JPMorgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou's latest report serves as almost a check-up on the current state of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States: on the surface, agencies like the SEC, CFTC, and OCC are continuously "paving the way" through enforcement exemptions, filing guidance, and business licenses, navigating the gaps in existing regulations. These recent moves are clearly identified in the report as short-term positives, enough to encourage more institutions to attempt entry into the cryptocurrency ecosystem, reducing compliance costs from "unpredictable" to "barely calculable." However, he also emphasizes that the longstanding reliance of the U.S. on regulatory agency enforcement and administrative guidance rather than systematic legislation has reached its limit. Market structure bills like the "Clarity Act," which provide a clear framework for digital assets, have been stalled, with little progress in the Senate and the current year's passage likelihood evaluated as low, potentially delaying until 2027. The core judgment of the report is straightforward: only codified legislation can grant true durability to the regulatory framework. Until a comprehensive market structure bill is enacted, the political and legal risk premium perceived by institutions will remain high, and the window of regulatory temporary approval resembles a trial period that could be rewritten at any time, rather than a stable long-term institutional foundation on which to bet confidently.
Short-term path opening by agencies for institutional funds
In the gap created by the delayed legislative process, the SEC, CFTC, and OCC are acting as "traffic coordinators." Panigirtzoglou specifically names these three agencies in the report, arguing that they have created a temporary lane for institutional funds entering the cryptocurrency ecosystem through a mix of enforcement orientation and regulatory guidance: which assets are more easily regarded as compliant products, which business models are tacitly accepted during reviews, and which approval timelines have been effectively expedited are all providing large financial institutions with useful "signposts." In the absence of a codified market structure bill, these administrative signals are viewed by institutional investors as working hypotheses on which they can adjust product design, compliance architecture, and order of capital deployment, thereby lowering the psychological barriers to entering this asset class in the short term.
Consequently, the report assesses that this round of initiatives led by the SEC, CFTC, and OCC has partially offset the pessimism stemming from the stagnation of the "Clarity Act," resulting in a relatively optimistic market sentiment that focuses more on what favorable arrangements may still be introduced by regulatory authorities to facilitate institutional entry. However, in Panigirtzoglou's account, this "path opening" is clearly defined as an administrative channel rather than a finalized system; it relies both on the current government's regulatory philosophy and lacks legislative endorsement. Should the political landscape change—such as in the scenario mentioned in the report regarding party rotation—the current path could potentially be overturned within the next two years, leaving institutional funds navigating a channel that could be revoked at any time, rather than running steadily on a pre-laid statutory highway.
Collision of administrative easing and legislative vacuum
In Panigirtzoglou's view, the current U.S. cryptocurrency rules resemble a "soft framework" temporarily stitched together by agencies like the SEC and CFTC. For a long time, the market has been forced to rely on enforcement and guidance to discern boundaries: a single enforcement action, a settlement agreement, or a regulatory announcement has been treated by the market as new "rules." However, none of these are supported by comprehensive market structure legislation and are essentially only administrative actions taken by regulatory agencies to fill gaps in a legislative vacuum. The report clearly states a key signal—only through formal legislation can the regulatory framework achieve durability and stability—which indicates that all current "pass permits" encouraging institutional entry are merely temporary arrangements at the institutional level and not long-term commitments written into law.
The direct consequence of the lack of legislation is that the regulatory path is deeply intertwined with the political cycle. Panigirtzoglou warns that if market structure bills like the "Clarity Act" are not realized soon, the political and legal risk premium will continue to remain high: institutions must pay for the possibility that "rules could change in just a few years." The report even mentions specific scenarios—should the Democrats win the White House, existing cryptocurrency initiatives led by regulatory agencies could be overturned within two years, and the new administration could swiftly rewrite this soft framework by changing agency heads and altering enforcement priorities. The administrative easings opened up a temporary channel for funding that is strongly tied to the electoral cycle, rather than a codified order that remains effective across governmental changes. This represents the real costs brought to the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem and institutional funds due to the absence of legislation.
Senate deadlock and delays of the "Clarity Act"
In the imagination of Washington, the "Clarity Act" was supposed to be the main piece that ends the "regulatory puzzle"—establishing a clearer and more systematic regulatory framework for digital assets, providing borders and support for the individual enforcement and guidance from the SEC, CFTC, and OCC. It was designed to upgrade the current state of institutions publishing documents and negotiating case by case into predictable market structure rules, preventing institutional funds from having to conduct compliance assessments in gray areas. However, when it reached the Senate, the bill was put on hold: the Senate has yet to advance the "Clarity Act," and the legislative process has significantly stalled, leaving U.S. cryptocurrency regulation in a transitional state of "no comprehensive market structure bill but plenty of agency enforcement."
Panigirtzoglou quantifies this stagnation as a time risk in the report: in his view, the likelihood of the "Clarity Act" being passed this year is very low, with a more realistic expectation of a delay until around 2027 for it to become a reality. The significance of this judgment lies not in precisely pointing to a particular year, but in conveying a conclusion—that for a considerable period, the U.S. cryptocurrency market will operate under an incomplete regulatory framework, with political and legal risk premiums difficult to lower. Institutions and platforms can only continue to rely on the short-term "path opening" measures by agencies like the SEC, CFTC, and OCC to fine-tune their compliance pathways while needing to be prepared to handle the reversals brought about by the next government and shifts in enforcement tone. This coexistence of long-term legislative absence with short-term administrative easement is becoming the core source of uncertainty in the U.S. cryptocurrency ecosystem.
Institutional investors bear the cost of political risk
Within Panigirtzoglou's framework, the "high political and legal risk premium" is not an abstract concept but is directly reflected in the asset allocation and budget sheets of institutions. As long as comprehensive market structure legislation remains elusive, the long-term risk parameters of the U.S. cryptocurrency market cannot be adjusted downwards. Large financial institutions must raise the internal return rate threshold, increase cost reserves for compliance and legal lines, and specifically note the "regulatory uncertainty factor" in their models. The current market sentiment can be optimistic, and prices might respond positively to the favorable measures from the SEC, CFTC, and OCC, but funds directed towards a ten-year horizon will not ignore the systemic risks caused by the legislative absence. They consider this premium in their valuation discount rates and position weights in great detail.
JPMorgan's report even directly quantifies the scenario of party rotation in decision-making assumptions: if the Democrats regain the White House, the measures currently led by regulatory agencies could be overturned within two years. This means that products approved today, custodial paths, and platform partnerships must leave "policy rollback space." For large financial institutions participating in the U.S. cryptocurrency market, regulatory expectations are almost equivalent to investment premises. When designing products aimed at institutional clients, they prefer structures that allow for rapid exposure reduction, retain the flexibility to adjust service providers with regulatory changes in custodial options, and avoid forming deeply binding relationships that are hard to terminate in platform collaborations. In the absence of enduring legislative backing, institutional investors can only pay for the political uncertainties of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation with a higher risk premium and greater withdrawal margin.
Compliance game before the 2027 time window
Given Panigirtzoglou's expectation of a "possible delay until 2027," the U.S. cryptocurrency regulatory landscape is almost destined to continue fluctuating along the track of "agency-led actions with long-term legislative absence" for several years: the SEC, CFTC, and OCC will use enforcement, exemptions, and case-by-case convenience measures as interim paving, while the Senate continues to hold back on proceeding with the "Clarity Act," and market participants tentatively expand along this "administrative road" that can be recalled at any time. Regulatory agencies act as de facto rule-makers in the absence of a written market structure bill, while the legislature maintains political leeway by "not passing anything." Institutions and platforms bear the cost of this power distribution with higher political and legal risk premiums, viewing all present compliance boundaries as reversible negotiation outcomes rather than stable property rights. Panigirtzoglou's judgment is clear: recent measures can encourage funding entry but cannot replace the long-term stability brought by legislation. This also means that in the coming years, the truly significant regulatory signals worth tracking for platforms and projects are not just individual exemptions or guidance but the changes at three types of time points—first, whether the SEC, CFTC, and OCC will continue to "double down" with loosening administrative measures or revert back to a deterrent path focused on penalties and lawsuits; second, whether the Senate will suddenly resume deliberation of the "Clarity Act" within any session, pushing temporary compliance models toward irreversible codified rules; third, whether the change in the White House will trigger risks of overturning the existing administrative route within two years. At the intersection of these three uncertainties, every regulatory action before 2027 will become a key turning point for re-pricing the compliance boundaries of U.S. cryptocurrency.
Join our community, discuss together, and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
