On January 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the deliberation of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee regarding the cryptocurrency market structure bill suddenly hit a snag as it reached a critical juncture. Senators, financial and regulatory officials, traditional financial lobbyists, and representatives from large cryptocurrency companies gathered, but they became deadlocked on two main issues: first, how to delineate responsibility in the DeFi space, particularly what regulatory and punitive tools should be applied to front-end interfaces and anonymous liquidity pools; second, whether on-chain yields should be regarded as akin to deposit interest or a completely new form of income, and whether they should be accounted for on bank balance sheets or remain between on-chain products and users. This clash over technological innovation and regulatory legitimacy was quickly interpreted by Wall Street trading desks and the crypto community as a signal of increased path uncertainty. Beneath the surface of a broad market decline and Bitcoin's retreat, a complex picture emerged, dominated by spot buying and structural resilience.
Hearing Stalled: Bill Paused
Before January 2026, the cryptocurrency market structure bill had already undergone multiple rounds of drafting within the Senate Banking Committee, entering a phase perceived by outsiders as "technical divergences gradually converging, political bargaining accelerating." However, as negotiations around DeFi and on-chain yields became more specific, the committee's original plans to further advance deliberations and voting arrangements were forced to hit the pause button, with the public agenda halting at the stage of hearing testimonies from regulatory agencies and industry representatives. For cryptocurrency-related legislation, the Senate Banking Committee is not just a procedural node but a natural gatekeeper: the vast majority of bills involving securities, banking, payments, and market infrastructure must first pass through this committee before having a chance to be sent to the full Senate for a vote; the committee chair has significant control over hearing arrangements, bill scheduling, and text modifications, meaning that once stalled here, the entire federal legislative process will noticeably slow down. Currently, the only aspects confirmed by external observers are the core controversies revealed in the public hearing records and the fact that there are substantial disagreements between both sides regarding DeFi regulatory models and yield attribution. As for the specific proposals raised in closed-door negotiations, the timing of small-scale contacts between the two parties, individual statements, and exploratory voting situations, there is a lack of reliable public information, making it impossible to verify or speculate, let alone set any clear timetable for the bill.
DeFi Front-End and Developers: A Direct Collision of Two Red Lines
In the fiercely debated DeFi sector, Democrats and Republicans have drawn two nearly non-overlapping red lines regarding front-end responsibility and developer exemptions. The Democratic camp continuously emphasizes that in the face of anonymous liquidity pools, cross-chain bridges, and permissionless interfaces, if the traditional "intermediary-client" regulatory paradigm is still applied, the anti-money laundering and national security frameworks will be undermined. Therefore, they advocate for granting the Treasury and relevant agencies stronger "special measures" tools to impose similar sanctions and compliance obligations on websites, applications, and APIs that provide front-end access, requiring them to proactively assume responsibility for KYC, blacklist interception, and suspicious transaction reporting. In this scenario, even if the back-end protocols are automated, the layer responsible for packaging complex contracts into user-interactive interfaces must also be included within the regulatory grasp. In contrast, the Republican side focuses on defending the status of protocol developers and the open-source community, emphasizing that code contributions are essentially a form of speech and innovation activity that should not be simply equated with licensed financial intermediaries. They worry that if the technical actions of writing code, submitting pull requests, and deploying smart contracts are conflated with traditional bank counter and brokerage functions, it will not only stifle the U.S.'s competitiveness in the crypto infrastructure space but could also set a dangerous precedent legally, holding developers accountable at the individual level.
At the public hearing, this divergence was continually amplified. One can imagine a Q&A segment: a pro-regulation senator pressing, once a decentralized trading protocol is flagged as high-risk for money laundering by intelligence agencies, who should be responsible for the front-end that continues to direct traffic to it—the entity operating the website or the anonymous development team deploying the contract; while a senator from the other side counters, if merely because someone maliciously uses a certain open-source tool, the original code contributor is required to assume obligations akin to a financial institution, does that mean all underlying crypto development will occur under the shadow of threats? Behind this tug-of-war lies the logic of expanding national security and anti-terror financing controls in the post-9/11 era, colliding head-on with the decentralized ideal of "code is law" and "permissionless innovation." The regulatory side hopes to rebuild a controllable, interceptable framework on-chain, while the developer community fears that if such a control framework is pushed too far forward, the entire open financial technology stack will be forced to retreat by several years.
On-Chain Yield Dispute: A Direct Game Between Banks and On-Chain Products
If the DeFi debate is more about technical responsibility and legal boundaries, then the tug-of-war over the attribution of on-chain yields directly touches on the existential anxieties of traditional banking. From the banks' perspective, what is truly unsettling is not the price volatility of crypto assets themselves, but that depositors holding fiat currency assets are gradually being siphoned off by various high-yield on-chain products. According to viewpoints summarized in public materials, banking lobby groups repeatedly emphasize to legislators that if on-chain products targeting U.S. users are allowed to invest customer funds in government bonds and money market instruments without deposit insurance or capital adequacy constraints, and then distribute yields through on-chain protocols, it equates to digging a hole in the bank's liability side: deposits that should be held within the banking system are being converted into a new type of "digital note" that bypasses the bank's balance sheet, yet the yields still originate from similar underlying assets. Although details regarding specific lobbying paths, costs, and institutional lists remain to be verified, the argument that "on-chain yields lead to deposit outflows" has clearly been successfully brought into the negotiation agenda.
The differences in yield logic between on-chain products and banks are continuously compared in the legislators' hearing materials. On-chain products often directly hold short-term government bonds, repurchase agreements, or money market fund shares, automatically distributing interest through smart contracts while layering protocol token incentives and liquidity mining, resulting in nominal annualized yields far exceeding those of ordinary demand deposits. In contrast, traditional banks, even if they allocate similar assets on their balance sheets, must set aside capital for them, bear liquidity regulatory costs, and pay into the deposit insurance system, making it difficult to offer comparable interest rates under multiple cost pressures. From the scenes emerging at the hearing, one side is represented by banking experts repeatedly emphasizing that "interest essentially comes from traditional financial assets and should be distributed within a regulated banking system," while the other side, represented by crypto companies and on-chain product issuers, attempts to persuade legislators that this is a new type of investment yield independent of the deposit system, with users bearing the risks, and banks have no right to claim "eroded liabilities." Thus, the question of "who does the interest belong to" is no longer just an accounting classification issue but has evolved into a power struggle over who has the authority to mediate future monetary yields.
Market Under Washington's Tug-of-War: Bitcoin Stands Resilient
As the tug-of-war in Washington intensifies, the cryptocurrency market has provided another seemingly contradictory feedback. According to CryptoQuant analysts, after experiencing a phase of deleveraging, Bitcoin has essentially emerged from a situation dominated by high-leverage funds, with the current rise being driven more by spot buying. This means that against the backdrop of rising regulatory uncertainty and a continuous stream of negative policy news, a considerable amount of capital is still choosing to accumulate positions through spot buying rather than relying on borrowing coins and doubling down on contracts. From the market data, most sectors of the crypto market are in a state of decline, with Bitcoin dropping about 1.08% on a certain trading day in the Eastern Standard Time zone, falling to around $91,900, yet overall it remains within a historically high range, showing a distinctly different resilience structure compared to altcoin sectors.
This market performance and the legislative deadlock create a subtle tension. On one hand, the DeFi and high-risk derivatives sectors are showing signs of fatigue in the face of policy uncertainty, with short-term speculative funds and high-leverage positions clearly contracting, and many products that once relied on regulatory gray areas for wild expansion are beginning to cool down proactively; on the other hand, spot Bitcoin and a few on-chain blue-chip assets continue to attract long-term funds looking to gain exposure to "mainstream-like assets." From a funding preference perspective, the more intense the regulatory battle, the more the market tends to shy away from marginalized projects with ambiguous compliance expectations, concentrating allocations on assets perceived as having "clearer paths." Thus, while negative interpretations surrounding crypto legislation continue to accumulate, spot buying is pushing Bitcoin's price to stabilize at high levels, creating a dissonant trend that lays a structural foundation for crypto assets to gradually align with mainstream asset classes.
From Neighborhoods to Mansions: Crypto Capital Penetrates the Real Economy
While legislators debate responsibility boundaries and yield attribution at hearings, crypto capital has already drawn another expansion curve in the real world. Sotheby's "2026 Luxury Outlook" report points out that crypto assets are increasingly influencing the global high-end real estate market, describing the channel between on-chain wealth and offline assets quite intuitively. Over the past few years, a significant portion of early crypto participants and protocol founding teams, after completing token unlocks, exiting early investments, or enjoying bull market premiums, have converted their paper profits into high-end residential and commercial properties in cities like New York, Miami, and Dubai, from renovated old warehouses in Brooklyn to newly built seaside mansions on Palm Island, on-chain wealth has quietly embedded itself into various real estate transactions through arrangements made by law firms and family offices.
Such scenes are continuously repeating: an early miner or project advisor, after liquidating a portion of their holdings on-chain, appears in a transaction record in Midtown Manhattan; a fund partner who once only appeared at developer meetings now frequently attends property viewings in London and Dubai. On-chain yields, especially those linked to U.S. government bonds and money market instruments, not only compete with bank deposits but are also genuinely reshaping asset allocation structures and real estate demand curves. For policymakers attempting to "define" the boundaries of crypto activities through legislation, this presents a tricky reality: the longer they delay the introduction of clear rules, the more time crypto capital has to deeply embed itself into the economic fabric through real estate, equity, and long-term assets. If they wish to redraw lines on this basis in the future, the adjustment and transition costs required will only multiply.
After the Bill Stalls: How New Regulatory Order Will Reshape the Crypto Landscape
Returning to the bill's stalling itself, it becomes clear that the two hardest nuts to crack in current U.S. crypto legislation have already emerged: the first is the boundary of responsibility in DeFi—under what conditions do front-end interfaces, liquidity providers, and protocol developers bear what compliance obligations; the second is the attribution of on-chain yields—should the yields generated by on-chain tools represented by USDT, USDC, etc., after holding government bonds and money market assets, be regarded as bank-like interest or a form of independent investment return. The complexity of these two issues arises not only from technical details but also from the multiple considerations of national security, financial stability, and industrial competition involved. Although the specific fate of the bill remains unknown in the short term, and any predictions regarding probabilities and timelines lack reliable basis, observable trends indicate that regulatory red lines are gradually becoming apparent, with front-end compliance, yield transparency, and risk monitorability transitioning from negotiation chips to foundational elements of a new order in the future.
In this context, if industry participants still hope that "legislative delays equate to regulatory gaps," they are undoubtedly turning a blind eye to reality. For developers, the earlier they reserve compliance and governance space in protocol design, and prepare technically in areas such as front-end access control, risk disclosure, and on-chain monitoring interfaces, the more likely they will be able to quickly adapt to new requirements after regulations are implemented, rather than being swept out of the compliant market by a one-size-fits-all approach. For issuers and platforms, the quality of asset support, risk structure, and information disclosure surrounding on-chain yields will shift from being marketing points to core regulatory considerations. How to find a balance between protecting user privacy and meeting regulatory visibility will directly determine whether they can gain long-term trust from institutional-level funding and mainstream financial partners. It is foreseeable that the game surrounding the structure of the cryptocurrency market will not end in the short term, and the back-and-forth struggle between various parties in Washington and Wall Street will continue for many years. Rather than getting caught up in when the bill will be voted on or whether it can pass in one go, it is better to acknowledge a more fundamental fact: the rules will eventually be implemented; it is just a matter of time and path, and the real variable lies in who can adjust their technical architecture and business model to be closer to the future endpoint before the rules take shape.
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。
