On January 15, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, news broke that the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has postponed the review of the CLARITY Act until late January, sparking a new confrontation between Washington and the cryptocurrency industry. This decision comes from a single source with limited details, but it is enough to bring the regulatory tug-of-war back into the spotlight. On one side, the Senate Banking Committee has hit the "slow progress button" on key cryptocurrency legislation, while on the other side, there is a split within the industry: Coinbase has chosen to withdraw its support for the bill, citing that the revisions regarding USD-pegged assets and DeFi are "unacceptable"; meanwhile, a16z crypto has publicly voiced by Chris Dixon, emphasizing that "now is the best time to advance the CLARITY Act," urging for expedited passage. Compared to the fluctuations in public opinion, market sentiment has not fallen into panic; a single source indicates that the Crypto Fear and Greed Index currently stands at 61, pointing to a state of greed rather than risk aversion. Coupled with the macro backdrop of diverging monetary and regulatory policies globally, it resembles a reshuffling of chips regarding the future ownership of rules. In this context, the delay of the CLARITY Act raises the real questions of who is reshaping the narrative, who can consolidate or amplify their advantages in regulatory gaps, and how this will rewrite the next round of the cryptocurrency landscape.
Hearing Delayed: Washington Hits the Slow Progress Button
From publicly available information, the CLARITY Act was originally scheduled to enter the Senate Banking Committee's review process in mid-January 2026, but according to a single source, this process has been postponed to late January, with no multi-source cross-verification yet. For observers familiar with the U.S. legislative rhythm, such a "delay" is not uncommon, but at this highly sensitive moment for cryptocurrency regulation, it carries stronger symbolic meaning. The Senate Banking Committee has long held the agenda-setting power related to financial regulation and market stability. The key questions of which regulatory framework cryptocurrency assets fall under and which institutions can legally provide custody and trading services, once the corresponding bill is released at the committee level, will provide a relatively clear federal path for the entire industry. Therefore, this "slow step" often means that the industry must linger longer in an uncertain gray area.
In a larger political context, this caution is particularly typical. The U.S. is standing at a sensitive window before the elections, where subtle changes in partisan struggles and voter sentiment can be magnified into policy rhythms. Regulatory agencies and legislative bodies tend to slow their pace rather than rush into decisions regarding emerging asset classes, to avoid exposing vulnerable points that can be attacked in election narratives. While the external world cannot currently confirm a direct causal relationship between this delay and specific political deals, it is certain that it provides all parties with an additional time window. Traditional financial institutions and cryptocurrency industry lobbying groups can continue to exchange conditions in closed-door meetings, probing the regulators' bottom lines and seeking space for minor adjustments in wording. Thus, this delay itself has become a stage for subsequent negotiations over the distribution of interests, rather than just a technical procedural delay.
Centralized Civil War Erupts Within the Same Bill
If Washington has hit the "slow progress button," then the debate within the cryptocurrency industry surrounding the CLARITY Act resembles a struggle for the steering wheel within the same vehicle. Coinbase's change in attitude is the most emblematic: from early public support for this legislation, seen as providing "compliance clarity," to recently being disclosed by a single source as withdrawing support, pointing to the revisions regarding USD-pegged assets and decentralized finance as "unacceptable." This turn directly ties regulatory details to the business landscape. For compliant platforms primarily engaged in trading and custody, how rules define the boundaries of on-chain earnings, custody responsibilities, and on-chain liquidity will directly impact their cost structures and new business opportunities. Any terms that may compress profit margins or raise compliance thresholds will trigger a reassessment.
In stark contrast is a16z crypto's statement. As a long-term investor in on-chain protocols and infrastructure, a16z, through Chris Dixon, publicly stated, "Now is the best time to advance the CLARITY Act," emphasizing the need to quickly establish a predictable regulatory framework so that long-term capital can confidently invest in on-chain innovation. For them, a relatively stable set of rules, even if it brings some compliance costs in the short term, may exchange for broader institutional entry space, boosting the valuation and actual usage scale of the protocols they invest in. This divergence reflects the fundamental differences in demands under different business models: one side, represented by large compliant platforms, is more concerned about whether their licenses and business boundaries are further tied; while the capital configured around decentralized protocols hopes to shift the regulatory focus from "whether to allow" to "how to comply" in detail negotiations without stifling technological routes.
The external world often uses the binary opposition of "centralized camp" and "decentralized camp" to summarize such conflicts, but simply dividing the entire industry into two camps remains a narrative that needs verification. Many platforms are simultaneously laying out both on-chain and off-chain, and many institutional capitals invest in both traditional equity and on-chain tokens, making their interest structures far more complex than labeled descriptions suggest. Therefore, viewing the divergence between Coinbase and a16z as a sign of a complete industry split may be premature. A more accurate understanding is that under the same bill, different types of participants are engaged in a delicate game of interest adjustments around the text, and their public statements are both a struggle for public opinion and a signal to legislators through market expectations.
Emotions and Prices in Regulatory Gaps: Greed Replaces Panic
From the perspective of market sentiment, the uncertainty surrounding the CLARITY Act has not triggered typical risk-off sell-offs. According to a single source, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index currently stands at 61, clearly in the greedy range rather than extreme fear. Typically, when expectations of negative regulatory news rise, sentiment indicators quickly slide toward panic, but this time, investors seem more willing to interpret Washington's hesitation as "negative news not materializing," even continuing to take advantage of the opportunity window during the regulatory vacuum.
This seemingly "counter-trend optimism" is closely related to the global liquidity environment. While the U.S. repeatedly weighs its options on cryptocurrency regulation, China is signaling a more accommodative stance through its monetary policy, and other economies are also attempting to support the real economy and credit with easing or targeted tools. Some funds choose to hedge against uncertainties in a single jurisdiction, spreading risks across a broader market. In this allocation logic, the short-term postponement of the CLARITY Act is not seen as a definitive negative but rather as giving on-chain and off-market funds a few more weeks to "exploit regulatory gaps."
Of course, sentiment indicators themselves have clear limitations. The Fear and Greed Index is subjective in its sample selection and weight design, especially when significant policy expectations have yet to materialize; it reflects more the short-term price fluctuations and the combined effects of social media sentiment rather than a rational judgment of long-term regulatory trends. Current trading behavior largely bets on different outcomes for future rule designs: if the final framework favors institutional entry, funds betting on on-chain infrastructure and blue-chip protocols may prevail; if the text leans toward tightening, conservative allocations and arbitrage strategies may profit in high volatility. Therefore, rather than saying the market is using a greed index of 61 to counter regulatory uncertainty, it is more accurate to say that funds are pricing in different institutional paths in the still undecided regulatory vacuum.
Washington Tightens While Beijing Loosens: Two Regulatory Temperatures
In contrast to the U.S.'s indecision surrounding the CLARITY Act, the clear signals given by Chinese monetary authorities during the same period stand out. High-confidence data shows that the People's Bank of China has recently lowered the re-lending rate to 1.25%, a move that technically provides financial institutions with low-cost funding for the medium to long term, and in policy intent, further supports the real economy and credit expansion through the banking system. Although this is not a specific arrangement for on-chain assets, the released regulatory temperature and macro attitude sharply contrast with the cautious stance of the U.S. on cryptocurrency legislation: one end injects more easing into the traditional financial system, while the other presses the cautious button in the emerging asset field.
This difference is not only reflected in monetary tools. Within the U.S., aside from Congress and regulatory agencies weighing cryptocurrency assets, some regulatory bodies in certain areas are also beginning to adopt stricter attitudes. Research briefs mention that the NCAA has requested relevant institutions to suspend the use of cryptocurrency prediction market tools; although this single-source information does not constitute a national regulatory tone, it showcases a glimpse of the local regulatory perspective: tolerance for new financial instruments is decreasing in scenarios involving public participation, especially among younger demographics. On a macro level, Washington's legislative hesitation and tightening signals in decentralized fields, combined with Beijing's release of easing through interest rate cuts and re-lending tools, create a starkly different policy climate.
As various jurisdictions weigh risk prevention against innovation incentives, capital and projects will naturally seek landing points with less institutional friction. Some teams may maintain compliance fronts in the U.S. while relocating technology development and token issuance to other more regulatory-friendly regions; meanwhile, funds assess different markets' implicit tolerance for on-chain activities and explicit regulatory thresholds, seeking a balance between compliance and returns. The CLARITY Act is just a sample in this global process of regulatory differentiation, reflecting the reality that cross-border capital and project layouts are being reshaped by different regulatory temperatures.
Who is Betting on the Future Landscape: The Silent War Between Banks, Wall Street, and On-Chain Capital
The debate surrounding the CLARITY Act superficially appears to be a quarrel over specific provisions, but at its core lies a structural conflict between traditional financial institutions and cryptocurrency companies regarding profit distribution and compliance costs. For large banks and Wall Street institutions, any arrangement that allows on-chain systems to gain scale advantages in payments, custody, and yield generation could shake existing profit models; for crypto-native companies, if compliance costs excessively tilt towards new participants or replicate traditional financial frameworks in capital requirements and information disclosure, it could stifle their flexibility and innovation space.
There has been a persistent rumor in the market that some banks' lobbying power is pushing for policies that restrict certain on-chain yield models to avoid direct competition with their own products. Research briefs explicitly label this as unverified information, which cannot be taken as established fact. However, even setting aside these unverified rumors, it is evident that every minor adjustment in regulatory wording could potentially redefine the boundaries of power and profit between custody platforms, decentralized protocols, and institutional entry thresholds. For instance, how "custody responsibility" is defined will affect the legal risks that compliant platforms must bear; how "decentralization" is determined will decide which protocols fall under regulatory scrutiny and which can temporarily navigate gray areas; and the conditions set for qualified investors and retail users to allocate on-chain assets could directly determine whether institutional funds can enter the market on a large scale.
In this landscape, the postponement of the review means that the text game will not end in the short term but will continue to ferment in closed-door talks, hearing preparations, and lobbying battles. Different stakeholders will use this time to strengthen their arguments, attempting to "gain an extra adjective in key expressions while bearing less responsibility." The final version, regardless of when it lands, will profoundly impact who can gain the upper hand in the next cycle: whether it will be traditional financial giants with strong licenses and customer resources or emerging players armed with on-chain protocols and technological advantages. The true stakes of this silent war are not just the stock prices of a few companies but the structural direction of the entire cryptocurrency financial landscape.
The Cycle After the Bill: Where Does the Cryptocurrency Industry Stand?
Looking ahead, the CLARITY Act may roughly follow three paths. The first is a compliance framework that clearly favors traditional finance, aiming to incorporate cryptocurrency assets into the existing regulatory system as much as possible, exchanging strict custody requirements, capital adequacy ratios, and information disclosure for system stability. This would raise the entry barriers for new players in the short term and reinforce the advantages of license holders and large institutions. The second is a more open and innovative compromise, which, while maintaining basic investor protection and anti-money laundering standards, reserves some technical and commercial space for on-chain protocols, allowing for the exploration of new models within sandbox and pilot frameworks. The third is to continue delaying amid political and technical uncertainties, relying on enforcement cases and departmental guidance rather than complete legislation to tenuously maintain order, making the "gray area" a norm.
Under these three paths, leading players like Coinbase and a16z are making their respective bets. The former's adjustment in attitude reflects concerns about excessive tightening and the potential compression of business space in the new version of the bill; the latter's high-profile support bets on "having rules is better than having no rules," believing that as long as clear boundaries for institutional participation can be established, the on-chain protocols they invest in will benefit from a larger capital pool. This divergence will gradually shape the relative advantage landscape between centralized platforms and on-chain protocols through capital flows, project incubation directions, and merger and acquisition rhythms in the coming years.
For ordinary investors, this is a stage of highly incomplete information, where rumors and emotions can easily overshadow facts. Rather than being led by unverified lobbying stories and conspiracy theories, a more realistic approach is to focus on verifiable signals: formal statements in congressional hearings, written guidance issued by regulatory agencies, and the actual arrangements for cryptocurrency businesses disclosed by large institutions in their financial reports and compliance disclosures. What truly influences medium- to long-term trends is often not the heated debates on social media, but these seemingly dull "public texts."
From a broader perspective, the twists and turns of the CLARITY Act are just a small episode in the global regulatory race. Whether it is Washington's cautious advancement, Beijing's signals released through monetary policy easing, or other jurisdictions' trade-offs between local risks and innovation opportunities, they ultimately point to the same question: who can find a new balance between constraints and innovation first. For the cryptocurrency industry, this not only determines the rhythm of the next bull-bear cycle but also whether it can truly transition from the margins to become part of the mainstream financial system.
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。
