dissonance with current market sentiment.
The Political Landscape of 130 Amendments Entering Hearing Week
This round of legislative maneuvering is first reflected in the division of responsibilities and boundaries of power among institutions. The Senate Banking Committee, responsible for the stability of the financial system and the framework of the securities market, is naturally more concerned about whether crypto assets pose systemic risks akin to deposits or securities, as well as their impact on banks, brokerages, and payment systems. Meanwhile, the Agriculture Committee, which regulates commodities and futures markets, holds key authority over the identification of derivatives and commodity attributes, as well as market infrastructure. The parallel advancement of amendment reviews by these two committees within the same legislative cycle means that the power division regarding whether cryptocurrencies should be viewed as financial products, securities, or a completely new asset class will be directly brought into the cross-committee game. The disclosed 130+ amendments cover a wide range of regulatory touchpoints, from banning or strictly limiting the provision of yield-bearing dollar-pegged token products to U.S. users, especially ordinary investors, to setting stricter reporting and restrictions on senators and high-ranking officials holding and trading digital assets, and to anti-money laundering, sanctions enforcement, and market structure adjustments surrounding mixers and privacy protocols. Market commentary suggests that this combination of amendments constitutes a prototype of "the most comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory proposal by the U.S. Congress to date," while also pointing out that the sheer number of amendments reflects the complexity of legislators' positions in this field, a lack of consensus, and the need for fragmented demands to be reconciled through stacked clauses. Against this backdrop, the Agriculture Committee's originally scheduled hearing to coincide with the Banking Committee was rescheduled to January 27, a delay that is interpreted not only as a scheduling adjustment but also as a signal from Washington regarding pace management: it is preferable to slow down a step to minimize the political risk of "rushing into implementation only to be reworked" amid cross-committee coordination, intra-party and inter-party negotiations, and public opinion.
The Yield Ban on Stablecoins Targets Not the Tokens Themselves
Among all the controversial clauses, the ban on yield from dollar-pegged tokens is the most likely to be amplified by market sentiment, yet it also requires semantic dissection. The so-called "yield ban" is currently closer to restricting the provision of fixed or predictable yield dollar-pegged token financial products, deposits, and profit-sharing products to users within the U.S., rather than denying the legitimacy of such tokens as payment, clearing, or accounting tools. From the practice of decentralized protocols, users earn interest by depositing dollar-pegged tokens into lending pools, participate in automated market-making pools to earn fees and liquidity mining incentives, or form annualized yields through structured strategy combinations, which have constituted one of the most attractive types of "permissionless yield" in DeFi over the past few years. A blanket yield ban extending in this direction would effectively categorize a large number of on-chain yield activities under the risk categories of "money market funds" and "deposits," compressing the product space for "any product that promises yield to ordinary U.S. users based on dollar-pegged tokens." At the same time, centralized platforms, online brokerages, and payment wallets that straddle the boundaries of traditional finance and crypto will also face compliance pressures to reshape their cash management and yield-sharing businesses involving users' dollar assets. From the regulators' perspective, such a yield ban is not born out of hostility towards the technology itself, but rather concerns about the emergence of substantial "shadow deposits" and "shadow money market funds" outside the existing deposit insurance, safety net, and monetary policy framework, transferring risks from a bank system constrained by capital adequacy ratios to a regulatory blind spot, thereby amplifying runs and chain reactions during crises.
Where Will Funds Go After DeFi Yields Are Choked?
If we extrapolate along the regulatory trajectory from the perspective of yields, once yield products linked to dollar-pegged tokens within the U.S. are significantly compressed, funds are unlikely to "disappear" but are more likely to be redirected along several paths. Some liquidity may be forced to shift towards higher-risk, non-yield-bearing on-chain assets and derivatives, seeking to compensate for the "stable yield" that has been cut off through price volatility and leverage; another portion may spill over to overseas platforms and jurisdictions with relatively lower compliance pressures, or slide into cross-border products in regulatory gray areas. In such an environment, DeFi protocols themselves are unlikely to sit idly by; they are likely to initiate a redesign of yield forms and user structures: transforming returns originally presented as annualized or APY into combinations of points, governance tokens, and future rights to avoid being directly classified as "yield-bearing currency products"; by introducing KYC whitelist pools, finely segmenting U.S. users, professional investors, and overseas retail investors, designing different pools and parameters for different jurisdictions; and simultaneously creating geographic and profiling distinctions in front-end access, interface settings, and contract terms, separating "what U.S. users can see and participate in" from other users. In this process, the restriction on U.S. users participating in certain high-yield dollar-pegged token strategies may impact the global DeFi ecosystem in two dimensions: first, the geographical migration of total locked value (TVL), with more TVL shifting towards regions with weaker constraints on such clauses; second, the relative decline in the proportion of assets denominated in dollars, with other economies' pegged assets or non-dollar-denominated digital assets rising in certain scenarios. However, due to the current lack of complete text for the amendments, especially with many unknowns regarding key details such as the definition of "yield," standards for qualified investors, and the applicability of extraterritoriality, what can be done now is merely directional scenario extrapolation, without being able to provide definitive conclusions about the fate of specific product forms or individual projects.
Public Officials Holding Coins and Mixers Become New Political Minefields
Alongside the yield ban, there are also clauses regarding the interests of public officials in digital assets and the tools of mixers, which, although they may not have as immediate an impact on prices as yield clauses, have quickly heated up in the political context. The idea of restricting public officials from holding and trading coins is based on traditional property disclosure and insider trading regulations, adding a layer of "cryptocurrency-specific law": attempting to reduce the space for officials to profit from undisclosed policy information during the legislative and regulatory processes through mandatory disclosures, holding limits, and even prohibitions on certain types of assets. The briefing mentions that Senator Elizabeth Warren recently initiated regulatory actions targeting the digital asset interests of the Trump family, further politicizing the combination of "power and holding coins." Under the magnifying glass of the election cycle and partisan attacks, crypto assets have rapidly transformed from a new type of asset into a political tool used to accuse "conflicts of interest" and "capital alignment." Concurrently, the strengthening of mixer regulation occurs more in the tension between anti-money laundering, sanctions enforcement, and on-chain privacy. For regulators, mixers are seen as important tools for concealing the source of funds, evading sanctions, and avoiding taxes; strengthening KYC, reporting obligations, and even directly blocking certain service endpoints is viewed as a necessary step to close the "on-chain black hole." However, for many developers and users, privacy is an indispensable part of financial freedom, and simply labeling all privacy tools as "suspicious" will expose users who originally hoped to use privacy protocols legally to higher compliance uncertainties. Such clauses carry more political posture and symbolic significance domestically in the U.S., and while they may not directly change the valuations of mainstream tokens in the short term, they will profoundly affect the choices of future development teams and projects when establishing themselves in the U.S., regarding server deployment locations, team tax residency, protocol architecture, and front-end access control, potentially prompting more privacy-focused products to deliberately distance themselves from the U.S. market.
The Discrepancy Between Wall Street Watching and Congressional Tug-of-War
As Washington meticulously scrutinizes the amendments in the hearing room, Bitcoin and crypto stocks are moving to a different rhythm on the screens. The price rebound this year, coupled with the approximately 4% daily increase in leading crypto stocks like Coinbase, has led many traders to focus more on macro liquidity and halving cycles rather than the details of legislative texts. However, the opening of the legislative window means that the tail risks of policy tightening are accumulating. For traditional financial institutions, this sense of dislocation is particularly strong: on one hand, large banks and institutional investors hope to end the long-standing regulatory gray area through a clear licensing system, registration pathways, and capital requirements, allowing them to lay out custody, trading, and structured products under compliance; on the other hand, wording like the yield ban, if applied too broadly, could directly compress their space for designing new business models around dollar-pegged tokens, payment settlement, and wealth management, even causing business segments recently viewed as "new growth engines" to fall into institutional uncertainty. The briefing recalls the 2025 Pakistan case, where rapid issuance of crypto licenses faced controversy due to regulatory loopholes, providing Washington with a cautionary tale: obtaining a license is easy, but the cost of patching loopholes afterward is extremely high when regulatory capacity, technical tracking, and cross-border cooperation have not kept pace, which is one of the reasons the U.S. is reluctant to repeat the same mistakes in the crypto field. In the same year, China's 2025 industrial robot exports increased by 48.7%, reminding the U.S. from another angle that in an increasingly intense environment of technological competition and geopolitical games, the attitude towards the domestic crypto industry leans more towards "controlled development" rather than "wild growth": unwilling to let it evolve into a financial risk and compliance black hole, nor willing to lose ground to other countries in key technologies and industrial chains, which makes the current regulatory design filled with fine-tuning and repeated compromises.
The Slow Motion of Legislation vs. Trader Time and Developer Time
From the signals released by this wave of amendments, a clear main line can be seen: U.S. legislators are repeatedly tugging between efficiency, regulatory strictness, and the competitiveness of domestic industries, making it difficult to provide a simple promise of "comprehensive benefits for innovation," while also unwilling to be labeled as "stifling technology." In this structure, any narrative that simply reduces the current process to "positive" or "negative" will overlook the heterogeneous impacts of different clauses across different tracks. For traders, the short-term focus should not be on when the bill will ultimately be voted on, but rather on the public opinion direction during the hearing process: whether the wording related to yields leans more towards a comprehensive ban or leaves room for exemptions for professional investors and institutional products; whether the regulatory logic regarding dollar-pegged tokens and DeFi protocols shows signs of being "risk-based" rather than "one-size-fits-all" in the Q&A; and whether these discussions will lead to a repricing of valuation premiums for leading U.S. crypto stocks like Coinbase, potentially transmitting emotions to the spot and derivatives markets in the short term.
From the medium- to long-term perspective of developers and entrepreneurs, before a compliance framework gradually takes shape in the U.S., more projects may choose to establish compliance layouts in multiple locations, splitting team entities, servers, liquidity pools, and front-end operations across different jurisdictions; designing different versions of functions, yields, and interaction processes for U.S. users and users in other regions, embedding access controls, risk warnings, and KYC whitelists at the contract level, while trying to preserve space for technological innovation under the premise of respecting local regulations. In the absence of complete amendment texts and internal negotiation information, this article will not and cannot predict the probability of the bill's passage and specific voting trends; what can be done now is to wait for the Agriculture Committee hearing on January 27 to observe the emergence of new timelines, revised versions, and directions for bipartisan compromise. For all market participants, a more realistic preparation is to accept that this will be a regulatory tug-of-war that may last for months or even longer, seeking certainty in business and investment anchors amid the twists and turns, rather than hoping that a single hearing will provide a final answer.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
