On January 15, 2026, Beijing time, three contradictory signals emerged simultaneously in the narrative of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation and compliance: the Senate Banking Committee temporarily canceled the review of the cryptocurrency market structure bill, and the federal rule-making process was once again put on hold; Coinbase, which had previously vocally supported the CLARITY bill, chose to withdraw its support, signaling a cooling of confidence in this legislative path; in stark contrast, payment company Alchemy Pay announced on the same day that it had obtained a money transfer license (MTL) in South Dakota, increasing its licensed states in the U.S. to 13. The hesitation on Capitol Hill clashes with the industry's urgent demand for compliance certainty: on one side, federal legislation is repeatedly stalled, and regulatory standards are difficult to unify; on the other side, specific businesses are navigating within the existing framework, seizing compliance advantages through state-level licenses and cross-border arrangements. This misalignment is accelerating the formation of a starkly contrasting picture: Washington's indecision, alongside the rapid advancement of companies like Alchemy Pay in obtaining licenses across multiple jurisdictions, reflects the beginning of a global compliance race.
Hearing Paused: Bill Stuck in Procedural Vacuum
In the agenda adjustment on January 15, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee suddenly canceled the scheduled hearing on the cryptocurrency market structure bill. This procedural action, while not complex, effectively extended the window of regulatory uncertainty at the federal level. For market participants, each delay in a hearing means operating for a longer time under outdated, vague, or even overlapping regulatory frameworks, making it impossible to establish stable expectations for medium- to long-term compliance costs and business boundaries. For a long time, the bipartisan divide on how to regulate crypto assets has been difficult to bridge, from the qualitative attributes of the industry to balancing investor protection and innovation space, and assessing the potential impact on the traditional financial system. The lack of substantive consensus makes it easy for any sizable and influential cryptocurrency legislation to be interrupted by procedural disputes or agenda prioritization. Bills like CLARITY have become focal points in this round of negotiations largely because they touch on the power boundaries between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which not only concerns the regulatory jurisdiction of a single market but also redraws the landscape of U.S. financial regulation. Because of this, such bills are naturally entangled in the interplay of departmental interests and partisan positions, making it difficult to smoothly navigate the procedural maze of the legislative body.
Coinbase Turns Back: From Betting on Legislation to Pragmatic Compliance
Also on January 15, the market noticed a significant move: Coinbase, once a major supporter of the CLARITY bill, announced it was withdrawing its support. According to public reports and industry information, this leading U.S. exchange had long viewed the promotion of comprehensive federal cryptocurrency legislation as a key path to improving the regulatory environment, but its recent reversal is seen as a signal of waning confidence in the existing legislative path. From the reality of the exchange's business, Coinbase must weigh the uncertain against the certain. On one hand, betting on a comprehensive federal bill covering multiple dimensions such as market structure and regulatory jurisdiction means being tied to a lengthy political game cycle, bearing the complex risks of the bill being diluted, shelved, or even reversed. On the other hand, under the current conditions where rules have yet to be unified, navigating compliance state by state, communicating with existing regulatory agencies, and utilizing judicial precedents to clarify boundaries, while fragmented and costly, can at least provide operational certainty in the foreseeable future. In this context, Coinbase's adjustment in stance appears more like a retraction of concentrated bets on a single legislative proposal, redistributing resources and expectations towards more pragmatic paths. Correspondingly, Robinhood's CEO publicly stated that "the U.S. should take a leadership role in crypto policy," emphasizing the responsibility of policy leadership while also reflecting the anxiety and disappointment of industry leaders over the prolonged regulatory delays—when innovation and capital are already moving forward, yet rules remain mired in controversy and contention, companies are forced to seek survival space in what seems like a chaotic environment.
Stablecoin Yield Controversy: Intersection of Interests on the Legislative Battlefield
In discussions at the Senate level, a senator from Wyoming clearly pointed out that "the controversy over stablecoin yields is a key obstacle," pushing what was originally seen as a technical, clause-level issue to the center of political and regulatory contention. The questions surrounding how yields are distributed, how underlying assets are custodied, and who should regulate them actually pull on an entire financial interest chain: commercial banks are concerned about whether deposits and payment businesses are being diverted, brokerages and asset management firms are focused on whether related products will fall under their regulatory framework or become competitors, while state regulatory agencies are wary that a federal framework might encroach on their licenses and regulatory powers. In this multi-party game, any details regarding yields are no longer just technical arrangements but relate to which party can lock in greater rights and yield shares in the emerging digital payment and asset system. Complicating matters further, with the specific text of the bill and key details regarding yield arrangements not yet fully disclosed, and some disputes still pending verification, the market finds it difficult to make precise risk and yield pricing based on assumed clauses. Investors and institutions can only anticipate the future direction of the regulatory framework within a rough range—knowing that yield issues will become a core battleground, yet unable to accurately judge whether it will lean towards banks, issuers, or stronger federal regulation, which forces the medium- to long-term pricing of related assets and business models to maintain a higher uncertainty premium.
Alchemy Pay Obtains State License: Accelerated Progress of Compliance Infrastructure
In stark contrast to the repeated tug-of-war on Capitol Hill, Alchemy Pay provided a completely different path on the same day. On January 15, the company announced that it had obtained a money transfer license (MTL) in South Dakota, a key prerequisite for conducting fiat currency inflows and outflows, cross-border collections, and providing payment solutions for merchants. With this new license in hand, Alchemy Pay now holds business licenses in 13 states in the U.S., gradually building a compliance network capable of conducting fiat and digital asset-related payment businesses across multiple states in terms of geographical layout and license density. Under the state-level licensing model, the value of the MTL lies not only in the superficial business license but also sends important signals to partner banks, payment institutions, and even large internet platforms: obtaining a license means that the company has accepted and passed a series of local reviews regarding anti-money laundering, fund security, and consumer protection, providing institutional backing for subsequent connections to banking systems and enabling large merchants to offer crypto payment capabilities. From a broader global perspective, players like Alchemy Pay are choosing a "multi-jurisdiction + multi-license" path, obtaining MTLs state by state in the U.S. and seeking local payment or financial-related licenses in other regions, building a payment infrastructure that can operate in parallel across different legal jurisdictions through the accumulation of fragmented compliance. This strategy does not rely on a sudden comprehensive federal cryptocurrency legislation from any one country but instead occupies positions in existing institutional gaps, waiting for future rules to be completed, at which point the early compliant assets can be transformed into scale advantages and entry barriers.
Washington's Indecision, Market Capital Chooses to Vote with Its Feet
On one side, the legislative process is frequently paused, while on the other, traditional finance and institutional capital are signaling their stance through capital flows. According to public data, the Ethereum spot ETF product FBTC recorded a net inflow of approximately $125.4 million in a single day, indicating that even in the context of regulatory standards not yet fully clarified, institutional investors are still continuously increasing their exposure to crypto-related assets. This contrast is quite symbolic: on Capitol Hill, debates about how to regulate, who will regulate, and to what extent regulation should occur have yet to solidify; meanwhile, in the capital markets, compliance financial products represented by ETFs have already become practical tools for capital allocation, with risk preferences and asset rebalancing behaviors far ahead of the rules. Connecting this capital flow with the progress of companies like Alchemy Pay in compliance payment paths reveals a gradually closing loop: on one end, institutional capital is orderly introduced onto the blockchain and related targets through tools like ETFs, while on the other end, licensed payment networks are incorporating the entry and exit points between fiat and crypto assets into the existing financial system. When both "compliance entry" and "compliance assets" take shape, they construct a relatively complete closed loop at the market level, compelling policymakers to confront reality—despite federal legislation still being indecisive, the market has already provided a certain "de facto regulatory framework" through product design and licensing arrangements. What remains is more about ratification and adjustment rather than designing a disconnected system from scratch.
Legislative Gridlock and Accelerated Compliance: Two Paths in the Crypto World
Returning to the main thread of the article, on one hand, U.S. federal-level cryptocurrency legislation is repeatedly stuck in procedural gridlock, key bills are postponed for review, and debates surrounding the boundaries of securities and commodities regulation are slow to materialize, while institutions like Coinbase show a clear cooling of enthusiasm for the existing legislative path; on the other hand, payment and infrastructure companies represented by Alchemy Pay are continuously expanding their compliance landscape at the state and global levels, building a payment network in advance that may carry larger volumes of traffic in the future through a patchwork of licenses and jurisdictions. This contrast illustrates that within the same regulatory environment, legislative bodies and market participants are taking two completely different paths. Looking ahead in the short term, the evolution of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation is likely to continue under the framework of "states leading + federal lagging": state regulators fill the gaps by issuing licenses and local guidelines, while federal agencies rely more on enforcement cases, individual cases, and limited regulatory guidance to delineate red lines, with truly systematic legislation still needing time to find balance between parties and departments. For the industry, actionable certainty will more likely come from licenses, judicial precedents, and the rules and interpretations released by various regulatory agencies, rather than from a single comprehensive bill that settles everything.
From the perspective of investment and industry layout, what is more noteworthy is not when the legislative text will pass, but who is quietly building compliance infrastructure during this regulatory vacuum period. Whether through payment companies obtaining licenses in 13 states in the U.S. or asset management institutions actively participating in the ETF ecosystem and serving institutional capital, these pioneers conducting "compliance exploration" under existing rules are likely to gain significant institutional benefits when the next round of rules is officially implemented: once the regulatory framework acknowledges and solidifies certain models, their existing licenses, risk control systems, and business networks will be transformed into industry barriers. For all participants still on the sidelines, compliance is no longer just a passive cost item to respond to but a core asset that needs to be actively incorporated into strategic considerations.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
