Let's discuss the impact on crypto if Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a staunch advocate of crypto, were to become chair of the Senate Banking Committee. There's been concern lately that crypto might face scrutiny if the Democrats gain control of Congress, especially after the Wall Street Journal reported that Warren would be slated to chair the Senate Banking Committee in January 2027. This concern intensifies. Let's return to the framework we discussed a few days ago regarding the "scandal" of President Mahmoud Abdul-Jabbar: From the perspective of the distinction between legislative and executive powers, what can and cannot Warren or the Democrats do? 1. Let's look at Warren's stance on crypto: 1) Anti-money laundering obligations should extend to crypto networks. She wants regulations to cover more wallet service providers, miners, validators, and other participants. 2) Protect the traditional financial system and depositors. She is particularly concerned that banks will bring crypto risks into deposit, credit, and payment systems. 3) Prevent circumventing securities laws through tokenization. She opposes companies receiving more lenient treatment than traditional securities simply by putting assets on the blockchain. 4) Limit politicians from profiting through crypto. Since Trump's second term, conflicts of interest have become a key tool for her to push for investigations and block legislation. 2. First, the Democrats control a majority in Congress, and Warren became chair of the Senate Banking Committee. The Senate Banking Committee has considerable power, but it is a legislative and oversight body and cannot directly replace regulatory agencies in enforcement. Its responsibilities include banks, securities markets, currency, and financial institutions. What can it do? 1) Push for a new crypto legislation agenda. Warren's opposition to the Clarity Act this year was a crucial step, especially regarding the ethics clause. Will Warren push for a new, more stringent legislative process? Most likely. However, we must recognize that this year, with Republicans holding a majority in both houses, they were unable to garner sufficient Democratic support for the Clarity Act, nor could they overcome the Senate's procedural hurdles. Therefore, in the next two years, Democrats will likely face Republican resistance when pushing for new, comprehensive crypto legislation. Ordinary bills typically only require a simple majority to pass in the Senate, but when faced with obstruction, ending debate generally requires an absolute majority of 60 votes. Another scenario is that even if the Democrats successfully pass a hard bill in both houses, Trump can still veto it. Overturning a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, a higher threshold. Therefore, without significant compromises from both sides, both drastically relaxed and drastically tightened new crypto legislation may face difficulties in progress. Warren's hardline stance will not automatically become law simply because she becomes committee chair. 2) Escalate the scrutiny of Trump's crypto business into an ongoing committee investigation. However, it needs to be clarified that congressional investigations and hearings do not automatically constitute criminal convictions. In fact, I welcome the investigation into Trump's crypto business; its impact is indeed very negative. The Banking Committee will likely launch a series of investigations into the SEC, CFTC, and crypto companies, which will impact the crypto market. However, it must be clear that congressional investigations and hearings are limited to this and do not equate to criminal convictions. Further action would require the Department of Justice to cooperate in providing litigation, but the Department of Justice will remain under Republican control for the next two years. 3) Decide on Trump's nominations for financial regulatory positions. If Trump nominates commissioners for the SEC and CFTC in the next two years, this appointment process will require approval from the Banking Committee. 3. She also advocates separating legislative and executive powers. For the next two years, the chairmen of the SEC and CFTC will remain Republicans, pushing forward policies within the statutory authority of these regulatory agencies without congressional approval. Warren can require agency heads to attend hearings, explain policy rationale, request relevant documents, and publicly criticize overly lenient exemptions. These oversight actions themselves do not automatically halt or invalidate policies. For example, the SEC's conditional exemption for tokenized stock trading in September and the CFTC's preliminary consultation on the CTX/CAM framework in October both utilize existing legal authorizations. Therefore, assuming Trump continues in office and the SEC and CFTC leadership continues to support crypto development, even if Republicans fail to obtain new legislation, regulatory agencies can still use their existing authority to move forward. Democrats, on the other hand, typically need to overcome legislative and presidential veto hurdles to fundamentally change these authority or forcibly tighten policies. 4. Of course, this doesn't mean there will be no impact. Overall: Warren can block new legislation and significantly increase regulatory and corporate pressure, making comprehensive legislation difficult and facing more intensive oversight and legal controversies. Some policies may slow things down, and some exemptions may be narrowed. Agencies may also add more restrictions to strengthen the legal basis of the rules. A strongly worded hearing could cause market tension and shocks. However, existing crypto policies within their mandates can continue to be implemented, and the SEC and CFTC will also pursue new policies within their respective jurisdictions. The crypto regulatory environment in the next two years will not actually be more stringent than in 2023-2024 (when Democrats were in power, held a Democratic majority in the Senate, and controlled the CFTC and the Department of Justice).