The impact of the Clarity Act on the US crypto market structure on the market after its passage Tell me my own opinion, which may be a bit objective, but buying shares often has little to do with objectivity. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify what the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in the United States is for, in order to determine which industries or targets it is beneficial for. 1. Reclassify the regulatory scope of SEC and CFTC Securities and tokenized securities will continue to be managed by the SEC, while eligible network tokens, digital commodities, and their spot trading markets will mainly be handed over to the CFTC. The Senate version also added the concepts of "network tokens" and "ancillary assets", allowing projects to demonstrate through disclosure and authentication procedures that tokens are no longer dependent on the project's ongoing operations, gradually shifting from securities regulation to digital commodity regulation. Speaking of which, this paragraph is indeed beneficial for some "altcoins", especially public chain projects, which were originally regulated by the SEC and can now be regulated by the CFTC. However, is this significant for a purely "coin issuing" project? 2. Provide a legal way for token financing The project party can be exempted through the new Regulation Crypto framework, with a maximum annual financing of $50 million and a four-year cumulative limit of $200 million. At the same time, initial and semi annual disclosures need to be submitted. This will significantly reduce the risk of US projects being deemed illegal securities issuances by the SEC when financed through tokens. Speaking of which, the advantage of this paragraph is the legal "ICO" of the project, and whether the project party will pull the market or not, there is no essential benefit, nor is there any benefit for the launch platform, because compliant ICO companies are likely to conduct on compliant launch platforms. 3. Establish a regulatory system for US spot cryptocurrency exchanges Digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and market makers need to register with the CFTC to implement customer asset segregation, conflict of interest management, market monitoring, information disclosure, anti money laundering, and sanction compliance. When digital commodities held by customers go bankrupt on the exchange, they will also be clearly recognized as customer property, reducing the risk of FTX style asset mixing again. Speaking of which, this paragraph is positive for US compliant trading platforms such as Coinbase Robinhood, but the actual impact on Coinbase is very low because Coinbase's compliance is already sufficient, and those who need to be registered have also been registered. Moreover, Coinbase is a listed company, and the market values performance more. It can be said that in terms of compliance, Coinbase is currently the ceiling for cryptocurrency exchanges in the United States. Of course, it is beneficial for platforms such as Coinbase Robinhood to develop new businesses, such as tokenized securities, which indeed expands. And for other exchanges or exchange branches preparing to enter or conduct business in the United States, the difficulty has increased. 4. Protecting DeFi developers, self hosted, and uncontrolled infrastructure People who simply develop software, run nodes, verify transactions, or provide non custodial services will not be automatically recognized as securities brokers or fund transfer providers just because their code is used by others, and federal agencies may not generally prohibit individuals from using self custodial wallets. However, teams that are able to freeze users, control protocols, and have special permissions may still be seen as centralized controllers, responsible for AML, sanctions, and financial institution obligations. To be honest, this paragraph may seem favorable for DeFi, but in reality, it is still acceptable for pure DeFi or decentralized wallets. However, if there are protocols on the chain that may pose money laundering risks, such as the previous Tornado and many privacy protocols, they will still be taken seriously. And this kind of benefit can be said to have been ignored in the past, and now it is highly likely to be ignored. It used to be risky, but now the risk is even greater. Will it become a reason for DeFi projects to pull back? 5. Stable coin returns are restricted Currently, the biggest controversy in the market is this one. Exchanges and service providers are not allowed to pay passive returns similar to bank deposit interest simply because users hold stablecoins, but rewards generated from real payments, transactions, or activities are still allowed. The regulation of stablecoin issuance is mainly handled by the already passed GENIUS Act, while CLARITY focuses more on the use of stablecoins in trading platforms and the overall market structure. Speaking of human language, many people believe that the biggest benefit after the clear bill is passed is stablecoins, such as CRCL or solana:USD1ttGY1N17NEEHLmELoaybftRBUSErhqYiQzvEmuB ， However, based on the current progress, the clear bill has limitations on the development of stablecoins, especially with regards to interest rates or subsidies that may not be feasible after the clear bill is passed. That is to say, Coinbase's 3.5% interest on USDC and USD1's airdrop of Ethereum: 0xda5e1988097297dc1f90d4dfe7909e847cbf6 to users are essentially prohibited by clear laws, which is not beneficial for the development of stablecoins. Although it saves some funds, expanding the market may be limited. Of course, if stablecoins and exchanges can find more suitable subsidy schemes that bypass clear laws, there is still a chance. So personally, I believe that if the clear bill includes restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, I cannot find any reason to favor Circle. If it is just compliance, to be honest, Circle is already compliant enough in the United States. The problem it faces is the same as Coinbase, where listed companies focus most on performance. 6. Banks can participate more clearly in blockchain business Banks, bank holding companies, and credit cooperatives can carry out blockchain payments, custody, lending, and trading within their original business authority, while promoting combined margin between securities, futures, and digital commodity accounts. To be honest, banks may offer collateralized loans for some cryptocurrencies or tokenized securities, which is indeed beneficial and should be good for some bank stocks. However, I cannot say specifically which ones will yield returns. The analysis section of the bill is missing! So overall, compliant exchanges in the United States are the most affected in terms of business development. The more compliant they are, the greater the advantage and the faster they can enter new tracks. Therefore, if the clear bill is passed, I personally think the advantage for COIN will be relatively greater. But for some decentralized exchanges, there may be problems. Custody, RWA, and tokenization infrastructure are medium - to long-term benefits, especially in the field of tokenized securities, which will have advantages. However, how can we say this? With the compliance of top exchanges and US stocks, the demand for on chain RWA or on chain US stocks will gradually be compressed. The next step will be to provide some help to the public chain industry, at least not to be criticized or killed by the SEC. However, public chains are more like listed companies, and just because the SEC ignores them, it does not necessarily mean they can pull in the market. The best example is ETH, which has already passed the spot ETF market and the SEC acknowledges that it is no longer a security. However, it is still a dead end, so policies may have a boosting effect, but the duration of the effect is still not optimistic. Then DeFi, wallets, and developer infrastructure will also benefit, but personally I feel that it is more targeted towards developers rather than a specific field or project, especially DeFi projects. When it comes to buying, you still need to look at the dog market. As for stablecoins, I believe that when they are passed, CRCL may give them a boost, but it is purely emotional. In fact, if the restrictions on stablecoin subsidies are not changed, I think a clear bill would be negative for stablecoins. End. Welcome to discuss, but as it involves CRCL, I have to say that it doesn't mean I'm bearish. I'm just discussing the matter on its own.