Introduction

The emergence of cryptocurrencies is not just a technological innovation but also a profound financial and social experiment. Its characteristics, such as decentralization, anonymity, and global circulation, challenge the centralized control of traditional financial systems, regulatory frameworks, and cross-border payment models.

As a superpower and a global leader in finance and technology, the United States’ regulatory stance and policy direction on cryptocurrencies affect its domestic financial markets and technological innovation and have broad implications globally. The challenges facing the U.S. in cryptocurrency regulation are becoming more complex and severe. The country must balance innovation and risk, maintain financial stability, promote technological development, and address competition and cooperation from other countries and regions.

This analysis seeks to explore the latest developments in U.S. cryptocurrency policies, including but not limited to examining the roles played by key participants such as the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, and analyzing the impact of significant events like Bitcoin spot ETFs on the market. It strives to provide readers with a comprehensive and in-depth perspective to understand the complexity and importance of U.S. cryptocurrency policies.

The U.S. Role in Global Cryptocurrency Policies

The United States plays a pivotal role in shaping global cryptocurrency policies. Its regulatory evolution and market trends have a significant “signaling effect” on the global cryptocurrency market. The U.S. is both a critical hub of cryptocurrency technological innovation and the center of global capital and regulation.

The trading volume, institutional investment scale, and number of cryptocurrency enterprises in the U.S. are significant globally. For instance, the trading volume of major U.S. cryptocurrency exchanges like Coinbase still accounts for a considerable share of global exchanges. Its public listing also signifies the further acceptance of cryptocurrencies by traditional financial markets.

U.S. regulatory policies have notable “spillover effects” on global markets. For example, the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple and investigations into other cryptocurrency projects have profoundly influenced how cryptocurrency assets are classified as securities worldwide. Regulatory agencies in other countries and regions closely monitor U.S. regulatory movements and use them as critical references for formulating their own regulatory policies. Examples include the EU’s MiCA legislation and the UK’s cryptocurrency regulatory framework, both of which are fundamentally influenced by U.S. regulatory trends.

Additionally, U.S. Treasury requirements for stablecoin reserve transparency and its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures have served as essential references for other major economies when developing relevant policies.

Policy Background: A Turbulent Market

The cryptocurrency market has experienced rapid development and severe volatility, with a series of market events directly influencing U.S. policy directions. Events such as early-year market corrections, the bankruptcy of some cryptocurrency exchanges (e.g., the continued fallout from the FTX incident, exposing risk management and internal control issues in centralized exchanges), and stablecoin de-pegging incidents (e.g., the lingering effects of the Terra/Luna collapse) have heightened calls for regulation.

These incidents have not only caused significant losses for investors but also raised concerns about the overall stability of the cryptocurrency market. As a result, regulators are placing greater emphasis on investor protection, market transparency, and financial stability, accelerating the formulation and implementation of related policies.

Historical Policy Context: A Chronological Review

The regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States did not happen overnight but evolved gradually, reflecting a process of adapting and adjusting policies to market changes.

Early Period (2008–2013): Emergence and Observation

In the early days of Bitcoin’s creation, the U.S. government mainly maintained an observational stance on cryptocurrencies. Due to the small market size and the yet-to-be-seen impact of cryptocurrencies, regulatory agencies showed relatively limited attention. However, certain government departments had already started to note cryptocurrencies’ potential risks and opportunities. For example, in 2013, FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), a bureau under the U.S. Department of Treasury, issued guidelines for virtual currency issuers and exchangers, incorporating them into the anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory framework. This move is widely regarded as the beginning of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation.

Source: Brookings

FinCEN’s Guidelines (2013–2017): Anti-Money Laundering Compliance (AML)

The guidelines issued by FinCEN marked a significant step in U.S. cryptocurrency regulation. They established the principle that virtual currency issuers and exchangers must comply with anti-money laundering regulations, requiring customer identity verification (KYC) and suspicious activity reporting (SAR). During this period, regulatory efforts focused primarily on combating illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorism financing facilitated through cryptocurrencies.

The ICO Boom and SEC’s Intervention (2017–2020): The Debate Over Securities Classification

Beginning in 2017, the rise of ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) led to a surge in new cryptocurrency projects, attracting many investors. However, many ICO projects lacked sufficient information disclosure and were plagued by fraud, raising concerns among regulators.

In response, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) intensified its oversight of the cryptocurrency market, particularly targeting unregistered securities tokens. Through issuing investor alerts, conducting investigations, and filing lawsuits, the SEC clarified the legal standards for securities tokens and required tokens meeting the definition of securities to register accordingly. This regulation phase focused on determining whether crypto assets qualify as securities and protecting investors from fraud and market manipulation.

Source: Steel-Eye

Formation of a Multi-Agency Regulatory Framework and Stablecoin Oversight (2020–2024)

The United States gradually established a coordinated multi-agency regulatory framework as the cryptocurrency market grew. In addition to the SEC and FinCEN, agencies like the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), the Treasury Department, the Department of Justice, and the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) also became actively involved in cryptocurrency regulation. This regulation stage became more diverse, focusing on maintaining financial stability, mitigating systemic risks, combating illegal activities, protecting investors, and fostering technological innovation. \

Source: PYMNTS

In 2021, the U.S. Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), an important piece of legislation aimed at strengthening cryptocurrency tax compliance. The Act explicitly required brokers to report cryptocurrency transactions exceeding $600, significantly expanding the tax reporting scope and enhancing brokers’ obligations to report transactions to the IRS.

Source: MoneyInternational

Moreover, the IIJA provided clearer definitions of key concepts such as “broker,” offering a more solid basis for tax enforcement. These measures aim to increase transparency in cryptocurrency transactions, ensure tax fairness, and address the regulatory challenges posed by stablecoins’ rapid development and associated risks.

The Direction of U.S. Cryptocurrency Regulation in 2024

The essence of U.S. cryptocurrency policy adjustments in 2024 results from long-term influences from various complex factors built on the historical context outlined earlier.

Maintaining Financial Stability and Preventing Systemic Risks

The rapid growth of the cryptocurrency market, especially in stablecoins and DeFi, poses potential systemic risks to traditional financial systems. Large-scale redemptions of stablecoins could trigger a “bank run”-style liquidity crisis, impacting money market funds and short-term bond markets. The complexity and interconnectivity of DeFi protocols, combined with a lack of effective oversight, could cause risks to spread rapidly across different protocols. Strengthening regulation on stablecoin issuers and DeFi platforms to reduce their potential risks to the financial system has become a critical regulatory goal.

Protecting Consumer and Investor Rights

The cryptocurrency market has long been plagued by fraud, market manipulation, and extreme price volatility, severely harming investors’ interests. Illegal activities like ICO fraud, Ponzi schemes, and smart contract vulnerabilities have caused significant losses for investors. While progress remains limited, strengthening investor protection, increasing market transparency, and establishing sound dispute resolution mechanisms are areas where regulators are making efforts.

Combating Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Cryptocurrencies’ anonymity and cross-border nature make them ideal tools for illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing. To address this, the U.S. government has ramped up its oversight of the cryptocurrency sector in recent years.

Initially targeting traditional financial institutions, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970 has since been extended to cover Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs). Under the BSA, VASPs must maintain strict transaction records and implement anti-money laundering (AML) compliance programs to prevent illegal cryptocurrency activities. In recent years, FinCEN has issued guidance to strengthen oversight of VASPs, including compliance measures for emerging areas like stablecoins and DeFi. These initiatives raise entry barriers, enhance industry transparency, and promote self-regulation within the sector.

Responding to Rapidly Changing Technologies and Market Landscapes

In May 2021, the U.S. Treasury issued a statement on digital assets, outlining plans to strengthen cryptocurrency regulation in response to rapid technological and market changes. SEC Chair Gary Gensler has repeatedly emphasized that most cryptocurrencies qualify as securities and must comply with securities laws. In 2022, the SEC sued major cryptocurrency exchanges like Binance, accusing them of illegally operating securities trading platforms.

At the same time, the CFTC has intensified oversight of cryptocurrency derivatives. To navigate this increasingly complex regulatory environment, many cryptocurrency companies have sought cooperation with regulators and actively engaged in self-regulation. For instance, exchanges like Coinbase have proactively communicated with the SEC to seek clearer regulatory guidelines. Some state governments have also introduced their own cryptocurrency regulations, such as New York’s BitLicense.

Source: RUSI

Internationally, the U.S. actively participates in G20 summits and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), advocating for a unified global cryptocurrency regulatory standard. In 2018, FATF released a risk assessment framework for virtual assets and VASPs to guide national regulatory agencies.

Coordination with Other Countries and Regions

The nature of cryptocurrencies necessitates international cooperation in regulation. Illegal activities such as money laundering and terrorist financing exploit the anonymity of cryptocurrencies to operate across borders, making it difficult for any single country’s regulations to be effective. Regulatory discrepancies between countries create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, enabling illegal activities.

Organizations like the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are working with the U.S. government to push for globally unified regulatory standards. However, differing national interests and the rapid pace of technological development pose significant challenges to achieving consensus.

Domestic Political Dynamics in the U.S.

Cryptocurrency regulation in the U.S. is marked by significant political divisions. Differing views among parties and interest groups complicate the policymaking process and create uncertainty.

Some Republican lawmakers favor a more relaxed regulatory environment, arguing that it encourages innovation and market development while avoiding stifling emerging industries. Emphasizing free-market principles, they believe excessive regulation would hinder U.S. competitiveness in blockchain technology and cryptocurrency. Some have even proposed bills to limit the SEC’s authority over commodity-like tokens such as Bitcoin.

Democratic lawmakers, on the other hand, tend to advocate for stricter regulations to protect investors and maintain financial stability. They focus on potential risks within the cryptocurrency market and argue that innovation should not come at the expense of risk management. These lawmakers generally support strong action by agencies like the SEC to scrutinize and regulate the industry.

Interest groups also play key roles in this political struggle:

Cryptocurrency industry associations and businesses: These groups often lobby for a more lenient regulatory environment and actively participate in policymaking to ensure regulations do not stifle innovation.

Traditional financial institutions: Some are cautious about cryptocurrencies, fearing competition with their existing businesses. However, as more institutions engage with crypto, their stance has become more nuanced.

Consumer protection organizations: These groups emphasize the need for stronger regulation to prevent fraud and market manipulation that harm investors.

This political contention adds layers of complexity to U.S. cryptocurrency regulation, influencing the formulation and implementation of policies. For example, a proposed comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory framework could stall due to partisan disagreements on key provisions. Even when legislation passes, its enforcement may be shaped by political factors, such as changes in leadership at agencies like the SEC or CFTC.

Moreover, state-level regulatory developments further complicate the landscape. For instance, Wyoming has adopted a crypto-friendly stance to attract businesses, while other states remain more cautious.

Understanding U.S. cryptocurrency regulation requires acknowledging the intricate political dynamics behind it. These dynamics will continue to shape future policy directions and profoundly impact the cryptocurrency industry.

Case Studies: Regulatory Cases, Enforcement Actions, and Legal Proceedings

In recent years, with the rapid development of the cryptocurrency market, regulatory agencies worldwide have stepped up their efforts in this field. Among them, the SEC is one of the most active regulators. The agency has conducted enforcement actions against several ICO projects, such as Telegram’s TON blockchain project and Block.one’s EOS ICO, clarifying that ICOs must comply with securities laws. Additionally, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs, questioning whether XRP constitutes a security, which drew widespread attention in the industry.

Beyond ICOs, the SEC has also cracked down on insider trading by cryptocurrency exchanges and individuals, such as in the SEC v. Wahi case. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) focuses on regulating cryptocurrency derivatives markets, overseeing Bitcoin futures contracts launched by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE), and penalizing market manipulation. Meanwhile, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) concentrates on anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, penalizing cryptocurrency exchanges for failing to effectively implement AML regulations.

These cases demonstrate how regulators continuously explore ways to apply traditional securities and commodities laws to new digital assets while addressing challenges posed by emerging areas like decentralized finance (DeFi).

The SEC uses the “Howey Test,” a classic standard in securities law, to scrutinize ICO projects rigorously. The core of this test is determining whether investors expect profits through the efforts of others. If investors purchase digital assets to share in the project’s future gains, the assets may be classified as securities. For example, in the Ripple case, the SEC applied the Howey Test to assess whether XRP constitutes an investment contract. Similarly, the lawsuits against Telegram’s TON and Block.one’s EOS ICO followed the same logic.

The CFTC v. Ooki DAO case offers new perspectives on regulating DeFi. The decentralized nature of DAOs complicates the application of traditional regulatory methods. The CFTC’s lawsuit against Ooki DAO primarily focused on whether it provided illegal leveraged trading and failed to conduct proper customer identity verification. This case sparked extensive discussion about the legal nature of DAOs, the regulation of DeFi platforms, and how to balance innovation with risk.

Source: CoinSpaid

These two cases reflect how regulators continuously explore ways to apply traditional securities and commodities laws to new digital assets while striving to adapt to the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency market.

Special Policies

Potential Impact of Trump’s Return to Office

If Donald Trump is re-elected as U.S. President, the impact on cryptocurrency regulatory policies remains uncertain. While he initially held a negative view of cryptocurrencies, his recent statements have shifted, even hinting at making the U.S. a “global cryptocurrency hub.”

A change in administration under Trump could affect not only the SEC but also extend to the CFTC, FinCEN, and other agencies. He may appoint crypto-friendly officials to lead these organizations, potentially altering their regulatory focus and enforcement intensity.

Policy changes under the Trump administration could significantly affect the DeFi and NFT markets. Looser regulations might foster growth and innovation in these areas but could also heighten market risks.

The Role of the Federal Reserve System in Cryptocurrency Regulation

Source: Investopedia

As the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve plays a key role in cryptocurrency regulation, focusing primarily on maintaining financial stability and ensuring the security of the payment system. The Federal Reserve has shown particular concern over stablecoins, fearing that their large-scale issuance and redemption could impact money market funds and the broader financial system, potentially triggering systemic risks. For instance, the Federal Reserve has issued bans on banks dealing with cryptocurrency companies, citing “significant deficiencies” in managing crypto-related risks, particularly in anti-money laundering compliance. The Federal Reserve is also actively exploring the potential of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) through ongoing research and pilot projects.

The Federal Reserve’s Focus on Stablecoins

Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies pegged to fiat currencies or other assets (e.g., USDT). Their relative price stability has made them an essential tool in cryptocurrency transactions and payments. The Federal Reserve is concerned that issues with the reserve assets backing stablecoins, such as holdings of high-risk commercial paper or illiquid assets, could lead to significant price volatility or redemption risks. These scenarios could undermine financial stability.

To mitigate these risks, the Federal Reserve advocates for stronger regulation of stablecoin issuers, requiring them to hold high-quality, highly liquid reserve assets and to conduct regular audits and disclosures.

The Federal Reserve’s Research on CBDCs

The Federal Reserve’s research on CBDCs aims to thoroughly evaluate their potential benefits and risks and assess their impact on the existing financial system. The Federal Reserve is exploring whether CBDCs could improve payment efficiency, reduce transaction costs, expand access to financial services, and maintain the U.S. dollar’s dominance in the global payment system.

The issuance of a CBDC could significantly alter the retail payments landscape, with profound implications for the transmission of monetary policy, commercial banking operations, and financial stability.

The Federal Reserve’s Regulatory Tools and Authority

The Federal Reserve has broad regulatory authority, which it exercises through issuing regulatory guidance, overseeing banking institutions, and regulating payment systems. These mechanisms enable the Federal Reserve to set expectations for cryptocurrency-related activities, restrict banks from engaging in high-risk crypto activities, and influence the use of innovative payment tools like stablecoins. Importantly, the Federal Reserve collaborates closely with agencies such as the SEC and CFTC to build a comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory framework.

The Federal Reserve’s regulatory priorities focus on three areas:

Bank Participation in Cryptocurrency Activities: The Federal Reserve monitors whether banks possess adequate risk management capabilities and whether they commingle customer crypto assets with their own assets.

Stablecoin Regulation: The Federal Reserve scrutinizes the issuance mechanisms of stablecoins, the quality of their reserve assets, and their potential risks to the financial system.

Impact of Cryptocurrencies on Financial Stability: The Federal Reserve closely tracks the development of the cryptocurrency market and evaluates its implications for the traditional financial system.

Wall Street and U.S. Cryptocurrency Policy

Source: TheBalanceMoney

Wall Street’s involvement in the cryptocurrency market has grown significantly. Traditional financial giants such as Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, and JPMorgan Chase, which once held cautious attitudes toward crypto assets, are now actively participating in the space, expanding into areas like trading, custody, derivatives, and asset management. Institutional acceptance of crypto assets has increased dramatically, and the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs has accelerated this trend.

Regulatory policies are a key driver behind this transformation. The U.S. government’s cryptocurrency regulations directly influence the ways and extent to which Wall Street interest groups engage with the market. Clear and transparent regulatory policies boost the confidence of traditional financial institutions, attracting more institutional capital and providing greater vitality to these new asset classes.

Wall Street’s Changing Attitudes Toward Cryptocurrencies

Wall Street’s perception of cryptocurrencies has evolved from widespread skepticism to gradual acceptance. Initially, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin were seen as highly speculative assets lacking intrinsic value and posing significant risks. However, as the crypto market grew and institutional demand increased, Wall Street began reassessing the potential of digital assets.

The approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs marked a critical turning point. It lowered barriers for institutional investors to enter the Bitcoin market, increased market compliance, and improved transparency, further accelerating Wall Street’s participation in the cryptocurrency space.

Wall Street’s Deepening Interaction with the Cryptocurrency Market

Wall Street institutions are playing an increasingly pivotal role in the cryptocurrency market. On one hand, they actively participate in the market through trading and investment, driving growth. On the other hand, they exert significant influence on regulatory policies.

Through activities like high-frequency trading and market-making, Wall Street firms have greatly improved the liquidity of cryptocurrency markets and reduced transaction costs. Their presence has introduced more sophisticated trading strategies, risk management tools, and market infrastructure, promoting professionalization and standardization. Moreover, their involvement has attracted more institutional investors, further expanding the market.

Beyond market participation, Wall Street institutions influence regulatory policy in several ways:

Lobbying: Through advocacy groups and direct communication with lawmakers, Wall Street firms express their regulatory preferences, aiming to protect investors while avoiding overregulation that could stifle innovation.

Providing Expertise: With their deep financial market experience, Wall Street firms offer regulatory agencies valuable insights and support in crafting effective policies.

Industry Associations: Active participation in cryptocurrency industry associations allows Wall Street firms to help shape industry standards and improve regulatory frameworks.

In summary, Wall Street and the cryptocurrency market have developed a deeply interactive relationship. Wall Street institutions are not only key market participants but also powerful forces shaping market rules. This interaction has profoundly influenced the growth, maturity, and standardization of the cryptocurrency market.

Silicon Valley and U.S. Cryptocurrency Policy

Source: BBC

As a global hub for technological innovation, Silicon Valley has shifted from focusing on hardware and software to diving into blockchain technology, cryptocurrency trading, and decentralized applications. Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are actively building their presence in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

The U.S. government’s cryptocurrency policies directly affect Silicon Valley’s innovation direction and development speed. Clear and transparent regulations attract more venture capital to the market. These policies also give tech companies the confidence to innovate, fueling the development of new technologies vital for the growth of cryptocurrency and blockchain industries.

Silicon Valley has always been a driving force behind blockchain and cryptocurrency advancements. From early Bitcoin mining hardware and software development to modern DeFi, Web3, and NFT applications, Silicon Valley tech firms and startups have consistently played a vital role in the evolution of the crypto space.

Silicon Valley’s Changing Attitudes Toward Cryptocurrencies

Silicon Valley’s stance on cryptocurrencies has evolved from technological exploration to commercial application. Initially, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin were seen as novel technological experiments, attracting the attention of tech enthusiasts. However, as blockchain technology matured and its use cases expanded, Silicon Valley’s tech giants began to recognize the vast potential of cryptocurrencies. Their focus gradually shifted from underlying technologies to upper-layer applications, such as smart contracts and decentralized finance (DeFi).

Silicon Valley’s Deep Interaction with the Cryptocurrency Market

Silicon Valley tech companies play increasingly important roles in the cryptocurrency market. On one hand, they are active innovators, driving market growth by developing new blockchain protocols, smart contract platforms, and decentralized applications. On the other hand, they are influential in shaping regulatory policies.

Venture capital firms (VCs) play a vital role in Silicon Valley’s crypto ecosystem. Renowned VCs such as Andreessen Horowitz and Sequoia Capital have invested heavily in numerous crypto startups, fueling industry growth.

These firms have introduced more open development models, flexible business models, and robust technical support, fostering market innovation and attracting additional venture capital. This influx of funding has provided substantial support to many crypto startups.

The Impact of Bitcoin ETFs

This year, the SEC approved the listing of Bitcoin spot ETFs, a landmark event. Bitcoin ETFs offer investors a more convenient and compliant way to invest in Bitcoin, eliminating the need for direct ownership and management, reducing investment barriers and operational complexity.

The Market Impact of Bitcoin ETFs

The approval of Bitcoin ETFs has had profound effects, particularly within the framework of U.S. cryptocurrency policies. This development signifies improved alignment between regulatory standards and market demand.

First, Bitcoin ETFs lower investment barriers by allowing investors to purchase them through traditional brokerage accounts without needing to create cryptocurrency exchange accounts or manage private keys. This convenience increases participation among retail investors while meeting U.S. financial product safety and transparency requirements. For example, Bitcoin ETFs must disclose holdings and undergo regular audits, improving market transparency and reducing fraud risks. This aligns with U.S. policies to protect investors’ interests.

Moreover, the compliance and accessibility of Bitcoin ETFs have attracted more institutional investors, such as pension funds and insurance companies. The influx of long-term capital not only stabilizes the Bitcoin market but also reflects U.S. regulatory support for mainstream financial institutions entering the crypto space. The success of Bitcoin ETFs also provides a reference for the development of other cryptocurrency ETFs, such as Ethereum ETFs, advancing their approval process. This trend highlights the U.S.’s gradual acceptance of crypto innovations while ensuring market health through regulation.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Innovation, Risks, and International Cooperation

The future of U.S. cryptocurrency policy faces numerous uncertainties. Since the inception of cryptocurrencies, the U.S. has sought to build an effective regulatory framework for this emerging market.

Historically, U.S. financial innovation regulation has evolved from being reactive to adaptive. For example, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 marked the initial establishment of securities market regulation, prompted by the lessons of the 1929 stock market crash. Similarly, the rise of internet finance led to the continuous refinement of relevant regulations.

In the crypto domain, the U.S. is expected to strengthen its regulatory efforts, focusing on: Clarifying Securities Classification: This will directly affect compliance costs and business models for projects; finalizing Stablecoin Regulations: Aimed at reducing systemic risks and protecting investors; exploring DeFi Regulation: Striking a balance between managing risks and fostering innovation; enhancing AML and Anti-Terrorist Financing Measures: To prevent the misuse of cryptocurrencies in illegal activities.

Given the cross-border nature of cryptocurrencies, no single country’s regulations can be entirely effective. Strengthening international cooperation will be crucial.

Balancing technological innovation with risk control remains a central theme. Excessive regulation risks stifling innovation and hindering blockchain technology’s development, while insufficient regulation could lead to uncontrolled market risks and harm investors.

Historical examples show that flexible and pragmatic regulatory approaches are essential in rapidly evolving technological fields. For instance, the U.S. FDA adopts a tiered approach in regulating biotechnology and medical devices, tailoring oversight to the level of risk. Similarly, cryptocurrency regulators are expected to take a more flexible and practical stance, closely monitoring technological trends and collaborating with the industry to create frameworks that protect investors, ensure financial stability, and promote innovation.

Political debates around cryptocurrencies will also continue, influencing the direction of regulatory policies. Different political parties and interest groups will engage in ongoing debates, reflecting the broader impact of politics on economic policies. For example, the New Deal economic policies under President Roosevelt were deeply influenced by the political environment of the time. In the crypto field, political debates may affect legislative progress and the intensity of regulatory enforcement.

In conclusion, these factors collectively shape the future of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation.