Crypto Congress Drama: Who’s Got the Better Plan? Spoiler: It’s a Hot Mess

by

Oh, the glorious world of crypto politics-where billion-dollar ideas get tangled in a web of confusion faster than you can say “blockchain.” As the US Congress fiddles with yet another bill, industry bigwigs are busy arguing about which version will save us from total chaos-or at least make things vaguely clearer. Spoiler alert: nobody’s really winning this round.

Paradigm Sharking the Senate, Because Why Not?

Paperwork-lovers, rejoice! Last Thursday, industry insiders gathered to dissect the great crypto legislation saga. It’s the sequel to the GENIUS Act, which was so genius only in its ability to confuse, and now the spotlight’s on the grand “market structure” bill. House Republicans recently waved through the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act of 2025-just in case you thought regulation could be as straightforward as your grandma’s brownie recipe. Its mission? Craft a cozy regulatory blanket for crypto, boost startup growth, and somehow protect the poor investors from losing their lunch money.

Meanwhile, in June, the Senate decided to write its own rules-a comprehensive, “let’s get this right” kind of deal. The Senate Banking Committee released a draft featuring six shiny principles that, according to some (probably their own reflection), are “very well received” by DeFi enthusiasts. Sounds promising, right? Or at least less terrifying than a last-minute deadline.

Enter Dan Robinson from Paradigm, who claims the Senate’s draft is the “better” one-because it’s “significantly simpler,” sparing protocols from being shoved into one-size-fits-all legislation. Apparently, they’re trying to avoid turning crypto into a courtroom drama, which is promising.

The big sell? The Senate’s focus on “ancillary assets,” which conveniently are not securities-because who doesn’t love a loophole? It’s the “cleanest test” to keep decentralized tokens safe from the SEC’s relentless (and somewhat psychotic) gaze. “If regulations are just complicated enough to make lawyers’ wallets fat,” says everyone else, “then we’ve got a problem.”

Squabble Central: Who’s Winning & Who’s Just Déjà Vu

On Twitter (or X, to be fancy), journalist Eleanor Terret noted that most major crypto VCs-except a16z Crypto, who is basically the schoolyard bully of the industry-have finally agreed on which bill’s better for tokens and all that jazz. Shocking, really.

But Miles Jennings from a16z isn’t having it. He claims most “major crypto hedge funds support CLARITY’s token maturity framework,” and is secretly rolling his eyes at the Senate’s ideas. His main beef? The senate’s version undermines the transfer restrictions, creating a free-for-all where “retail” investors get dumped on faster than you can say “pump and dump.” Awesome.

The Decentralization Research Center (DCR), doing its best impression of the voice of reason, also chimed in. They’re all about that “robust, control-based decentralization test,” because apparently, chaos is good as long as it’s controlled chaos-like a toddler with a fire hose.

In fact, they’ve collected a small army of 50+ big industry names supporting the “Clarity Act” because who doesn’t love a big ol’ coalition? Their motto? “Keep it simple, keep it fair, and let innovation breathe, or whatever.”

Even lawyer Gabriel Shapiro is jumping into the circus, calling the House’s approach “far superior.” Because apparently, the Senate’s plan is a “race to the bottom,” which sounds like football but with less fun and more legal jargon.

The more rights you have, the less you need regulation? Sounds backwards, right? But it’s crypto-where logic takes a backseat to chaos and memecoins. The less regulation, the more people spam the system with nonsense. Welcome to forever memecoin mania & token conflicts. 🎉

And just for good measure, here’s a chart that probably means nothing but looks impressive:

Read More

2025-08-08 07:14