On Friday, April 24, 2026, global financial regulation lit up red lights on three seemingly unrelated fronts: the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) targeted Anthropic's AI tool Mythos, representatives from the U.S. DeFi industry delivered a signed letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and across the ocean, the U.S. Department of Justice was preparing to conclude a criminal investigation surrounding Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

In Zurich, FINMA publicly warned that allowing banks to quickly and conveniently access uncontrolled AI models like Mythos would push the already complex and fragile financial infrastructure to the brink of systemic risk. More pointedly, a FINMA spokesperson painted a picture chilling enough for tech departments: with such AI tools, nearly all existing software systems could simultaneously expose a plethora of previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities and be exploited in real-time. For Swiss regulators, the question is no longer "Can it be used?" but rather "Who will bear the consequences of this collective exposure?"

On the same day, in Washington, crypto advocacy organizations like the DeFi Education Fund and the Digital Chamber took a radically different stance—not hitting the brakes but demanding clearer regulations. They submitted a joint letter to the SEC, requesting the initiation of a formal rulemaking process for DeFi. This joint letter did not come out of nowhere; it deliberately echoed the regulatory dialogue: it acknowledged and cited the SEC staff's prior position that certain non-custodial software user interfaces for trading cryptocurrencies do not need to register as broker-dealers and requested the SEC to formalize this position through official rules. Until now, the SEC had yet to issue comprehensive and dedicated formal rules regarding DeFi, leaving the industry to navigate the boundaries between staff statements and case enforcement.

Meanwhile, in the hallways of the DOJ, another examination of power and trust was nearing its end. Insider sources indicated that the criminal investigation against Powell, related to budget overruns in the Federal Reserve's headquarters renovation project, is expected to conclude as early as April 24, and the case will be handed over to internal oversight for handling. Once the investigation wraps up, uncertainties associated with the nomination and confirmation process of his successor are expected to be partially alleviated—regarded by the market as a key variable influencing monetary policy expectations and financial system risk appetites.

Within the same timeframe, Switzerland viewed AI tools as potential systemic ticking time bombs, while the U.S. crypto industry actively challenged regulatory barriers, attempting to write compliance pathways for DeFi into formal rules. The conclusion of the investigation surrounding Powell was a matter concerning the institutional stability of the world’s most important central bank. These three threads interweave to form a new regulatory landscape: some policy uncertainties are being clarified while others are being reshaped, significantly influencing the speed boundaries of technological innovation and redefining the global financial system's risk appetite.

Swiss Regulators Rage Against AI Systemic Bomb

While the U.S. was still grappling with DeFi rules and a central bank investigation, regulators on the other side of the Alps had already targeted another "unexploded bomb"—AI. What should have been seen as an efficiency tool, Anthropic's AI product Mythos, was directly categorized as "systemic risk" in the narrative of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). FINMA made it clear that permitting banks to quickly and conveniently use uncontrolled, ready-to-use AI models like Mythos would pose systemic risks to the financial system, not merely as individual institutional operational errors but as threats capable of shaking the very foundation of financial infrastructure.

What truly rattled FINMA was not a specific attack but rather what they viewed as an "attack multiplier." A FINMA spokesperson warned that under the influence of AI tools like Mythos, almost all existing software systems could potentially expose numerous previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities, all at the same time, and be exploited instantaneously. Regulators are concerned that AI compresses initially dispersed, slow, and randomly occurring security events into a highly synchronous chain exposure: once attackers have mastery of such tools, they can scan, discover, and exploit vulnerabilities that previously might have taken weeks or even months to unearth, magnifying manageable localized risks into comprehensive shocks permeating banks' front, middle, and back offices.

In this framework, FINMA's vision of Swiss banks "embracing AI" is no longer an innovative narrative but resembles a disaster scenario of an out-of-control exercise. If domestic banks were to widely adopt AI tools like Mythos, any zero-day vulnerability discovered and exploited via AI would unlikely remain confined to a single business line: on one hand, the Swiss banking system is highly interconnected with cross-border capital flows and custody systems, where core ledgers, payment pipelines, custody, and trading interfaces have already formed a highly coupled structure. If one area gets breached, it can easily spill over to other banks and infrastructure providers through shared components, reused code, or unified vendors. On the other hand, as a significant global financial center, Switzerland's financial infrastructure is embedded in settlement and custody links across various markets. Once a zero-day attack, amplified by AI, erupts from the Swiss side, failures and distrust will not stop at national borders; they will spill through cross-border capital and asset custody networks, compelling other jurisdictions to reassess their tolerance for similar AI tools.

Amid these concerns, FINMA directly flagged AI models like Mythos, characterized as "uncontrolled and immediately usable," as systemic risks, essentially sending the same signal to banks and global regulatory peers: AI is no longer just a tool choice for tech departments, but rather a security boundary issue concerning whether financial infrastructure can withstand the pressures of "zero-day synchronous exposure." Whoever first introduces this "systemic bomb" into the production environment must be prepared to pay the price for the worst outcomes of the interconnected financial system.

DeFi Alliance Pushes SEC for Clear Rules

At the same time Swiss regulators labeled AI as a "systemic bomb," the crypto industry across the ocean chose a different approach to confront uncertainty—not hitting the pause button but knocking on the regulator's door demanding clear rules.

This time, the front figures were organizations like the DeFi Education Fund and the Digital Chamber. They jointly submitted a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), straightforwardly presenting their core demand: please initiate a formal rulemaking process for DeFi and no longer let the entire industry guess where the red lines are among vague statements and case punishments.

The joint letter did not start from scratch to ask the SEC to "reinvent" a set of logic but seized on something the SEC had already stated. Previously, SEC staff had openly stated that certain non-custodial software user interfaces used for trading cryptocurrencies do not need to register as broker-dealers. For DeFi developers and front-end operators, this statement was a rare "bright line": as long as they do not touch custodial services or fund controls, they could possibly remain within the regulatory tolerance zone.

The problem is that this was merely a staff-level declaration, not rules set through formal procedures. Today's "can-do" could easily be rewritten quietly in another speech or a memo tomorrow. Therefore, the joint letter explicitly stated that the industry not only endorses this position but also urges the SEC to anchor it as binding formal rules—ensuring that "non-custodial DeFi user interfaces do not need to register as broker-dealers" is not merely a situational comfort but is written into verifiable regulatory texts.

Pushing the SEC into formal rulemaking is not an abstract procedural preference for these organizations but a result of the current power dynamics. Thus far, the SEC has not published specialized, comprehensive formal rules on DeFi, and the industry has largely had to rely on staff public statements and enforcement outcomes to piece together a compliance map. When enforcement guidance is unclear, any internal positions, minutes, or speech rhetoric can be subsequently used to "reverse-engineer" regulatory intentions; verbal statements can change, the scale of cases can vary, and what won’t drift is only the written rules after formal procedures have been completed.

From this perspective, the “challenge” by organizations like the DeFi Education Fund and Digital Chamber is essentially forcing the SEC to make a definitive choice: whether to continue relying on scattered enforcement signals and let the industry guess within the gray area or to establish a set of public and transparent rulemaking processes to solidify the existing staff stance, delineating a predictable compliance pathway for non-custodial DeFi fronts. At a time when AI is seen as systemic risk, and regulatory tolerance tightening overall, this joint letter aims not just to secure space for specific software interfaces but rather to secure a regulatory commitment that can withstand the tests of time and personnel changes.

Dual Tracks of AI Alarm and DeFi Breakthrough

On the same Friday, two seemingly unrelated threads were intertwined: on one side, Swiss FINMA focused on Anthropic's AI tool Mythos, publicly labeling such “uncontrolled, ready-to-use” models as “systemic risks”; on the other side, U.S. DeFi organizations slammed a joint letter on the SEC's doorstep, hoping to anchor the prior staff-level position of “non-custodial fronts do not need to register as broker-dealers” into formal regulations.

FINMA's stance is a typical preventive regulatory position. It did not wait for an incident to occur or a vulnerability to be exploited; it issued alarms directly from a systemic level: if banks are allowed to quickly and conveniently access AI tools like Mythos, almost all existing software systems might simultaneously expose numerous previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities and be exploited immediately. The target here is not a specific institution's innovation but rather the security threshold of the entire financial infrastructure. Regulators are concerned that if such tools are widely deployed, they could geometrically amplify the “attack surface” at the underlying level—this reflects a typical “better to hit the brakes now than deal with the aftermath later” approach.

The U.S. DeFi camp has taken a different route. They did not wait for the SEC to act but chose to go on the offensive, elevating the pivotal statement previously given by SEC staff—“certain non-custodial software user interfaces used for trading cryptocurrencies do not need to register as broker-dealers”—to the level of rulemaking. Organizations like the DeFi Education Fund and Digital Chamber jointly requested that the SEC initiate a formal rulemaking process to solidify an unformalized statement into a predictable regulatory boundary. Here, the industry is not passive, rather it tries to use procedural means to stand firmly by a door already pushed open by staff.

The collision of these two routes creates a dual perspective of “tightening AI, advocating for DeFi.” AI tools like Mythos, directly embedded within the infrastructure of the financial system, are viewed as variables capable of altering systemic fragility; the first reaction from regulators is to treat them as potential "systemic risks," prioritizing risk prevention measures. On the other hand, DeFi protocols and non-custodial fronts directly connect users and assets, theoretically more aligned with the power boundaries of traditional securities regulation, yet due to regulatory voids, they are forced to rely on staff statements and case enforcement as they navigate forward. Thus, within the same timeframe, we see that regulation on the AI side is tightening from a risk-centric angle while the DeFi side is actively driving efforts to open a formally recognized compliance space within the gray area.

For cross-border institutions, this is not two disconnected battles but rather two interlinked fronts on the same compliance map. A financial or tech institution licensed in Switzerland and operating DeFi-related business in the U.S. is likely to face two sets of pressures simultaneously: in Switzerland, accessing AI tools like Mythos will be closely scrutinized and may even be seen as potentially crossing systemic risk red lines; while in the U.S., there is an expectation to proactively upgrade compliance designs for non-custodial fronts along the lines of possibly emerging DeFi regulations, embedding their operations into a framework acceptable to the SEC.

This means compliance costs are no longer linearly increasing but instead manifesting in a “dual overlay of security and rules” form: on one hand, resources must be invested to assess and control the impact of AI tools on existing system security boundaries to avoid being classified as "high-risk players" introducing systemic risks; on the other hand, for DeFi-related businesses, stakeholders must follow and even anticipate the direction of SEC regulations, adjusting product architectures and disclosure strategies to prove their position on the "non-custodial and no need for registration" safe side. Regulators and the industry are alternating between attacks and defenses on both AI and DeFi dimensions, forcing global crypto and financial institutions to rewrite their technology stacks, risk models, and compliance roadmaps.

Conclusion of Powell's Investigation Alleviates Political Clouds

A third thread affecting market nerves at the same time, beyond the AI risk and DeFi rule game, is the criminal investigation surrounding the Federal Reserve's highest levels. The U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation against Chairman Jerome Powell due to the budget overruns related to the Fed’s headquarters renovation project, directing questions towards how this symbol of monetary power's “shell” exceeded the budget.

Insiders revealed that the Justice Department expects to conclude its criminal investigation of Powell as early as April 24 and transfer the case to internal oversight for further handling. Externally, this indicates a pause in the “criminal risk” segment, transitioning to a process-led accountability predominantly overseen by the internal inspection system: more of a review at the documentation, procedural, and compliance levels, rather than the looming threat of judicial hammers.

This developmental step is amplified not due to the renovation project itself but because of its entanglement with the Fed Chair position and the appointment process of his successor. Once the DOJ’s criminal investigation remains unresolved, any discussions surrounding Powell's status, successor nominations, or Senate confirmations inevitably carry the tags of “procedurally unclear” and “investigation pending.” Ending criminal investigations and moving cases into internal oversight are seen as critical nodes for clearing these procedural hurdles—not to convict or exonerate anyone but to allow nominations and confirmations to proceed under the premise that “the investigation framework has clarified.”

For both the crypto market and the broader financial market, the dissipation of such political clouds relates less to individual fates and more to institutional continuity. The stability and independence of the Federal Reserve leadership are seen as core anchors impacting monetary policy expectations and risk appetites: who occupies the chairman's seat corresponds to the style of decision-making, the attitude towards financial regulation, and whether they can maintain consistency in policy paths under external pressure.

During the window period when Swiss regulatory authorities issued systemic risk alerts for AI tools, U.S. industry organizations pressured the SEC for clear DeFi rules, the outcome expectations from Powell's investigation set new boundaries for this series of uncertainties. For the market, at least at the central bank level, the procedural uncertainties surrounding “who has the authority to decide” are beginning to be clarified, allowing discussions on monetary policy and regulation to return to the paths themselves rather than being led astray by procedural disputes.

Next Moves in Crypto Under a Redrawn Regulatory Landscape

In the same timeframe, Swiss FINMA triggered a systemic alert regarding Anthropic's AI tool Mythos, while U.S. DeFi industry organizations compelled the SEC to initiate formal rule making, and the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is expected to wrap up and be transferred to internal oversight—all three threads are not isolated news fragments but rather three new coordinates dropping simultaneously on the global regulatory map: one embedded on AI safety and financial infrastructure, one on the compliance vacuum for DeFi, and one on the authority and institutional stability of central banks.

On the AI front, regarding the specific technical capabilities of the Mythos model, the attitudes of global regulatory bodies, and potential events, there remains much information to be verified. However, FINMA has made its position clear: allowing banks to quickly and conveniently use uncontrolled, immediately usable AI models like Mythos will be viewed as systemic risk, potentially allowing almost all existing software systems to expose a large number of previously unknown zero-day vulnerabilities simultaneously and be exploited instantly. For financial and crypto institutions still accelerating AI adoption, the real suspense does not lie in the alarm itself but rather in the next step: whether FINMA will push for broader restrictions on AI tools and whether other jurisdictions will follow suit, increasing “uncontrolled AI” to a cross-border regulatory consensus.

On the DeFi front, organizations like the DeFi Education Fund and Digital Chamber have submitted a joint letter to the SEC requesting the initiation of a formal rulemaking process for DeFi and seeking to formalize the SEC staff's previous position that “some non-custodial software user interfaces for trading cryptocurrencies do not need to register as broker-dealers.” But so far, the SEC has yet to publish comprehensive, dedicated formal rules on DeFi, leaving the industry largely dependent on staff statements and case enforcement as compliance guidance. The key suspense here is whether the SEC will accept these industry demands, formally commence rule-making processes, and respond with the speed and technical definitions involved. This will directly decide how much “compliance space” future DeFi fronts will have in terms of functional design, authority boundaries, and legal disclosures to users.

On the central bank and judicial side, the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal investigation surrounding the Federal Reserve's headquarters renovation project is expected to conclude and be moved to internal oversight; the end of the investigation has been considered helpful in alleviating uncertainties related to the nomination and confirmation process of Powell's successor. What remains unresolved is whether, after a round of public investigation and scrutiny under a political magnifying glass, the independence of the Federal Reserve’s leadership will still be viewed equally by the market and political system, and whether its future policy path can shed the shadows of “procedural turmoil.” The independence of the Federal Reserve has long been regarded as a key factor affecting monetary policy expectations and financial market risk appetites; any wavering in this layer of confidence could inversely amplify the entire crypto and traditional finance's volatility expectations.

For participants in the crypto industry, these three regulatory threads converge into a strategic observation coordinate that must be tracked simultaneously. Firstly, in terms of AI safety and compliance, any institution embedding large models like Mythos into trading, risk controls, or infrastructure must prepare for the narrative of “zero-day vulnerabilities being amplified” to have already been established: before global unified standards are in place, dependencies on AI for automated decision-making, code generation, or security audits should be met with complementary internal controls, usage boundaries, and auditable records to prevent future classification under regulatory terms as “uncontrolled use.”

Secondly, in regard to the design and compliance disclosure of DeFi fronts, teams regardless of their location should assume that the currently relied-upon “staff positions” may be rewritten into formal rules at any time: making non-custodial, role-segregated, risk-disclosed, and accountable frameworks adjustable and verifiable, rather than fully lock the business model into the present enforcement angle. The joint letter is merely the first step in pushing the SEC, not a protective umbrella; the real risk lies in whether the projects have prepared the technical and business flexibility needed for when “rules suddenly arrive.”

Thirdly, in the context of macro policy uncertainties, from the anticipated conclusion of the Federal Reserve investigation to future policy decision paths, any information still lingering at the “expected”, “planned”, or “insider sources say” stage should not be treated as a certain basis for long-term layout. Be it trading strategies, financing plans, or on-chain system designs, they must be constructed under the assumption of multiple central bank pathways and regulatory rhythms to avoid locking a single scenario within a model.

When the Swiss regulatory alarm, the U.S. DeFi petition, and the expected conclusion of the Federal Reserve investigation overlap on the same day, policy uncertainties have not simply diminished; they are being partially dissolved while simultaneously reconstructed. For the crypto industry, the next move is not to await the arrival of a “final answer” but rather to set up adjustable spaces amid the triple uncertainties of AI safety, DeFi compliance, and macro policy—treating every new regulatory signal as a pressure test of their elastic boundaries rather than a reason for a one-time bet.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram Community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit 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。