2026-01-11 22:20:35

BTC Market Observation

The legislative battle in the US Congress over stablecoin reward clauses is heating up. A leading compliant platform is increasing pressure on Congress to protect its interests in the upcoming crypto-related legislation.

This seemingly technical discussion of regulatory details actually touches on the core competitive logic of the entire crypto trading ecosystem.

**Market Impact Analysis**

If the bill ultimately restricts stablecoin reward clauses, it will be a clear bearish signal for the industry. Simply put, this would directly impact the wallets of major exchanges—since stablecoin trading rewards are a key tool for attracting users and accumulating trading volume. Once this revenue stream is limited, operational costs are likely to rise, squeezing profit margins.

A deeper concern lies in the uncertainty of the regulatory framework. Frequent policy adjustments could cause the entire industry to remain in a wait-and-see mode, which is unfavorable for long-term planning by market participants. This kind of uncertainty often dampens market enthusiasm and significantly undermines confidence among institutional investors.

In the short term, such policy risks are indeed worth monitoring. But in the long run, standardized regulation could also bring a more stable development environment for the industry.

BTC0,61%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

6 Likes

Reward
6
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CompoundPersonality

· 12h ago

Doing this again? The leading exchanges are still there wrangling with Congress. Honestly, they just don't want to give up that reward income. Doing this again? It's simply a matter of competing interests, not a technical discussion at all. Regulation—can it be standardized just by saying so? I think we need to observe for a while. Wait, the rewards were cut, and retail investors' earnings are gone too. Long-term regulation is good, but how can we play this game in the short term? Really don't know which one will survive in the end.

View OriginalReply0

rugpull_ptsd

· 17h ago

Another new trick to cut leeks? Exchanges rely on rewards to burn money and expand their territory. Now they're about to cut off the feeding source.

View OriginalReply0

MemeEchoer

· 01-11 22:48

Another policy to cut leeks? The exchanges are feeling discouraged.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien

· 01-11 22:48

Major exchanges are starting to play political games again. To put it simply, they're just afraid of not making money. Once stablecoin rewards are blocked, retail investors lose benefits, and exchange profits also shrink. This move is truly outrageous. But to be honest, this kind of regulatory uncertainty is the most annoying... Institutions have long been fed up.

View OriginalReply0

BlindBoxVictim

· 01-11 22:43

You're trying to harvest retail investors again. Without stablecoin rewards, how will the exchange continue to suck blood?

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerWallet

· 01-11 22:37

Another policy to cut into us retail investors? Large exchanges are starting to play games again in Congress. I just want to know if we're still the ones who end up paying in the end.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhobia

· 01-11 22:27

Another bill to cut the leeks? I've seen through it long ago. Exchanges collude with politicians while cutting user rewards, and in the end, retail investors are the ones who suffer.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainDecoder

· 01-11 22:21

According to research, the most interesting aspect here is not the policy itself, but the underlying logic of利益分配 (benefit distribution)—is the influence of major trading hubs really that significant in the country's discourse? From a technical perspective, stablecoin reward mechanisms are essentially a variation of user acquisition costs; restricting them might actually promote industry innovation. However, the problem is that this "innovation pressure" often comes at the cost of small platforms' demise. It is worth noting that the uncertainty of regulatory frameworks is the real poison—more destructive than the specific restrictions themselves. Let's return to the fundamental question: do market participants need a relaxed and environmentally friendly environment, or do they need predictable and clear rules? Overall, there will indeed be short-term volatility, but institutional investors are very calm—they have long been betting on a long-term institutionalization direction.

View OriginalReply0

ProposalManiac

· 01-11 22:21

In plain terms, it's a game of interest groups building walls in Congress; whoever controls the pricing power wins. The rewards for stablecoins may seem like technical details, but in fact, they are at the core of an exchange's moat—limiting them is equivalent to weakening the dominant voice. However, the real issue is that the policy swings themselves are the biggest cost, and institutions have long been scared away.

View OriginalReply0