In mid-January 2026, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee pressed the pause button on critical deliberations originally scheduled for legislation regarding the structure of the cryptocurrency market, deciding to postpone the process until after the end of January. This sudden slowdown in the legislative pace was quickly linked by public opinion to another concurrent action—Coinbase officially withdrew its public support for the bill, transforming from a "model collaborator" into a temporary bystander. In market narratives, Coinbase's reversal was seen as one of the direct catalysts for the delay in deliberations, rather than a mere coincidence. In stark contrast to the hesitation on the legislative front, sentiment around risk assets continued to recover: the Fear and Greed Index had risen to 61, net inflows were recorded for XRP spot ETFs and ETH whale purchases, and overall crypto funds were showing signs of returning. The dissonance between regulatory gamesmanship and price recovery was becoming increasingly pronounced, bringing the core question to the forefront: as Washington repeatedly weighs the boundaries surrounding on-chain dollars and decentralized finance, is a warming crypto market overextending future compliance dividends, or is it pricing in a longer period of regulatory uncertainty?
Signals from Coinbase's Withdrawal
From a timeline perspective, Coinbase was initially seen as one of the key collaborators in U.S. crypto legislation, with management repeatedly emphasizing the desire to achieve "sunshine" operation for the industry through clear rules during multiple public hearings and policy discussions. As the text of the crypto market structure bill was disclosed as "basically formed," Coinbase appeared as a supporter, attempting to exert influence during the terms refinement phase. However, by mid-January 2026, the situation took a turn: in public statements, Coinbase announced it was withdrawing its support for the bill and adopting a more cautious wait-and-see stance. This action was quickly interpreted and amplified by the market, with social media and industry commentary frequently stating that "Coinbase's withdrawal of support is one of the direct causes for the delay in deliberations," simplifying what should have been a complex and multifaceted legislative game into a linear narrative of "key player withdrawal—process forced to delay."
Discussions surrounding Coinbase's motives focused on the most controversial areas of on-chain dollar products and decentralized protocol regulation. It was not because the outside world had grasped specific textual details, but rather that concerns about regulatory boundaries being unclear and limited innovation space were read from public statements. On one hand, regulators hoped to incorporate on-chain assets pegged to the dollar into the traditional financial order through a stricter framework, strengthening prudent regulation and investor protection; on the other hand, platforms like Coinbase feared that overly rigid frameworks would weaken the U.S.'s innovative capacity and competitiveness in on-chain dollars and decentralized finance, pushing liquidity towards offshore and gray areas. Under such tension, the shift from active lobbying to temporarily stepping back was both a repricing of their own compliance and business risks and a reassessment of negotiation leverage. For other U.S. compliant exchanges and industry lobbying organizations, Coinbase's withdrawal served as a stark example: at a stage where legislation had not yet materialized and key terms remained contentious, the political risk of blindly "tying" to a particular version of the text began to appear too high, leading more participants to adopt more flexible strategies with greater maneuverability, reducing the intensity of public bets on any one proposal.
The Real Sticking Point for the Senate's Pause
Procedurally, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee was supposed to push the crypto market structure bill into critical deliberation and voting nodes in mid-January. From publicly available information, the bill's text had completed the framework construction in the preceding months and was described as "basically formed," awaiting compromise consensus on several sensitive items. However, during this time window, the committee decided to postpone deliberations until after the end of January, without providing a new specific date or disclosing a more detailed internal timetable. The only certainty at this stage is that the process has been delayed, and the new time anchor remains uncertain, making it difficult for the outside world to deduce a more refined schedule.
The most direct clue for this delay came from Senator Cynthia Lummis's public statement. She emphasized that the bill still needed "further processing" on terms related to on-chain dollars, which essentially confirmed external judgments that the text was stuck on regulatory disagreements regarding on-chain dollars. For regulators, the core goal is to prevent systemic risks and abuses, ensuring that these on-chain assets pegged to the dollar do not become a channel to bypass the banking system and capital regulation while strengthening protections for holders and payment systems; from the industry's perspective, there is greater concern that overly strict frameworks could stifle on-chain innovation priced in dollars, leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage in the global competition for on-chain dollars. It is precisely under the interplay of these two logics that a "nearly formed" bill was forced to halt just before the finish line, unable to smoothly enter the critical voting phase. How to delineate the boundaries of on-chain dollars and decentralized finance has become a core technical and political challenge that Washington's legislative machinery cannot avoid.
Capital Flowing Against the Legislative Cloud
In contrast to the hesitation on Capitol Hill, sentiment and capital flows in the crypto market have not simultaneously hit the brakes. The Fear and Greed Index had risen to 61 by mid-January, leaning towards "greed," indicating that overall risk appetite was in a recovery phase. On-chain and off-chain data also corroborated this: XRP spot ETF net inflows reached $10.63 million, while large addresses around ETH were monitored for approximately $17.77 million in accumulation during the same period. These figures indicate that even as the legislative process encounters another chill, mainstream capital has not chosen to collectively withdraw; instead, organized allocation and accumulation have emerged around key assets.
Capital's willingness to layout against the trend amid ongoing regulatory uncertainty can be attributed to two parallel logics. One is a compliance bet from a medium to long-term perspective: mainstream institutions generally expect that the U.S. will not abandon efforts to incorporate crypto into a regulatory framework through legislation, only that the pace and details may fluctuate; under this premise, any short-term pullback resulting from prolonged processes is viewed as a window for "positioning ahead of higher regulatory certainty." The other perspective sees this round of legislative tug-of-war as tolerable political noise, believing that the truly disruptive risk lies in "completely denying the legitimacy of crypto assets," while the current controversy mainly revolves around regulatory boundaries and detail allocation, rather than the existence issue itself. As more capital chooses to bottom-fish and allocate during the "regulatory hesitation period," short-term price volatility and liquidity elasticity may be amplified: once favorable news for compliance expectations is released, concentrated buying will quickly drive prices up; conversely, if the terms are interpreted as overly stringent, the accumulated leverage and sentiment may amplify the extent of the pullback, leading to more severe oscillations between price and policy expectations.
The Tug-of-War Between Regulation and Industry
If the current situation is abstracted into a negotiation table, the game surrounding the regulatory boundaries of on-chain dollars and decentralized finance is being jointly driven by the Senate, traditional financial institutions, and crypto companies. The chips held by regulators are relatively clear: one is the legislative clock, which can exert varying pressures on the industry by accelerating or delaying processes; the second is the licensing system, which determines which business forms are allowed to operate under compliant sunlight; the third is enforcement power, which sends signals to the market about "where the boundaries are" through case actions. On the industry side, another set of chips is used to hedge: the concentration of liquidity determines the attractiveness of the U.S. market in the global crypto capital landscape, tax contributions and job creation provide real incentives for politicians, while token holders and retail voters form a potential volume base in electoral politics.
Within this framework, Coinbase's choice to withdraw support at this time can easily be interpreted as a repricing of "cooperation costs." Over the past few years, this exchange has long played the role of a "compliance bridge," willing to connect with regulators in an environment where rules are not yet complete, in exchange for future institutional dividends; however, as the bill's text shows a stronger or more ambiguous tendency regarding on-chain dollars and decentralized finance, reassessing the marginal benefits of continued deep participation becomes a rational business decision. By temporarily stepping back, Coinbase reduces its political risk of being bound to a particular version of the proposal while also sending a signal to lawmakers: if the rule design cannot balance regulatory goals with commercial viability, industry giants will not unconditionally endorse it, forcing policymakers to reassess trade-offs in the terms.
Looking further ahead, the tightness of on-chain dollar terms will determine several key paths: if regulation is too strict, the expansion space for on-chain dollars within the U.S. may be suppressed, and the liquidity of decentralized finance will be forced to seek new platforms, with offshore markets likely to see more capital and innovation activities migrate; if the framework is too loose, it may both solidify the dollar's core position in on-chain finance and amplify regulators' anxieties about financial stability and abuse risks, prompting more intense post-factum enforcement reactions. Finding a dynamic balance between these two extremes will directly shape the landscape and focus of the U.S. crypto ecosystem in the coming years.
A New Order of Delay, Not Cancellation
From the current process, the Senate Banking Committee's postponement of the crypto market structure bill deliberation until after the end of January appears more like a procedural acknowledgment that the internal game over the text has not yet concluded, rather than a signal of a collective abandonment of crypto legislation by the regulatory side. The disputes surrounding on-chain dollars and decentralized finance have not disappeared; they have merely been temporarily placed into a longer negotiation cycle. In the short term, uncertainty has indeed been heightened: the landing of key terms, the rearrangement of voting rhythms, and the redistribution of discourse power will continue to disturb expectations in the coming weeks. However, from a market structure perspective, with the Fear and Greed Index remaining in the greedy range and continued net inflows into XRP spot ETFs and large ETH funds, this round of legislative delay has not directly rewritten the mid-term landscape dominated by bulls; it reflects more of a rhythm fluctuation rather than a directional reversal.
Looking ahead, several dimensions are worth continuous tracking: first, whether leading platforms like Coinbase will release support signals again after text adjustments or choose to maintain a long-term distance; second, the evolution of on-chain dollar-related wording, especially the subtle adjustments of regulatory boundaries and compliance paths in public discourse, often can reflect the tendencies of final terms in advance; third, the frequency and priority of updates to the overall schedule of the Senate and House of Representatives directly relate to when this bill can return to the fast track. In this process, investors need to construct a thinking framework aimed at the "legislative window period": on one hand, identifying which sectors and assets are most sensitive to regulatory expectations, which may amplify volatility first when terms shift; on the other hand, adjusting allocation rhythms to anchor position decisions more on the phased nodes of the compliance process rather than the violent oscillations of short-term sentiment. In the future, the main theme of U.S. crypto regulation is likely to remain the gradual advancement of compliance and institutionalization, and in this process, market participants need to learn to find a rhythm and position suitable for their risk tolerance amid the legislative machinery's varying speeds.
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。
