On the evening of January 15, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee was originally scheduled to hold a crucial vote on a bill aimed at reshaping the structure of the cryptocurrency market, but was forced to hit the brakes just before reaching the door. The sharp divisions between the two parties regarding whether to grant regulatory exemptions for certain decentralized finance (DeFi) activities and how to constrain the yield promises of dollar-pegged tokens came to the forefront. At the same time, according to data from a single source, SoSoValue, Bitcoin fell approximately 1.08% to $91,900, while Ethereum dropped about 2.05% to $3,187. The market did not experience a panic sell-off but reacted to the regulatory deadlock with a moderate decline. The tug-of-war between innovation and risk firewall has once again delayed this legislation, which was hoped to be the starting point for a "new order in crypto." The question of why U.S. crypto regulation continues to stagnate has become the main thread behind this round of debate.

Key Vote Blocked: Bill at the Door

The vote on January 15 was originally a pivotal moment for reforming the structure of the U.S. crypto market. According to established procedures, the bill, which is under the purview of the Senate Banking Committee, needs to be approved at the committee level before it can enter the full Senate agenda, followed by coordination with the House version to ultimately form a unified text. This procedural threshold does not directly determine the fate of the bill but is a necessary step from technical discussion to political negotiation. However, just before this threshold, sharp divisions erupted between the two parties during closed-door negotiations over whether to grant more lenient regulatory exemptions for certain DeFi activities and whether to allow greater flexibility in interest distribution and yield promises for dollar-pegged tokens. The result was not a formal announcement of a postponement, but rather a failure to reach a consensus on the text at the committee level, leading to the scheduling of the vote being forced to pause. From the perspective of legislative procedure, "blocked deliberation" means that time costs have significantly increased, the path has become more tortuous, and uncertainty has been indefinitely extended, but it does not equate to the end of the reform agenda. It is important to clarify that due to the lack of publicly available text at the clause level and specific voting distribution in the briefing, this article will not extend any speculation on clause details, individual positions of committee members, or potential alliance structures, but will lock the information boundary to the confirmed procedural blockage and conflict focal points.

The DeFi Exemption Controversy: A Line

On the issue of DeFi regulatory exemptions, both parties are entrenched along a line that appears technical but is actually intertwined with politics and interests. According to political stance information from a single source, the Republican camp is more inclined to carve out "innovation-friendly" space for certain DeFi activities in the bill, hoping to avoid being left behind by other jurisdictions in a new round of fintech competition through exemptions or reduced compliance obligations. For them, open-source protocols, smart contract automation, and permissionless access are seen as new infrastructures that can extend the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets globally. If traditional financial high-cost compliance frameworks are applied from the outset, it would mean pushing emerging business models overseas. In contrast, the Democratic camp emphasizes consumer and investor protection risks on the same issue. Based on political stance information from a single source, it can be seen that they are concerned that, in a reality of insufficient transparency, ambiguous accountability, and rampant leverage tools, regulatory exemptions could be quickly exploited by fraudsters and high-risk arbitrageurs, thereby amplifying fraud, money laundering, and potential systemic risks. In traditional financial regulation, the concept of "same business, same risk, same regulation" has long been ingrained—if one assumes functions similar to banks or brokerages, they must accept similar levels of capital constraints and behavioral rules. The DeFi demand for differentiated treatment is, in a sense, a direct challenge to this consensus. The ultimate divergence between the two parties points to a choice of path: whether to first allow some innovations to proceed and then fill in the regulatory gaps once the models mature, or to first build a firewall around compliance and accountability before conditionally releasing experimental space. In the absence of a unified risk assessment framework, this divergence is unlikely to be resolved through technical compromise in the short term.

The Stablecoin Interest Fire: Yield Promises

Parallel to the DeFi exemption debate is the controversy over the yield arrangements for dollar-pegged tokens. The briefing indicates that the dispute, referred to as the "stablecoin yield clause," roughly involves the regulatory stance on how issuers or custodial and trading platforms allocate interest from underlying assets, and whether and under what conditions they can make yield promises to users. However, due to the lack of publicly available text, this article will not speculate on the specific clause structure and wording. Based on political stance information from a single source, the Democratic camp is concerned that once a legal loophole for high yield promises is opened, the market will quickly see products marketed with "on-chain dollar wealth management" and "safe high interest," encouraging excessive leverage and maturity mismatches at the regulatory edge, thus replaying old issues of "deposit-like, non-deposit guarantees" seen in traditional shadow banking. The larger context is that the U.S. is still in a high-interest and relatively high Treasury yield environment, and the Treasury bonds or short-term notes behind dollar-pegged tokens already have considerable interest. How this interest is allocated directly determines the competitive landscape with traditional tools like bank deposits and money market funds: if broad interest sharing and yield promotion are allowed, then so-called stablecoins will functionally resemble a portable wealth management product rather than just a payment or settlement tool. This attribute positioning, in turn, raises questions about whether their regulatory oversight aligns more closely with banking regulation or securities regulation, and whether they need to meet stricter requirements like capital adequacy ratios and liquidity coverage ratios. Therefore, the yield clause dispute is not only a game of product design and marketing freedom but also a fundamental divergence over whether "on-chain dollars" are money, securities, or a new type of asset management product.

The Market Votes with Its Feet: Moderate Decline

After the news of the vote being blocked broke, the crypto market did not experience a panic sell-off but expressed its pricing of uncertainty through a round of moderate adjustments. According to data from a single source, SoSoValue, the price of BTC fell approximately 1.08% to $91,900, while ETH saw a larger decline of about 2.05%, closing at $3,187. The adjustment of leading assets was kept within a bearable range. At the sector level, the reality asset mapping track reacted most violently, with the RWA sector dropping about 2.99%, leading the mainstream sectors and highlighting the sensitivity of this track, which strongly relies on compliance expectations and regulatory legitimacy, to legislative fluctuations. In contrast, the narrative-driven high Beta sector, SocialFi, rose against the trend by about 0.58%, showing an independent market performance in an overall correction environment, indicating that short-term funds may be shifting from "regulatory-sensitive assets" to targets with "greater narrative elasticity and relatively indirect policy constraints." In the same window, CryptoQuant analysts provided the judgment that Bitcoin is in a "moderate expansion phase," but the risk of speculative positions piling up is worth noting (single source). In an environment where incremental funds amplify volatility through derivatives and high-leverage tools, each delay in legislation objectively extends the period of regulatory ambiguity, which not only provides space for leverage and arbitrage but also concentrates the deleveraging pressure when sentiment reverses and regulatory winds change rapidly. In other words, the bill being paused at the door seems to have avoided a structural repricing triggered by a "shoe dropping" in the short term, but in the medium to long term, it exacerbates the speculative chain's fragile dependence on sudden regulatory events.

Regulatory Vacuum Period: New Players on Wall Street

As legislation spins its wheels on Capitol Hill, traditional finance and emerging projects have not stopped their layout efforts. According to information from a single source, World Liberty Financial is applying for a trust bank license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), attempting to secure a piece of "compliance high ground" that can be recognized by regulatory agencies under the still-forming crypto regulatory framework. This move indicates that some participants with Wall Street backgrounds are willing to bear higher compliance costs in advance, hoping to establish licensing thresholds and industry discourse power before future rules are implemented. On a broader capital flow level, a report from Sotheby's shows that crypto assets have begun to significantly impact the global high-end real estate market, with a noticeable increase in cases of large property transactions using crypto capital (single source). This means that the spillover of crypto funds is no longer limited to the rotation of on-chain assets but is penetrating into offline large asset allocations, making the regulatory gap not just an issue of "internal circulation in the crypto circle," but directly related to the transparency and risk assessment of traditional asset markets like real estate and luxury goods. In the vacuum period of legislative stagnation, the choices of law enforcement agencies are also changing the boundaries of the rules. The case of Pump.fun and Solana-related parties being charged by U.S. prosecutors for violating the RICO Act is a typical signal of law enforcers resorting to existing laws with broad applicability and severe penalties to "hard fit" new business models in the absence of targeted legislation. In this combination of "legislative lag + preemptive enforcement," the industry faces not an absolute freedom of unregulated zones but rather higher compliance uncertainty and selective enforcement risks: project parties find it difficult to accurately judge which behaviors will cross the ambiguous red lines, and institutions and developers become more cautious in their expectations of the U.S. judicial jurisdiction.

The Next Round of Game: Which Side is Time On?

Returning to the core of the Senate Banking Committee's deadlock, the crux of the stalemate is not just a few technical clauses but a multi-party game surrounding "who pays for innovation" and "who will bear the costs when risks erupt." The Republican Party is more willing to disperse potential gains and non-systemic risks in the market, allowing investors and project parties to price them autonomously, while the Democratic Party hopes to clarify accountability, capital buffers, and information disclosure obligations before socializing risks, to avoid a repeat of shadow financial cycles marketed on regulatory arbitrage. In the short term, as long as legislation cannot break through key procedural nodes, the main theme of U.S. crypto regulation will still be the coexistence of ambiguous boundaries and flexible enforcement. On one hand, this ambiguity reserves experimental space for protocol innovation, cross-chain liquidity, and new business models; on the other hand, it makes compliance costs unpredictable, and projects and institutions may face sudden enforcement escalations or new judicial precedents that bring "black swans." From a mid-term scenario analysis perspective, to push the bill forward again, a more realistic compromise path may be to attach stricter information disclosure, investor suitability thresholds, and certain capital or reserve constraints to the DeFi exemptions and yield clauses, thus seeking a new balance between innovation space and risk buffers. This analysis is not a predetermined plan but an analytical hypothesis based on current political and regulatory attitudes. For market participants, in such a regulatory gray area, merely focusing on price fluctuations is far from enough; it is more important to track the progress of compliance license applications, how leading industry institutions reshape business boundaries, and the signal strength released by key enforcement cases. Before the system is truly implemented, those who can understand the rhythm of rule generation will have a better chance of standing on the side of time in the next round of the game.

Join our community to discuss and become 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。