At the beginning of May 2026, Consensus Miami was quickly viewed as a "launch event" signaling a new round of regulatory changes both within and outside the industry: on one side, Nasdaq President Tal Cohen described how the SEC transitioned from treating all gray areas as no-fly zones to allowing construction, expansion, and experimentation in those gray areas, claiming that the current SEC is more friendly, constructive, and proactive than before, with market operators once again permitted to build blockchain infrastructure and promote asset tokenization; on the other side, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand stated that she would not support the cryptocurrency market structure bill if it did not include ethical clauses, clearly demanding that members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and senior executives refrain from profiting from the cryptocurrency-related industry using their insider identities or public office conveniences, responding to public concerns about the politicization of cryptocurrency and conflicts of interest. On the surface, one is loosening regulations for the market, while the other is imposing restrictions on officials, but the common main theme behind their speeches is publicly redrawing the red line for the industry: as regulation shifts from a singular "comprehensive crackdown" to "allowing construction," it must also lock the proximity of public officials to this new gray area within stricter moral boundaries.

Reopening the Gray Area: A Sudden Shift in SEC Enforcement Attitude

During the years under Gary Gensler's leadership, the SEC left the industry with a different picture: almost all new assets were pre-designated as suspects of "unregistered securities" as soon as they launched, with the gray area equated to a forbidden zone—whoever steps into it must prepare for lawyers and settlement payments. Project teams learned to take detours, trading platforms learned to "suspend first and talk later," and infrastructure providers became accustomed to pushing all controversial businesses offshore or off-chain. So-called innovation was forcibly packed into a self-censorship box labeled "don't provoke regulators," with the gray area understood as an enforcement minefield, rather than an experimental zone.

Therefore, when Nasdaq President Tal Cohen stated at Consensus Miami that "the SEC used to consider the gray area a no-fly zone, but now allows for construction, scaling, and experimentation within it," he was not making a rhetorical statement, but rather announcing a redefined enforcement boundary. His words about being "more friendly, constructive, and proactive" mean that the SEC no longer automatically views every uncertain business line as a potential violation—it is now allowed to first build infrastructure and pilot tokenized assets in areas where regulatory clarity has yet to be fully established, and then engage in dialogue with regulators during the process. The directly affected parties are market operators involved in matching and custody, infrastructure companies providing on-chain settlement and identity verification, and tokenized asset pilots that have been put on hold—they are explicitly informed that they can return to the gray area to continue building and validating business models. However, this is also a conditional "reopening": once the enforcement attitude shifts to "look at the results first and then determine legality," the success or failure of each pilot in the future will, in turn, determine how much of this newly opened gray area can be retained.

The Ethical Clause as a Gate: Congress Needs to Restrain Its Own

As the gray area reopens, Gillibrand has set another gate at the doors of Congress. She specified at Consensus Miami that if the cryptocurrency market structure bill does not embed ethical clauses, such a bill should not gain legislative support. In other words, the industry is not being granted unconditional "regulatory relief," but rather a permission with preconditions—before allowing market operators and infrastructure companies to reexperiment, it must first be clearly defined who is making the rules and who is qualified to profit from those rules. Gillibrand directly pointed the finger at members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and senior executives, demanding that these "gatekeepers" who hold information and approval power must not leverage their insider identities or public office conveniences to profit from the cryptocurrency-related industry.

This ethical gate targets the profit pathways between power and capital, rather than the on-chain behavior of ordinary users. As the cryptocurrency industry expands and intersects more deeply with politics, public and legislative anxiety regarding "cryptocurrency politicization" and power rent-seeking is rising, and Gillibrand's remarks effectively inscribe this anxiety into the legislative process itself: any future market structure rules must predicate on public officials accepting higher moral constraints. For the industry, this means that a new gaming framework is taking shape—one side is the SEC allowing construction, expansion, and experimentation in the gray area, while the other side is Congress attempting to use ethical clauses to establish a "firewall" for itself, blocking the transformation of information advantages and positional conveniences into personal profits. How much the regulatory space expands will ultimately depend on whether this gate can truly lock out those who make the rules.

Allowing Innovation While Blocking Power Rent-Seeking

The scene at Consensus Miami is akin to a well-coordinated combination strike: on one side is Tal Cohen's description of the SEC's shift—moving from viewing the gray area as a no-fly zone to now permitting "construction, expansion, and experimentation" within it, restoring the freedom to build blockchain infrastructure and tokenized assets to market operators; on the other side, Gillibrand made her position clear: if the cryptocurrency market structure bill doesn’t include ethical clauses, she would not support it, stating that members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and senior executives can no longer treat the cryptocurrency-related industry as a field to profit from using identity and information advantages. Regulation and legislation are each taking action on the same stage—one loosening the space for technological and product experiments, the other tightening the space for public officials’ interests in the political and regulatory lobbying chain.

For the industry, this division extends the question of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation from "is this asset legal?" to "who can participate and in what role?": the SEC, at the asset and market structure level, is shifting from a previously blunt enforcement approach to permitting trials in areas that are not fully clear first before making determinations; Congress, on the other hand, is attempting to use ethical clauses to lock the rule-makers and overseers out of potential profit chains in response to public concerns over cryptocurrency politicization and conflicts of interest. The brief’s assessment is that the U.S. path is shifting from past "comprehensive crackdowns" to "refined strategic games." Future regulations will no longer simply delineate asset categories but will redefine the boundaries between technological innovation and power rent-seeking, clarifying the behaviors that different participants are allowed or prohibited.

New Compliance Boundaries for Platforms and Project Teams Elevated to the Political Level

As the gray area reopens for infrastructure and tokenization experiments, the new "badge of allegiance" that platforms and project teams are asked to present is inscribed at the political level. Tal Cohen's mention of "regaining the freedom to build blockchain infrastructure and tokenized assets" means that exchanges, custodians, and tokenization teams can once again tell stories around underlying facilities, but Gillibrand's ethical clauses simultaneously encapsulate the interest chains between public officials and the cryptocurrency industry: members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and senior executives must not use their public office advantages to profit from related industries. In other words, the past pathways relying on "political endorsements," "official advisory boards," and "former regulatory officials speaking on behalf" to hedge regulatory uncertainties are starting to reverse the compliance exposure points under the environment of rising conflict of interest rules; any misstep in the design of collaborations with the political sphere, hiring consultants, or equity arrangements could be reinterpreted as rent-seeking.

For platforms and project teams, the compliance governance structures, information disclosure, and internal controls that the U.S. has consistently emphasized will no longer just be internal technical details for financial institutions but rather the only legitimate discourse to replace political relationships and gain regulatory trust. Exchanges need to use transparent trading rules and risk isolation to explain "we will not allow public officials to enjoy invisible privileges," custodians must demonstrate "any profit arrangements are traceable," and tokenized projects should focus on underlying compliance structures rather than who is merely listed on the board. The industry has shifted from "who knows whom" to "can the system be publicly scrutinized," and whoever successfully completes this narrative switch first will be qualified to continuously obtain experimental space within the new gray area.

Transitioning from the Shadow of Strong Regulation to a New Normal in Strategic Negotiation: What Signals Should the Industry Watch?

From these signals, the shift in American regulation is not merely a simple "loosening," but rather a rewriting of the allocation of power: the enforcement side has transitioned from Gary Gensler's era of viewing all gray areas as no-fly zones to Tal Cohen's portrayal of a more friendly, constructive, and proactive posture that "allows construction, expansion, and experimentation in gray areas." Meanwhile, the legislative side, spurred by Gillibrand, has positioned the moral clause prohibiting public officials from profiting through cryptocurrency-related identities as a prerequisite for gaining political support for any market structure bill. This suggests that while the innovation space has been reopened, power rent-seeking has been locked into a narrower gate. Consensus Miami remains a stage for narratives, but in the short term, the true changes in boundaries will only come from the SEC's subsequent characterizations and exemption practices in specific cases, rather than optimistic statements from a conference; similarly, the long-term institutional environment for the industry will not hinge on slogans about "whether legislation will occur" but on how Congress ultimately votes on ethical clauses and what provisions are written into the laws. For platforms and project teams, the two types of signals to closely monitor going forward are whether the SEC continues to uphold that "buildable gray area" in actual enforcement and whether Congress's final vote on ethical clauses formally integrates the cryptocurrency industry into an expected political and ethical framework.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX perks group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance perks 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。