Author: Liang Yu

Editor: Zhao Yidan

As the most active "compliance standard bearers" in the U.S. cryptocurrency market begin to publicly question and resist established regulatory rules, a profound transformation is brewing. On January 14, 2026, Coinbase, a leading cryptocurrency trading platform headquartered in the U.S., unexpectedly withdrew its key support for the "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act." This move was not merely a simple business strategy adjustment; it was like a boulder thrown into a calm lake, instantly stirring up waves of regulatory, market, and internal industry turmoil.

The bill was initially highly anticipated, aimed at clarifying the long-ambiguous regulatory boundaries of digital assets and bringing certainty to the industry. However, Coinbase's resolute stance—its CEO Brian Armstrong even stated, "I would rather have no bill than a bad bill"—was akin to a fierce "institutional rebellion," directly leading to the urgent postponement of a key Senate review process. This not only marked a public rupture between a giant enterprise and the legislative process but also starkly revealed the deep structural contradictions the U.S. faces in attempting to incorporate crypto finance into traditional regulatory frameworks.

This is not just a dispute over a piece of legislation; it is a struggle for the definition of the "rules of survival" for an emerging industry. When companies most familiar with and compliant to old-world rules begin to resist drafts of new rules, it often signifies that the conflict between the new world and the old system has reached an irreconcilable critical point. Coinbase's "defection" is thus widely seen as a watershed event in the narrative of U.S. crypto regulation: it heralds the end of the industry's wild west era and the beginning of a more complex and arduous "institutional coming-of-age." The story that follows will no longer be about whether to regulate, but rather who will regulate, on what logic, and ultimately, who will write the future charter of digital finance.

I. The Transformation of a Bill: From Industry Antidote to Controversial Focus

On January 14, 2026, a statement caused both the political circles in Washington D.C. and the global crypto market to hold their breath. Coinbase, the largest and most compliance-oriented cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., publicly announced its withdrawal of support for the "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act." CEO Brian Armstrong's statement was firm, even throwing out the resolute position of "I would rather have no bill than a bad bill." This action directly led to the urgent postponement of a key Senate Banking Committee review originally scheduled for the next day, causing a shockwave in the market.

To understand this sudden storm, one must trace back to the original intent of the bill. Since the rise of the crypto market, U.S. companies have long been shrouded in the dual regulatory fog of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Are assets securities or commodities? Who should have jurisdiction? The uncertainty surrounding these fundamental questions has led to high compliance costs and the ever-present risk of litigation. The CLARITY Act was passed in the House in July 2025 with an overwhelming majority, and was seen by the industry as a milestone that would end the chaos and bring hope.

However, when the bill entered the Senate review stage, its content underwent critical changes. According to analyses from several industry institutions, the revised version by the Senate Banking Committee included numerous stringent provisions. These changes were viewed by many crypto-native companies as restrictions or even stifling of the core innovative direction of the industry. The nature of the bill seemed to shift from a "rulebook that delineates a clear runway" to a "guideline that sets up numerous roadblocks." It was this perception shift from "antidote" to "poison" that ignited the fuse.

II. Why Coinbase Resisted: Touching on Survival Red Lines

Coinbase's fierce opposition was not unfounded. Armstrong clearly outlined four core concerns, each directly pointing to the strategic core and revenue lifeline of the company and the entire crypto-native sector.

The primary conflict lies in the future of tokenized securities. As a licensed broker, Coinbase is heavily investing in building infrastructure that supports 24/7 on-chain trading of traditional assets like stocks and funds. Its vision is to enable companies to complete the entire process from issuance to trading on the blockchain. However, the Senate version of the bill requires such "on-chain securities" to fully comply with all traditional securities rules, leaving no room for the efficiency gains and model innovations brought by blockchain technology. This is akin to forcibly casting the shape of the new world into the mold of the old world, rendering the core advantages of tokenization null and void.

Secondly, the provisions regarding stablecoin yields directly impact the business model. The draft bill intends to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest to holders, to prevent them from evolving into unregulated banks. For platforms like Coinbase, providing rewards for customers holding stablecoins is one of their important revenue sources. This provision, known as the "bank protection clause," is essentially a barrier set by traditional banking to defend against deposit outflows, yet it precisely strikes at a core profit area for crypto trading platforms.

Furthermore, the bill's regulatory approach to decentralized finance (DeFi) raises serious concerns. The draft significantly expands the applicability of obligations such as anti-money laundering, attempting to bring the front-end interfaces of decentralized protocols and even governance participants under regulation. In Coinbase's view, this "penetrative" regulation attempts to awkwardly apply the responsibility framework of the centralized world to decentralized structures, which is not only technically difficult to implement but could also stifle the innovative vitality of the entire DeFi sector.

Finally, Coinbase warned that the bill's complex provisions could effectively expand the SEC's powers, leading the industry back to an era of "regulation through enforcement actions." These concerns indicate that Coinbase is not opposed to regulation itself, but rather to the "structural flaws" that this specific bill may bring—it is not setting markers on the existing track but attempting to directly rewrite the track map, rendering some emerging tracks legally non-existent.

III. Internal Industry Divisions: Different Demands from Different Paths

Coinbase's "defection" did not win unanimous applause from the crypto world; rather, it acted like a prism, reflecting the deep fractures that already exist within the industry. The "real-world asset" tokenization camp, represented by companies like Securitize and Dinari, has a relatively mild attitude towards the bill. Securitize CEO Carlos Domingo has publicly stated that the bill merely clarifies that tokenized stocks still belong to securities and must comply with existing rules, which is not a bad thing.

This divergence reveals two starkly different development paths within the crypto ecosystem. The "RWA faction" or "traditional on-chain faction" focuses on mapping existing compliant assets like stocks, bonds, and real estate onto the blockchain to enhance their circulation efficiency. Their success relies on the credit and legal framework of the traditional world. Therefore, a clear, stable regulatory environment that aligns with existing securities laws is the cornerstone and booster for their business development.

In contrast, Coinbase and many DeFi-native projects represent the "crypto-native faction." Their vision is to transcend traditional frameworks and leverage the programmability of blockchain to create entirely new asset classes, financial products, and governance models. For them, overly strict regulations based on traditional thinking mean that innovations are stifled before they can even take root.

This fundamental divergence in paths leads to drastically different evaluations of the same bill. Even within some DeFi advocacy organizations, there exists a contradictory mindset: on one hand, criticizing the bill's flaws, while on the other hand, fearing that prolonged legislative indecision will cause the U.S. to lose its global competitiveness. The severe internal division within the industry makes it difficult to form a united front in political lobbying, giving traditional financial opposition forces more opportunities to exploit.

IV. The Deep Logic of Regulation: The Unique Game Model of the U.S.

The Coinbase incident profoundly reveals a unique and stubborn operational logic of the U.S. financial regulatory system—under the "common law tradition," the paradigm of "slow legislation, strong enforcement." Unlike the EU's comprehensive legislation through the "Markets in Crypto-Assets" (MiCA) that is top-down and all-in-one, U.S. regulatory agencies are more accustomed to gradually exploring boundaries and accumulating consensus through case litigation, enforcement, and lengthy court debates, before finally distilling mature conclusions into written law.

This model appears particularly clumsy when addressing the exponentially innovative field of crypto. The legislative process is slow and politicized. After the CLARITY Act passed in the House, it became mired in the quagmire of bipartisan politics, committee power struggles, and the strong lobbying power of the banking industry in the Senate. Although the current U.S. government is generally considered more friendly to the crypto industry, the complexity of politics makes it difficult for legislators to find a balance, further delaying the legislative process.

However, while legislative debates continue, the enforcement machinery of regulatory agencies has not completely stalled. The SEC and CFTC are still testing regulatory boundaries through specific cases. This state of "unclear rules but punishments are enforceable" constitutes the greatest uncertainty. Companies are like walking in a fog, unsure if the next step will trigger a regulatory landmine. For a large, transparent, and high-profile public company like Coinbase, this uncertainty is particularly frightening. Supporting a flawed bill is akin to voluntarily placing oneself under the scrutiny of potentially harsh future enforcement; conversely, maintaining the status quo, though chaotic, at least preserves some room for maneuvering and negotiation. This calculation of choosing the lesser of two evils is the root of its "retreat as advance" strategy.

V. The Future Competitive Landscape: Where Will Value Flow?

Regardless of the ultimate fate of the CLARITY Act, this game has clearly indicated a structural shift in the flow of value within the crypto industry. As product innovations at the forefront face increased risks due to regulatory pressure, the value and certainty of the infrastructure and service tracks that provide "ammunition" and "supplies" for the entire industry are becoming more prominent.

A clear trend is that institutional funds, regardless of their form of entry into the crypto space, have a rigid and growing demand for custody security, compliance audits, transaction reporting, anti-money laundering monitoring, and tax processing. Therefore, companies focused on providing compliance technology solutions, institutional-grade custody services, on-chain data analysis tools, and fiat currency compliance channels—often referred to as "water sellers" or "shovel sellers"—will enter a golden development period. Their business does not rely on the price fluctuations of any particular token, nor do they directly challenge regulatory red lines; instead, they serve the market demand generated by regulation itself.

Coinbase's own strategic transformation also confirms this point. Despite its firm stance on the bill, it has been continuously increasing its investments in custody, blockchain infrastructure, and stablecoins in recent years, evolving from a purely trading platform to a comprehensive provider of crypto economic infrastructure. Industry analysis reports generally indicate that the value capture points in the crypto world are shifting from the early foundational protocol layer to the application layer that can integrate complex compliance requirements, provide high-quality user interfaces, and trustworthy financial services.

This means that while a strong regulatory environment suppresses certain radical innovations, it also objectively fosters and strengthens another more robust and easily integrated sub-market with the traditional economy—fintech and regtech. The future industry leaders may no longer be those who invent the most dazzling financial games, but rather those who can build the safest, most seamless, and most compliant arenas for global players.

VI. The Global Regulatory Race: Differentiation of Different Paths

The regulatory deadlock in the U.S. is not an isolated event; it is being examined against the grand backdrop of global competition in digital asset systems. As the legislative process in Washington stagnates amid contradictions, other jurisdictions are accelerating their layouts, attempting to form differentiated advantages.

Taking Hong Kong as an example, its regulatory path presents a different approach. In the latest round of policy declarations, Hong Kong has clearly focused on promoting the tokenization of government green bonds, real estate, and other real-world assets, aiming to leverage blockchain technology to enhance the efficiency of traditional financial markets, rather than prioritizing the encouragement of high-volatility pure crypto-native asset speculation. This pragmatic and focused strategy contrasts sharply with the comprehensive controversies triggered by the CLARITY Act.

Globally, the core driving force behind the development of the RWA track in 2026 is institutional adoption and regulatory clarity. Regulatory agencies in various countries are competing to establish clear rules regarding asset custody, information disclosure, and investor protection to attract institutions and traditional capital seeking a safe haven. Regions such as Singapore, the European Union, and the UAE have all taken action in this area.

This global competition may lead to a differentiated future: some regions may become centers for traditional asset tokenization due to their clearly supportive regulations for RWA and institutional participation; while others, if they continue to be mired in regulatory tug-of-war over DeFi and native crypto innovations, may maintain an active retail trading and innovative experimental atmosphere, but with higher policy uncertainty. The landscape of the global crypto market will be redrawn in the game and choices of various national regulations.

Conclusion: An Inevitable Coming-of-Age Ceremony

Coinbase's withdrawal of support for the CLARITY Act marks a critical turning point. It indicates that the U.S. crypto industry has moved past its wild west phase and is beginning to engage in serious negotiations with legislators about its own "rules of survival" with strength and strategy. This is no longer a question of whether to regulate, but rather what kind of regulation is needed and who will define the future.

This conflict exposes the profound underlying logical conflicts between the old and new financial systems, as well as the divisions within the industry arising from different development paths. It forces all participants to consider how to balance innovation with stability, efficiency with security, and disruption with integration in the irreversible wave of digital finance.

Ultimately, regardless of the outcome of this specific bill, one certainty has emerged: the crypto industry is being institutionalized, and the process of institutionalization will inevitably involve the redistribution of interests, the repositioning of roles, and the rediscovery of value. Those enterprises and projects that can adapt to this change the fastest, transforming compliance and security from cost centers into core competencies, and providing a trustworthy bridge to the broader traditional world, will gain an advantage in the new cycle. The turmoil triggered by this bill is a necessary, painful "coming-of-age ceremony" that the entire industry must undergo on its path to maturity.

Sources of some materials:

· "Coinbase's Last-Minute Defection: What Happens When America's Most Compliant Exchange Begins to Oppose Regulation?"

· "Coinbase Withdraws Support for the CLARITY Act: A 'Brake' in a Regulatory Game and Why the Market is Repricing"

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。