This week, under East Eight Time, regulatory pressure around cryptocurrency assets in the United States continues to accumulate. Meanwhile, the industry is expanding its innovative landscape at an astonishing speed: on one side, negotiations over the compliance framework for USD-denominated assets are stalemated, while on the other side, Tether completes a one-time transfer of 94 tons of tokenized gold, acquisition consolidation in prediction markets, mining companies planning $300 million financing, and wallet providers rapidly upgrading enterprise solutions are taking place in succession. Regulators worry about systemic risks and consumer protection, while the market bets on technological self-repair and clearing ability. These two sets of logic are clashing in the same macro environment: traditional finance tends to "control first, innovate later," while the crypto world leans toward "let go first, catch up later." The question of why such starkly opposite responses are given has become the most pressing inquiry of the current cycle.
Two Worldviews: Senator's Anti-Rescue and CZ's Declaration
● Political Atmosphere: At the level of the U.S. Congress, some senators continue to signal opposition to providing a "special rescue" for the crypto industry; this stance extends the traditional financial regulatory thinking—viewing risky behavior as results that should be borne by the market and individuals, while also fearing that any form of relief may be interpreted as an official endorsement of high-risk speculation. Therefore, they intentionally distance themselves from the term "rescue" in their rhetoric to demonstrate responsibility to taxpayers.
● CZ's Declaration Contrast: In stark contrast, CZ publicly emphasized that “cryptocurrencies have never needed a rescue, nor will they ever need.” This statement directly utilizes the frequent history of bailouts in traditional finance to "establish a persona": from large bank crises to financial institution rescues, the old system repeatedly uses public funds as a safety net, whereas the narrative in the crypto industry is "whoever leverages, whoever crashes, bears the consequences,” using a strong comparison to reinforce the self-discipline image of the decentralized market.
● Marketized Clearing: In previous rounds of crypto winters, deleveraging, forced liquidations, and platform bankruptcies were commonplace; prices can plummet within a short time, but assets and liabilities are quickly redistributed through on-chain and judicial processes, forming a highly marketized clearing mechanism. This mechanism appears "brutal" on the surface but validates risk transfer without the need for administrative relief. However, whether this self-repair is sufficient to handle real systemic shocks remains an open question.
● Systemic Risk Perspective: The fundamental concern of regulators is not just the price fluctuations of a single platform or token, but whether the deep coupling between USD-denominated assets and the banking system, payment systems could trigger a chain reaction of bank runs or payment interruptions during a panic phase. Therefore, even if the industry emphasizes "no need for rescue," policymakers will still design safety valves based on the "worst-case scenario," laying the groundwork for future negotiations around the regulatory framework for USD-denominated assets.
Tug of War in Stablecoin Negotiations Under the Shadow of White House Games
● Ambiguous Progress: According to a single source standard, Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal recently described the dialogue with regulators regarding USD-denominated assets as “constructive, with positive progress.” This statement, on one hand, releases an optimistic signal that negotiations have not collapsed, while on the other, it intentionally remains vague, touching neither on the details of the terms nor on the timeline, reflecting that before the power structure has taken shape, all parties prefer to maintain negotiation space with ambiguous language.
● Core Concerns: The three main concerns of regulators focus on currency sovereignty, banking system runs, and consumer protection: First, there is concern that large-scale private issuance of USD-denominated assets could weaken the control of fiat currency and central banks; second, when users migrate large-scale bank deposits to on-chain vehicles, it could destabilize the traditional deposit base; third, the history of multiple on-chain crashes and exit scams has made regulators particularly sensitive to reserve transparency and redemption mechanisms, while the industry expects to gain "quasi-bank" status and position itself as part of payment and settlement infrastructure under compliance premises.
● Tolerance Differences: In traditional finance, similar liability instruments often have to undergo a long piloting and cautious regulatory period, while the product iteration speed in the crypto sector greatly exceeds the pace of regulatory legislation. For developers and investors, “get it on-chain first” is the norm, while for regulators, “acting without approval is a violation” is the default logic. The tearing apart of these two time perspectives and risk perceptions has resulted in a huge disparity in tolerance for the same product across the two systems.
● Information Vacuum: Regarding the meetings at the White House level concerning USD-denominated assets, various versions of participants' lists and internal discussion content are currently circulating in the market, but this key information remains to be verified, and the so-called negotiation deadline lacks authoritative public sources. In this information vacuum, any optimistic narratives about “soon reaching a historic compromise” resemble more of an emotional and expectation game, and investors need to be aware that unverified details should not form the basis for investment decisions.
94 Tons of Tokenized Gold Relocation: Tether's Narrative Shift
● Settlement Efficiency: Recently, Tether completed a one-time cross-address transfer of 94 tons of tokenized gold, and it was disclosed that the associated transaction fee was only about 0.0016%. In traditional cross-border bulk precious metal settlements, such volumes usually come with high custodian, transportation, and intermediary costs, while the on-chain tokenized format compresses those into nearly negligible technical fees, sharply demonstrating the efficiency advantages of tokenized assets in cross-border settlements and ownership transfers.
● Hedging Narrative: As regulatory scrutiny tightens around USD-denominated assets and the outlook remains uncertain, Tether's high-profile promotion of gold tokenization essentially casts another narrative line to the market: even if the regulatory framework surrounding USD is wobbly, tokenized assets anchored by gold can still exist as hedging and diversification tools. This move not only responds to regulatory uncertainties but also conveys the message “we are more than just a product” to users, trying to find a new growth curve in the policy gap.
● Expectation Resonance: Goldman Sachs publicly predicts that gold prices could reach $5,400 per ounce by the end of 2026, and this bullish stance from a traditional institution forms a rare resonance with the crypto industry's bet on the tokenized gold track. When Wall Street provides optimistic expectations through commodity research, and the on-chain world offers convenient trading and settlement carriers, the division of labor between the two in asset pricing and technological forms is quietly opening a hybrid path of “traditional valuation + crypto carrier.”
● Safe Haven and Doubts: Tokenized gold is viewed by many participants as a potential "safe haven asset"—both backed by physical assets and enjoying on-chain liquidity. However, it also inevitably faces compliance scrutiny and transparency questions on custody: whether gold is real, where the custodian is located, how the regulatory jurisdiction is defined, and if sufficient verifiable information cannot be provided, the so-called hedging attributes may amplify distrust in a crisis, which is a future issue that this track must confront.
Prediction Markets, Mining Companies, and Wallet Providers: Restructuring Business Models in Tight Spaces
● Transformation of Prediction Markets: Polymarket announced the acquisition of Dome and is promoting deeper API integration, transitioning from a mere “gray betting venue” to a role as financial infrastructure. By integrating prediction market data with other financial applications, it aims to package “betting on event outcomes” as a type of integrable and auditable probability information service, thus lowering sensitivity at compliance boundaries and striving for legitimate survival space in the future.
● Capital Bets of Mining Companies: Mining company Bitdeer plans to raise $300 million to continue expanding production and upgrading technology amidst halving cycles and regulatory pressures. This decision is essentially a bet on two variables: first, network security and computing power demand will continue to rise in the coming years; second, regulators will not directly suffocate the survival space of the mining industry through extreme measures. Therefore, securing capital early, optimizing energy efficiency and equipment structure is seen as a necessary investment in the race for discourse power in an uncertain cycle.
● Wallet and Enterprise Entry: MoonPay has chosen to penetrate from the entry side by upgrading wallet products and launching enterprise solutions to help traditional institutions and brands connect more smoothly to the on-chain world. Although specific launch times and some functional details have not yet been disclosed, the trend is already clear: entry-type service providers hope to meet regulatory expectations through more complete KYC, risk control, and user experience design, positioning themselves as the recipients of "license dividends" rather than targets of regulation.
● Regulated Business Models: Whether it’s prediction markets, mining companies, or wallet and payment service providers, they share a commonality of actively approaching the regulatory red line: through structured data, energy optimization, compliance audits, and enterprise-level services, they transform their businesses into “more regulated” forms in exchange for longer capital timelines and more stable policy expectations. This self-taming is not a simple compromise, but a realistic choice of “under what rules to continue running wildly.”
From Fraud Judgments to Custody Upgrades: Precise Strikes by Regulators and Capital Distribution
● Criminal Strike Signals: The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced a cryptocurrency-related fraud case involving millions of dollars, with the court ordering the defendant to pay $2.8 million. Although public information did not detail the specific timeline and court name, the scale of this judgment releases a clear signal: at the criminal level, law enforcement agencies view cryptocurrency-related fraud as a crime on par with traditional financial fraud, attempting to reshape market expectations about the "cost of illegal behavior" through hefty penalties and criminal deterrence.
● Compliance Evolution of Custody Institutions: In contrast to the losses suffered by retail investors in fraud cases, professional custody institutions like Anchorage Digital are continuously upgrading their compliance and security capabilities, including strengthening multi-signatures, auditing processes, and risk isolation structures to meet the higher standards of asset safety required by institutional clients and regulators. In the new cycle, those who can provide "regulatable and accountable" solutions on custody and compliance infrastructure have a better chance of winning mainstream capital favor.
● Punishing Laggards and Rewarding Pathfinders: While individual investors, lured by high-yield promises, suffer total loss in scams, compliant institutions leverage auditing and security technologies to attract long-term capital. This stark contrast highlights the current regulatory logic—by severely punishing non-compliance and fraudulent behavior, the industry is forced to migrate from high-risk gray areas to transparent and compliant fronts, allowing "rule-abiding" players to achieve higher valuations in capital markets.
● Outline of Precise Regulation: From these cases, it can be anticipated that in the future, regulation will likely focus on fraud, money laundering, and severe information opacity behaviors, rather than indiscriminately stifling underlying technologies and compliance businesses. If this “precise strikes + tolerant innovation” approach can be implemented, it will shape a clearer tiering of tracks: offenders being cleared, while compliant infrastructure and institutional services receive dual support from policies and capital.
Finding Winners Across Cycles in High-Pressure Regulation
On one side, there’s the hardline stance of senators against rescues, the tug-of-war negotiations surrounding USD-denominated assets, and the punitive judgments of millions of dollars in fraud cases; on the other side, there’s Tether maneuvering 94 tons of tokenized gold, predictions markets undergoing acquisitions and integrations, Bitdeer splurging $300 million in fundraising, and MoonPay accelerating wallet and enterprise entry upgrades. Regulation and innovation are depicted in nearly confrontational ways, together forming the true backdrop of the current crypto ecosystem. Traditional finance and the crypto sector are redefining the allocation of risks and returns along the same timeline: who should bear tail risks and who pays for systemic failures have become the biggest divergences between the two sides, which is also one of the core reasons why negotiations over USD-denominated assets are difficult to conclude swiftly.
In the coming years, the tracks that are most likely to survive and expand under heavy regulatory pressure may concentrate on three categories: the first is tokenized physical assets, represented by gold, bridging traditional pricing logic and on-chain liquidity; the second is compliance-friendly infrastructure serving institutions and enterprises, providing a secure stack for traditional capital entry, from custody and clearing to compliance APIs; the third emphasizes transparent reserves and traceable custody solutions, seeking a balance between “regulatable” and “trustless.” In the face of overwhelming optimistic narratives, especially regarding negotiation progress, details of White House meetings, and the so-called “deadlines,” it is essential to remain vigilant—the real focus should be on which tracks capital continually flows toward and where the sharp edges of regulatory enforcement ultimately land. These two threads are the key paths to navigating the noise and heading towards the future.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram Community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
