2026-01-17 03:26:55

On January 17th, media reports revealed that an informed source disclosed the latest stance of the White House: if a compliant platform does not return to the negotiating table and reach a compromise with the banking industry on profit-sharing issues, the White House may completely withdraw its support for structural legislation on the crypto market.

The incident was triggered by the platform's unilateral action on Wednesday. The White House was quite dissatisfied—claiming they were completely unaware beforehand and describing it as "cutting off the source." Officials believe that one company should not make decisions on behalf of the entire industry. An informed source further stated sharply, "This is President Trump’s bill, not a bill of some platform CEO."

Background review: On January 15th, the platform’s CEO Brian Armstrong publicly stated that before the Senate Banking Committee votes on the revised comprehensive cryptocurrency legislation, the platform cannot support the current version of the bill. His reason was straightforward—this draft is actually worse than the current regulatory framework. Instead of passing a bad bill, it’s better to have no bill at all.

This policy tug-of-war reflects that even though both the industry and the government want to promote legislation, there are still significant disagreements on key issues such as profit distribution. The White House’s tough stance may indicate that subsequent negotiations will become even more complex.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MoneyBurner

· 2h ago

Huh? Armstrong totally screwed up. The White House directly issued a stern warning and withdrew support... Now the show begins. This is a typical case of "I represent the entire industry," but in the end, they got slapped in the face. They didn't negotiate profit sharing properly before going solo. Serves them right. If there's no bill? Then just continue to be stuck in the current framework and hold on tight. By then, it'll be too late to regret. Political game, everyone. Should we build positions now or wait and see? Who can see through this game... If you ask me, the White House's move wasn't bad. Armstrong indeed crossed the line, and the entire industry is being dragged down with him. Here's the arbitrage opportunity. The bill is still pending, and the crypto market will continue to fluctuate and take antacid. Let's wait and see the follow-up negotiations. I bet five bucks that in the end, there will still be a compromise. Otherwise, everyone will be uncomfortable.

View OriginalReply0

CrossChainBreather

· 2h ago

The phrase "釜底抽薪" is really well used; Armstrong's move this time is indeed a bit unconventional.

View OriginalReply0

BanklessAtHeart

· 2h ago

Haha, this is the crypto world. One CEO's words can drag the entire industry down. I really don't understand why Armstrong is speaking on behalf of everyone; this move is indeed a bit reckless. The White House's stance this time is serious; withdrawing support is like flipping the table, which is not worth the loss. That said, a bad bill is indeed worse than no bill, but the White House isn't joking either. It feels like the difficulty of this round of negotiations has skyrocketed; no one dares to be the first to back down.

View OriginalReply0

BagHolderTillRetire

· 2h ago

Oh no, this is awkward. Coinbase is determined to go solo. The White House's temper is indeed a bit harsh; withdrawing support is the end of it. All I can say is that the "representative" issue in the crypto circle still needs to be properly sorted out. Armstrong's move may seem tough, but it's actually a gamble. To put it simply, legislation still depends on negotiations; no one person can decide everything. Now it's starting over again. When will this ever end?

View OriginalReply0

nft_widow

· 2h ago

Huh? Armstrong is playing with fire. I've never seen the White House so angry before. --- It's another game of利益分配 (benefit distribution). Where is the promise of working together in the same boat? --- This is bad. If Old Trump really gets angry, it's not a joke. --- One platform representing the entire industry—this logic really doesn't hold up. --- Revoke support? What about us retail investors? Are we going to be cut again? --- Feels like negotiations are increasingly turning into bargaining at a marketplace haha. --- Is Coinbase's move a temper tantrum or do they really have confidence? I'm a bit confused. --- They're right. This shouldn't be a bill from a certain CEO. --- If you ask me, Armstrong just wants to attract attention, but it actually complicates things. --- If no compromise plan can be reached, the bill will die, which isn't good for anyone.

View OriginalReply0

HodlAndChill

· 2h ago

Haha, this is the politics of the crypto world. Wake up and we're back to tearing each other apart... --- CZ is out now, and it's Armstrong versus the White House. This plot is a bit outrageous. --- Basically, it's about uneven distribution of profits. Everyone wants a bigger share, and the bill has become a bargaining chip. --- "Bill not from the CEO is from the President," sounds like a threat. That's a pretty harsh move. --- Bad bills are better than no bills, but I really can't understand Armstrong's logic. --- This move by the government to cut off funding is brilliant. And they still have the nerve to say they didn't know? That's nonsense. --- This is the crypto world. The more you try to comply, the more you're eaten alive. So unlucky. --- Wait, will the White House really withdraw support? Or is it just another bluff? --- Brothers, whoever wins this time will have the pricing power. Let's watch and see.

View OriginalReply0