{"id":32829,"date":"2026-09-26T17:44:48","date_gmt":"2026-09-26T16:44:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/09\/26\/crypto-regulation-industry-turns-to-regulators-after-congress-fails\/"},"modified":"2026-09-26T17:44:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T16:44:54","slug":"crypto-regulation-industry-turns-to-regulators-after-congress-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/crypto-regulation-industry-turns-to-regulators-after-congress-fails\/","title":{"rendered":"Crypto and Regulation: How the Industry Learned to Embrace Regulators After Congress Failed"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The U.S. Congress<\/strong> has failed. The Clarity Act<\/strong>, designed to establish a clear legislative framework for cryptocurrencies<\/strong>, did not survive the Senate vote. Within days, the SEC<\/strong>, the CFTC<\/strong>, and the Fed<\/strong> moved to fill the void \u2014 on their own terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shift marks a clean break from years of waiting and lobbying. The crypto industry, which had long pinned its hopes on favorable legislation, now faces a new reality: regulators are no longer waiting for lawmakers to give them the green light<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this means in concrete terms for markets, businesses, and investors is precisely what this article breaks down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Clarity Act Failure: When Congress Hands the Floor to the Agencies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Clarity Act<\/strong> was meant to be the definitive clarification bill: establishing which cryptocurrencies<\/strong> fall under securities<\/strong> law (SEC) and which qualify as commodities<\/strong> (CFTC). Its rejection in the Senate came as no surprise to seasoned observers \u2014 the bill had been stalled for months over deep disagreements between Democrats and Republicans on the exact scope of each regulator’s authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result: the legislative vacuum remains. But unlike in previous years, that vacuum has not produced paralysis. The SEC<\/strong>, the CFTC<\/strong>, and the Federal Reserve<\/strong> each made moves in the days following the failed vote, publishing guidance documents, no-action letters<\/strong>, and interpretive frameworks that effectively define the new rules of the game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a dynamic that lawyers specializing in financial law<\/a> know well: when the legislature is gridlocked, the executive branch and its agencies step in through regulatory action. For crypto, this is happening at an unprecedented scale \u2014 and it sends a clear signal that the waiting game is over<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEC, CFTC, Fed: Three Regulators, Three Visions of the Crypto Market<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The SEC<\/strong> is holding firm to its longstanding position: the majority of tokens<\/strong> are securities<\/strong>, and their issuers must register or face enforcement action. Under new leadership, the tone has softened slightly on certain issues \u2014 particularly around spot ETFs<\/strong> and stablecoins<\/a> \u2014 but the core doctrine remains unchanged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CFTC<\/strong>, meanwhile, is asserting broader jurisdiction over assets classified as commodities<\/strong>, including Bitcoin<\/strong> and potentially Ether<\/strong>. It is pushing for oversight rules on crypto derivatives platforms, a rapidly growing segment where futures volumes regularly exceed $50 billion per day<\/strong> according to CoinGlass data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fed<\/strong>, more discreet in its approach, has staked out its position on stablecoins<\/strong> and banks with exposure to digital assets<\/strong>. Its recent guidance makes access to banking services for crypto entities conditional on enhanced capital requirements and risk management standards \u2014 a significant constraint for exchanges and stablecoin issuers operating in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the Crypto Industry Is Changing Its Strategy With Regulators<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For years, the dominant strategy across the crypto industry was to fund lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill<\/strong>, wait for favorable legislation, and challenge regulatory actions in court. That approach has shown its limits: litigation is slow, expensive, and legal uncertainty<\/a> weighs heavily on valuations and institutional investment decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faced with increasingly assertive agency action, several major players \u2014 including publicly listed U.S. exchanges<\/strong> and asset managers<\/strong> \u2014 have shifted to a strategy of direct engagement. Dialogue with the SEC<\/strong>, participation in CFTC<\/strong> public consultations, voluntary registration filings: the industry is now looking to shape the rules from the inside<\/strong> rather than fight them from the outside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This pragmatism is not without risk. Accepting the regulatory framework set by the agencies also means accepting their constraints \u2014 enhanced KYC<\/strong> requirements, on-chain reporting<\/strong>, and restrictions on certain derivative products. But for institutional players looking to deploy significant capital, regulatory clarity<\/strong> \u2014 even imperfect clarity \u2014 is preferable to permanent uncertainty. The market appears to have internalized this: volumes on regulated platforms<\/a> have grown steadily since the start of the year, according to TradingView data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n