2026-01-14 02:51:02

#密码资产动态追踪 U.S. lawmakers have submitted over 130 amendments ahead of the crypto market regulation hearing. This reflects the differing positions and eventual compromises between the two parties on this hot-button issue.

Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic camp's concerns are very clear—investor protection comes first. They prioritize preventing financial risks, cracking down on insider trading, and stopping public officials from benefiting personally. In other words, they want to regulate the market with stricter standards.

On the other hand, Republicans represented by Cynthia Lummis and Tim Scott have a different approach. They want to create more space for innovation, with the key being to clarify legal boundaries. Protect developers who write code, delineate regulatory authority among different agencies, and prevent an industry from being stifled by multiple departments at once. $BTC $ETH Market participants have long had opinions on this.

Interestingly, although the two parties have different concerns, they both agree on one reality—the current regulation is too fragmented. The entire industry is dispersed across various agencies, leading to inefficiency and uncertainty. Establishing a nationwide unified framework has become a consensus. Even on amendments related to stablecoin yields, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have jointly submitted proposals, which is quite rare in politics.

BTC3,34%

ETH6,32%

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.

16 Likes

Reward
16
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SandwichTrader

· 2h ago

Ha, over 130 amendments? This really means they want to scrutinize the entire crypto market from top to bottom. Warren's side wants strict risk control, which we understand, but on the other hand, I support the logic of the Lummis group—don't let developers and entrepreneurs be strangled by multiple departments at the same time, that's indeed a big problem. Both sides agree that fragmented regulation is a mess, which is a breakthrough. It's just unclear whether this final unified framework can truly give the industry a clear expectation, rather than causing some new surprises again.

View OriginalReply0

TokenVelocityTrauma

· 7h ago

More than 130 amendments? Haha, American politicians really know how to stir things up. Warren wants strict regulation, Lummis wants to loosen it, but in the end, won't they have to meet halfway? Anyway, our BTC should still rise, and by the time these folks are busy arguing, the coin has already moved.

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 7h ago

lol 130+ amendments? that's just theater bro. warren's crying wolf again while lummis actually gets it—devs need breathing room not handcuffs. but here's the thing... unified framework might actually be the move. watch the bottom signals when it passes.

Reply0

WhaleWatcher

· 7h ago

Over 130 amendments? The efficiency is truly outrageous. It's better to first integrate the fragmented regulatory framework before doing anything else. --- Warren's approach is just trying to tightly control us. Lummis at least still wants to give developers some room to breathe. --- It's rare for both parties to have a unified understanding. That's the most terrifying signal. --- Joint proposals on stablecoins are quite uncommon. There might be some behind-the-scenes deals involved. --- Regulatory fragmentation should have been addressed long ago, but whether the new framework will be more suffocating remains to be seen. --- $BTC $ETH Following this political game fluctuation, it's a bit annoying. --- Protecting developers and clarifying authority boundaries sounds good, but the implementation is another matter. --- Both parties want a unified framework, so let's see whose version can win. --- Warren's rhetoric on investor protection sounds nice, but in reality, it's still about controlling this industry. --- So many amendments before the hearing—it's really quite a hassle.

View OriginalReply0