2026-01-17 04:00:36

#数字资产市场动态 The market has just received a major policy signal⚠️

According to reports, the White House is re-evaluating its stance on regulatory legislation for the crypto industry. The turning point is quite shocking—some leading exchanges bypassed established communication channels and unilaterally adjusted their policy positions. This move has touched the nerves of Washington's power centers and the traditional financial system.

The internal reaction within the White House is quite direct. Insiders reveal that decision-makers are dissatisfied with this "pre-emptive" approach, repeatedly emphasizing:
👉No exchange platform has the right to represent the entire industry
👉This is a presidential-level legislative issue, not a personal agenda of any CEO

**Short-term Risks**
The legislation may slow down or even be shelved, extending the period of policy uncertainty. Expectations for on-chain financial projects and stablecoins will turn bearish, and the market will once again realize: changing policies isn't something that can be achieved by lobbying a giant.

**But there are also long-term prospects**
The tough stance of the White House indicates that the crypto regulatory framework is still on the negotiation table. It requires re-negotiation, meaning there is still room for the industry to influence and amend policies. If a broader industry consensus can be established, the final rules may become more stable and resilient.

**My understanding of this matter**
This is not a crackdown on crypto, but a power play in setting the rules of the game. U.S. politics work this way—any legislation is a compromise among multiple interests, not the unilateral decision of a single entity.

What is truly worth vigilance is not the existence of the legislation itself, but:
- Industry scattered and fighting individually, ultimately being manipulated by regulators
- For crypto to integrate into mainstream finance, it must be prepared for long-term dialogue with traditional banking systems

**Core judgment**
This conflict will temporarily dampen market sentiment, but in the long run, it is paving the way for a "truly implementable" regulatory framework. Market participants need to develop skills beyond reading candlestick charts—they must also understand political dynamics and interest reorganization.

$BTC $ETH $XAI

BTC-0,38%

ETH-0,4%

XAI9,24%

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidationAlert

· 3h ago

The industry fighting on its own really messed up this time, and the White House's attitude doesn't seem like a joke. Some top exchanges' actions this time are indeed a bit reckless, thinking they can handle it alone? That's just wishful thinking. In the long term, there might still be a chance for the bill, but in the short term, the market sentiment needs to be suppressed for a while, and stablecoins will have to endure some hardship. Power struggles are like this; only those who understand political games can survive longer. Purely reading K-line charts are still far behind. What does this incident tell us? That you need to band together; lone wolves will ultimately be counterattacked. Wait, do those self-righteous VCs and exchange management truly understand American politics? It feels uncertain. This round of shakeouts doesn't seem to be over; be mentally prepared for a long-term dialogue.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrying

· 3h ago

Haha, some top-tier exchanges really think of themselves as the boss, and the White House was directly triggered, which is truly satisfying. If you ask me, these big V influencers always want to go solo but end up messing up the entire situation. Policies still need everyone to push together; playing as lone wolves really can't compete with Washington's approach. In the short term, it's definitely bearish, but in the long run, it might not be a bad thing. Anyway, crypto finance was never meant to be smooth sailing. Those guys still watching K-line charts should quickly brush up on political knowledge. Waiting for this wave of dust to settle before jumping in might be the wisest choice.

View OriginalReply0

rekt_but_resilient

· 3h ago

Ha, some exchanges are really digging their own graves. When the White House's temper flares and bills are directly frozen, we all have to take the hit. --- The internal industry conflicts will eventually pay a price; lone wolves deserve to be dealt with. --- Instead of relying on a certain CEO to lobby Washington, it's better to learn how to read the political chessboard. This is a must-have lesson for beginners. --- Short-term difficulties are real, but in the long run, being forced to sit down and negotiate might actually benefit crypto? At least the rules are clearer. --- Another period of policy uncertainty. Stablecoin holders should go to bed early these days. --- Basically, it's a reshuffling of power. No one should try to change the game rules alone. Do you understand political compromise?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeBeggar

· 3h ago

Ha, now a major exchange is really digging its own grave. The White House is setting the rules. --- Each industry fights its own battle, and sooner or later, it will be counterattacked. This time is a vivid lesson. --- To be honest, it's really tough in the short term, but this wave just shows that there is still a chance for negotiation, not a complete shutdown. --- Can one CEO represent the entire industry? Think too much, my friend. This is just the power educating the market. --- Wait, so is this bearish for on-chain finance or a long-term positive? My mind is a bit confused. --- Politics is just like this, a product of multi-party compromise. Compared to being hijacked by a giant, I actually think this is fairer. --- Understanding the political landscape is much harder than reading K-line charts. Most people are still obsessing over the price.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-ccc36bc5

· 3h ago

Speaking of which, this leading exchange is really bold—unilaterally changing policies and still wanting to represent the entire industry? They're just shooting themselves in the foot. In the end, the White House just thinks we're a bunch of scattered soldiers; we need to band together. Short-term pain is inevitable, but in the long run, could this actually be a positive? At least it shows that regulation is still in negotiation, not just rigid suppression. This political game is all about compromise among multiple parties; no one can decide everything alone. What we should learn is how to communicate with the system, not fight solo. Making quick money isn't that easy anymore; we need to play the long game.

View OriginalReply0

SeeYouInFourYears

· 3h ago

Damn, yet another exchange causing trouble, truly incredible. Directly hitting the White House's lungs, serves them right for getting called out. Some exchange thinks they are the big brother, but that doesn't represent the entire industry, stop talking nonsense. It will indeed cool off in the short term, but in the long run, this is actually a good thing. Someone needs to teach these big shots a lesson. To get cryptocurrency on the table, you have to learn to play political games, otherwise you'll just be waiting for a counterattack. Understanding politics is the key to making money, this is the real alpha. If the industry continues to fight separately like this, regulators will eventually slap us back. Actually, the White House move is quite clever; stirring things up means no one can monopolize everything. They don't care what the CEO thinks, only how the coin price moves. Retail investors are just caught in the middle, destined to be harvested. Let's wait until the political dust settles.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 3h ago

Haha, this is ridiculous. Does a certain leading exchange really want to represent the entire industry alone? The White House directly teaches manners in return. Those big institutions really need to learn to band together. A fragmented group ultimately ends up hurting retail investors like us. I mean, the policy game may seem risky, but in the long run, it’s actually beneficial for us... The real bottom line is not to let them see through our disagreements. After this incident, on-chain stablecoin expectations will probably need to be adjusted, but I still believe in the framework that can eventually be established. When it comes to the political landscape, it’s more valuable than any indicator. Why didn’t we pay more attention to this before?

View OriginalReply0