David Sachs, the "Artificial Intelligence and Cryptocurrency Czar" from the White House, provided the clearest verbal "outline" of the current U.S. technology and digital asset policy during an interview with CNBC's "Squawk Box" at Davos. This conversation not only concerns stablecoin legislation, AI regulation, and the U.S.-China technology competition but also reflects the "American digital order" that the Trump administration attempted to shape.
Cryptocurrency Legislation: Forcing a "Comprehensive Market Structure Law" Out of the Battle for Yields
At the beginning of the interview, Sachs focused on the ongoing negotiations in Washington regarding the cryptocurrency "market structure bill," with the core controversy being: Can stablecoins pay yields to users?
His reminders to the banking sector were quite direct:
The GENIUS Act, which took effect last August, has already written yields/rewards into the stablecoin framework, and this is a fait accompli.
If the new market structure bill falls apart, "the law not being amended does not abolish the old rules," and the current reward mechanisms will still exist in some form, meaning banks will not only fail to optimize on this issue but will "lose even more thoroughly."
At the same time, he was also "waking up" the cryptocurrency camp:
For the crypto circle, yields are indeed part of the philosophy of decentralized finance and the core narrative of "money making money";
However, if they are inflexible on the yield clause, leading to the failure of the overall market structure bill, it would mean losing the historical window to fight for "clear rules + compliant identity" across the entire chain for trading, custody, clearing, and token issuance.
In Sachs' words, this is a negotiation where all parties have the motivation to "reason":
If banks do not compromise, they will lose more space under existing laws; if crypto does not yield, they will not get a comprehensive structural regulation that defines the industry for the next decade.
A "Unified Digital Asset Industry": Banks Will Fully Enter the Market
When asked about the "future of cryptocurrency," Sachs provided a vision from the White House perspective: "There will no longer be a divided banking and cryptocurrency industry; in the future, there will only be a unified digital asset industry."
His logic can be summarized in three steps:
At the current stage, there are still clear boundaries between traditional banks and cryptocurrency platforms: on one side is a fully licensed and tightly regulated banking system, and on the other is the cryptocurrency industry that has explored in regulatory gray areas for many years.
Once the market structure legislation is completed, banks will obtain clear licenses and rules related to stablecoins, custody, and digital tokens, and they will enter the cryptocurrency space on a large scale, no longer just "observers" or "peripheral channel providers."
After that, the term "traditional banks vs. cryptocurrency companies" will gradually become outdated, replaced by a full industry chain of digital assets composed of banks, brokerages, exchanges, custodians, and technology companies.
He even predicted that banks' attitudes toward "yields" would undergo a 180-degree shift:
- When banks enter the stablecoin business, start issuing coins, and create on-chain interest products, they "will come to like paying yields", because by then, yields will have become a business tool they can use, rather than an advantage for competitors.
From a media perspective, this sends a signal to global capital: The White House does not aim to "eliminate cryptocurrency," but rather to incorporate it into the existing financial system through legislation, creating a "new generation of digital asset layer" that is regulatory, tradable, and can be integrated by banks.
AI Regulation: Federal Unified Rules to Prevent Fragmentation of "50 States, 50 Sets of AI Regulations"
On the topic of artificial intelligence, Sachs and Michael Kratsios, the White House technology policy head, formed a clear "combination punch": To make the U.S. the main battlefield for AI innovation, regulation cannot be fragmented into 50 pieces.
Kratsios reviewed the "U.S. AI Strategy and Action Plan" released last July:
The first pillar is to encourage domestic innovation, ensuring that the next major AI breakthroughs occur in the U.S.;
To achieve this, it is essential to create an "AI-friendly" regulatory environment, avoiding a "patchwork regulation" where each state legislates independently with inconsistent standards. If every state has its own set of AI rules, startups will not only have to develop products but also deal with 50 different regulations, which would be a "disaster" for innovation.
Sachs, from the entrepreneur's perspective, articulated the issue more straightforwardly:
For large tech giants, even if all 50 states have different rules, they can rely on their large legal teams to "handle everything";
But for small companies and entrepreneurs, if they are forced from the start to "hire a set of lawyers in each of the 50 states," then starting a business almost loses its meaning.
This is precisely the "patchwork problem" that the White House wants to prioritize solving: Using a federal unified framework to cover the costs for innovators and reduce the compliance friction costs for society as a whole.
This narrative sends two signals to the market:
On one hand, the U.S. hopes to be the "world standard setter" in AI, rather than being led by the EU or local state regulations;
On the other hand, Washington is acutely aware that if all regulatory costs are placed on startups, the U.S. "Silicon Valley model" will gradually lose its advantage.
U.S.-China Technology and Chips: The Geopolitical Limits of Downgrading Chip Exports
When discussing chip policy towards China, Sachs proposed a "technically feasible, politically delicate" idea:
Theoretically, the U.S. could export "downgraded AI chips" from one or more generations ago to China, thereby competing for market share against local giants like Huawei in the mid-range market, slowing down the opponent's scaling and cash flow accumulation.
He believes that as long as it is done under safe and controllable conditions, exchanging outdated chips for market share from the opponent still holds strategic value.
However, he also provided a realistic judgment:
China sees through this logic and is unlikely to open its doors to "downgraded chips" in key areas, occupying strategic positions;
Once China blocks this input channel through administrative and industrial policies, the debate over "whether to sell downgraded chips" becomes more of a symbolic policy discussion rather than a large-scale business that can be genuinely implemented.
This set of statements clearly exposes the White House's underlying thinking on the U.S.-China technology war: On one hand, it aims to maintain a "technology blockade" through export controls; on the other hand, it is also looking for tactical windows to see if there is a possibility of "limited openness in exchange for market space from the opponent."
Economic and Technology "Report Card": Using Data to Counter Silicon Valley's "Emotional Narrative"
When the host mentioned that some Silicon Valley CEOs have "complex emotions" about the political atmosphere and policy direction, Sachs chose to take the "data speaks" approach:
He listed the numbers: The U.S. GDP growth rate reached 5.4% last quarter, inflation has fallen from a high of 9% during Biden's term to about 2.6%, and labor productivity has hit a multi-year high.
AI investment and corporate deployment are forming a dual support for productivity and profitability, while the overall operating environment for tech companies is "excellent";
In his narrative, President Trump’s "support for the tech industry is unprecedented," while the previous administration "added unnecessary regulatory burdens to the tech industry."
Regarding the common impression that "Silicon Valley does not like Trump," he provided a breakdown:
Indeed, there are a number of tech leaders who have long aligned with the Democratic Party and will not like Trump under any circumstances;
However, in terms of specific business environment and operating data, many CEOs he has interacted with are "very satisfied" with the current government's performance.
From a communication effect perspective, this is a typical "data vs. emotion" counter-narrative: attempting to use the impressive macroeconomic and tech industry numbers to overshadow some concerns about political division, trade wars, and side effects.
From Greenland to California's Wealth Tax: The "Property Rights Bottom Line" Beyond the Digital Order
At the end of the interview, Sachs addressed two seemingly unrelated topics to AI and cryptocurrency, but which are highly relevant: Greenland and California's proposed high-net-worth wealth tax.
On the Greenland issue, he used historical narratives to "legitimize" Trump's idea of "buying Greenland":
Looking back since the 19th century, several American politicians, including Secretary of State Seward (who bought Alaska), Roosevelt, and Truman, have seriously studied proposals to "acquire Greenland";
He believes that Trump merely "brought back to the agenda" this geopolitical strategic idea that has been in existence for 150 years.
Regarding California's proposed one-time 5% tax on high-net-worth assets, his attitude was exceptionally sharp:
He emphasized that he has "lived in California for 30 years and has always been subject to the highest income tax rate in the nation (about 13.3%)," and has no objection to paying taxes;
However, he believes the new proposal is "not a tax, but an asset seizure": regardless of whether the assets have already generated income or whether taxes have been fully paid, the government will take 5% of all your assets in one go.
He warned the public not to be misled by the term "one-time," stating, "This is not one time, but the first time," and once a precedent is set, future repetitions are just a matter of time.
From this perspective, whether it is digital assets, chip technology, or traditional wealth, Sachs conveyed the same main line at Davos:
The U.S. aims to control technology and rules in the global digital order while maintaining clear and stable property rights boundaries domestically.
In his view, if these bottom lines are continuously tested or even breached, both AI and cryptocurrency may lose the long-term development soil built on "trust and property rights."
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。
