Structural Concerns in Advancing Crypto Legislation
On January 20, a commentary article noted that although the U.S. Congress is seeking to establish a clearer legal framework for digital assets—aimed at encouraging innovation while curbing illicit activity—these efforts may fall short amid weakened regulatory authority and persistent shortages of enforcement resources. The article argues that the growing mismatch between the pace of legislation and the capacity for regulatory enforcement has become a core tension within the current U.S. crypto regulatory system.
Fragmented Responsibilities in Stablecoin Regulation
The commentary highlights that the Genius Act, a proposed stablecoin regulatory bill, distributes key responsibilities across multiple regulatory agencies. Among them, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is positioned as a major enforcement body. However, the OCC has previously experienced staff reductions and cybersecurity incidents, significantly constraining its supervisory and enforcement capacity. Against this backdrop, whether newly introduced regulatory requirements can be effectively implemented remains uncertain.
Market Structure Legislation and the Enforcement Resource Gap
Another closely watched proposal, the Clarity Act, may have an even greater impact on the existing allocation of regulatory authority. The bill proposes classifying most tokens as commodities under the oversight of the CFTC, thereby reducing the scope of authority traditionally held by securities regulators. In practice, however, the CFTC operates with an annual budget of only about one-sixth that of the SEC, with similarly limited staffing and enforcement resources, raising concerns about its ability to assume significantly expanded regulatory responsibilities.
Further Erosion of Consumer Protection Mechanisms
At the same time, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which previously handled consumer complaints related to crypto assets, has been substantially weakened, with its functions largely dismantled. This shift places additional strain on an already fragile consumer protection framework and increases risk exposure for retail investors navigating complex digital asset products.
Calls for a Unified Regulatory Framework
The commentary argues that expanding crypto asset access to the general public and institutional investors before regulatory capacity gaps are addressed could prove counterproductive. If fraud and criminal activity continue to surface, the industry itself may face significant backlash. The article calls for a unified legal framework governing trading activities for digital assets that are difficult to classify—such as Bitcoin and Ethereum—jointly developed by the SEC and CFTC to ensure market stability, transparency, and investor protection.
Long-Term Challenges in Compliance and Risk Governance
Under current conditions, market participants are increasingly required to strengthen their own risk management and compliance capabilities. Continuous monitoring of fund flows, transaction behavior, and anomalous patterns is becoming an important supplement for navigating regulatory uncertainty. In practice, some institutions leverage on-chain monitoring systems such as Trustformer KYT to conduct structured analysis of transaction activity, thereby enhancing foundational capabilities in internal risk identification and compliance review.
Conclusion
The commentary concludes that until Congress grants regulators sufficient authority, professional capacity, and resources, the crypto market will continue to operate under a “buyer beware” reality. As legal frameworks gradually take shape, the balance among regulatory capacity, industry self-discipline, and technological tools will remain a decisive factor in determining the long-term health and sustainability of the market.