Trump administration warns: If crypto exchanges cannot unify plans, the White House may revoke bill support

NonFungibleDegen · 2026-01-17T02:12:12+00:00

The White House expressed dissatisfaction with the unilateral action of a certain compliant trading platform and threatened to withdraw support for the Cryptocurrency Market Structure Act. The government emphasized the need for industry-wide consensus and stated that a single company should not represent the entire industry. It clearly indicated that this is a bill led by Trump, not a private matter of any founder.

NonFungibleDegen

2026-01-17 02:12:12

Abstract generation in progress

【ChainNews】According to the latest news, there is significant dissatisfaction within the White House regarding the recent actions of a major compliant trading platform. Insiders reveal that if the platform cannot produce a yield agreement scheme that satisfies both the banking system and industry stakeholders, the White House is seriously considering withdrawing support for the Cryptocurrency Market Structure Act.

The incident was triggered by this platform’s “unilateral” action on Wednesday—completely unbeknownst to the White House. The official stance is very clear: this is a breach of trust in the White House and the entire industry. More importantly, the White House has sent a strong signal—that a single company cannot unilaterally speak on behalf of the entire industry.

The government’s position is very clear: “Ultimately, this is a bill led by President Trump, not a private project of any company founder.” This statement reflects the government’s demand for industry coordination—that a consensus across the entire industry is necessary to advance related policy frameworks.

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ser_ngmi

· 01-20 01:55

Is this coming up again? Just do whatever the White House says? Really thinking of yourself as the boss. Threatening tactics from the government are outdated. Saying they'll revoke support and then actually revoke support—sooner or later they'll have to come back and beg the project team. If individual companies can't speak out, then who can... It's all up to politicians sitting in their offices, just thinking on the spot? This is what they call compliance... I see it as just political game-playing. The key is that those banks don't want crypto to move at all. No matter how good the protocol plan is, it's all useless.

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 01-19 22:39

Haha, is this the legendary "messing up"? Operating unilaterally and still daring to hide from the White House, just asking for trouble. --- Starting the political game again. You promised support, but as soon as you're dissatisfied, you want to withdraw. I know this routine too well. --- Wait, does the banking system also need to be satisfied? This is serving traditional finance, so what’s it called—decentralization? --- Really? Can one company eliminate entire industry legislation? That influence is a bit scary. --- Basically: Listen to me, don’t be clever, or I’ll flip the table. --- I just want to know how that platform feels right now. Maybe they’re sweating in the office, haha. --- Government threatens to withdraw support? Then all those previous promises were empty. No wonder nobody trusts them. --- Industry-wide consensus? How is that possible? Interests are different. That’s just empty talk. --- Now it’s good. Centralized exchanges still want to play politics, but end up getting counterattacked. Serves them right.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 01-17 02:36

Ha, another scene of the "I represent the industry" flop, I know this script too well. Wait, the White House withdraws support? Doesn't that mean returning to the initial state, and our bottom-fishing funds will be reset again, right? Unilateral action gets called out by the authorities, how much do they have to pay to calm things down... No, I should be asking how much the platform will compensate me. I'm truly the king of negative alpha in political games, never stepping on the right timing. This time, who will become the bag-holder? I bet on the prospect of five contracts being automatically liquidated.

View OriginalReply0

Fren_Not_Food

· 01-17 02:25

This is getting serious. Unilateral actions have directly angered the White House... Looks like we have to play it safe and stick together.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 01-17 02:24

Here we go again with the same old trick... Acting unilaterally will only get you hurt; the rules of this battlefield haven't changed. If the government's supply lines are cut off, no one will survive. --- Regulatory platforms going solo? Well, that’s what happens when you haven’t been through setbacks. The White House is setting the rules—only unity can help us survive and move forward. --- I just want to ask, who gave you the guts to operate unilaterally? Isn’t this a suicide mission? Those who dare to play like this in a market cycle would have long become cannon fodder. --- Taking back support... Just hearing this is enough to cut deep. Trying to monopolize without industry-wide consensus? How will history record you? --- Compromise is the way to survive. The first rule of trading discipline is not to provoke the government. Now, even the support for bills is disappearing. --- This move directly pushes the entire industry into a fire pit. Where is the control of losses? What happened to the promised industry coordination? --- Survival first, representing the entire industry? Do you deserve it? That’s why I never believe a single platform can handle the policy framework. --- Just listen to the White House’s warning; the next step might really be to strike. Anyone with a bit of brains should understand who is really in charge now.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomMiner

· 01-17 02:13

Ha, starting this again, does the government keep its word... Wait, are you really that angry about unilateral actions? Feels like there's some trickery involved. This move is probably to scare others into compliance; anyone who dares to act up will lose support. Honestly, it's still a power game. Exchanges are caught in the middle, it's too difficult. But on the other hand, can they really unite and get through this? I'm a bit skeptical... This is political bargaining chips, and cryptocurrency keeps going through these ups and downs. Damn, the threat level is pretty intense...

View OriginalReply0