The United States has finally figured it out!

Introduction

On January 15, the U.S. Congress will cast the final vote on the CLARITY Act. On the surface, this appears to be regulatory legislation targeting the crypto industry; but on a deeper level, it reflects an important correction in the United States’ strategic positioning of crypto assets within the global financial competition landscape.

This is not the first time the U.S. has attempted to regulate crypto assets, but it is very likely the first time that it has chosen to abandon comprehensive suppression using uncertainty as a weapon, and instead to incorporate them into a controllable and absorbable institutional framework through legislation.

Figure 1: U.S. Congress

1. From “Enforcement Encirclement” to “Legislative Taming”: Why Has the U.S. Attitude Changed?

In recent years, the main approach of the U.S. towards the crypto industry has not been legislation, but enforcement.

The SEC has continuously expanded the interpretive boundaries of the “security” definition, bringing many crypto projects under the existing securities law framework. The core purpose of this approach is not to establish clear rules, but to deter industry expansion through enforcement intimidation. When market size was limited and the industry was still in its early stages, this strategy could work, but as circumstances change, its limitations have begun to show.

First, the crypto market itself has grown to an undeniable scale. The approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs means that Wall Street capital has deeply integrated with crypto assets through compliant channels, and the U.S. financial system is no longer just a regulator but also a stakeholder.

Second, capital and talent outflows have become tangible and visible. More and more projects are choosing to register and operate in jurisdictions like Singapore, the UAE, and Europe. The risk of the U.S. experiencing “hollowing out” in crypto innovation is gradually emerging.

Meanwhile, global regulatory competition is accelerating. The EU’s MiCA regulations have formed a complete system, and many Asian regions are adopting a “set rules first, then guide development” strategy. If the U.S. continues to maintain a vague stance, it may gradually lose influence in future crypto rule-making.

Against this backdrop, the CLARITY Act seems more like a belated but necessary remedial measure.

Figure 2: Former SEC Chair, who once vigorously cracked down on crypto

2. Delegating Regulatory Power to CFTC: A Reclassification of “Financial Attributes”

Why the CFTC and not the SEC? This is the most critical and strategically significant choice in the CLARITY Act.

The SEC’s regulatory logic is built on the traditional securities framework of “equity—corporate entity—disclosure of information,” but most crypto assets do not possess these characteristics. They lack clear corporate entities, do not have ongoing disclosure obligations, and are not inherently linked to equity or dividend relationships. Forcing them into the securities framework long-term will only create structural conflicts.

In contrast, the CFTC regulates commodities and derivatives markets, where the core characteristic is that they do not represent ownership but are tradable, priceable value carriers.

Classifying more crypto assets under CFTC regulation is equivalent to legally recognizing that these assets are closer to “new commodities” rather than “digital securities.” This is not a compromise on individual assets but a systemic extension of the operational logic of assets like Bitcoin.

Figure 3: CFTC – U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

3. What Is Truly Protected Is the Extensibility of the U.S. Dollar Financial System

A often overlooked question is: if the U.S. continues to suppress crypto assets, who will ultimately be the real losers?

The answer is likely not the crypto industry itself, but the external control of the dollar system.

Stablecoins, on-chain settlement, and DeFi liquidity have, in fact, formed a “shadow financial system” of the dollar on the blockchain. Currently, in the global stablecoin structure, dollar-denominated assets dominate absolutely, and a large amount of on-chain financial activity revolves around them.

The significance of the CLARITY Act is not to block the development of this system, but to bring it back within a regulated institutional boundary. By clarifying the compliance framework for stablecoin issuance, circulation, and related financial activities, the U.S. can ensure that this system does not operate entirely outside its jurisdiction.

From this perspective, it is not a weakening of the dollar’s influence, but a re-centralization—bringing the dollar’s on-chain financial activities back into a controllable scope.

Figure 4: The U.S. dollar system

4. Entrepreneurs Are Not Gaining Freedom, But “Being Allowed to Exist”

It must be clarified that the CLARITY Act does not mean a comprehensive relaxation of the crypto industry.

What it offers is not unconditional freedom, but a manageable, auditable, and predictable mode of existence. Once the institutional boundaries are clear, the space for wild growth will be compressed, arbitrage models relying on regulatory vacuum will gradually disappear, and compliance costs will become the new industry threshold.

This means that the true beneficiaries will not be speculative projects, but protocols and platforms with long-term product logic, sustainable business models, and infrastructural attributes. The U.S. goal is not to nurture the next MEME, but to select crypto infrastructure capable of embedding into the mainstream financial system.

Figure 5: ETH dubbed “Next-Generation Financial Infrastructure”

5. The Real Issues the Market Must Face After January 15

Regardless of the voting outcome, the crypto industry will enter a new phase. At that time, the core concern will no longer be “whether they will be sued,” but which assets will be explicitly excluded from the definition of securities, which business models can scale under the CFTC framework, and which projects have the long-term capacity to bear compliance costs.

This will be a re-evaluation driven by slow variables, rather than short-term emotional speculation.

Conclusion: The End of the Crypto “Rebellion Period”

The symbolic significance of the CLARITY Act may be greater than its specific provisions.

It signifies that the U.S. is accepting a reality: crypto assets can no longer be eliminated, only absorbed into the system. January 15 may not mark the start of a bull market, but it is very likely a key turning point for the crypto industry from “resisting order” to “integrating into order.”

From this day forward, the crypto world will no longer focus on “whether it is recognized,” but will face a more realistic and harsher challenge—who can survive within the established rules.

Figure 6: CLARITY Act