White House and Compliance Platform "Negotiation Stalemate": Crypto Legislation Stalled

2026-01-17 02:12:14

Abstract generation in progress

【Blockchain Rhythm】The comprehensive legislation on cryptocurrencies has recently fallen into a subtle policy tug-of-war. Here’s what happened: the CEO of a compliant platform suddenly announced their opposition to the current bill version just before the Senate Banking Committee vote, citing that the draft “is worse than the current regulatory environment,” implying that they prefer to maintain the status quo rather than pass a problematic bill.

This move angered the White House. According to industry insiders, the White House is very dissatisfied with this “unilateral” action, mainly because there was no prior communication. The White House’s stance is clear — a single company cannot represent the entire industry to make such a big move, which is akin to pulling the rug out from under negotiations and disrupting ongoing discussions.

The core conflict revolves around profit distribution. The White House hopes the platform can return to the negotiating table and present an agreement that satisfies the banking sector’s needs while uniting industry consensus. If negotiations continue to stall, the White House is even considering withdrawing support for this crypto market structure bill altogether.

Interestingly, the White House explicitly stated — this is a government-led bill, not a bill authored by a certain company CEO. The implication is that the policy initiative is not in the platform’s hands. This game of chess will continue to unfold, and the upcoming vote results will directly determine the regulatory direction of the crypto industry.

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

tokenomics_truther

· 6h ago

Here we go again with this routine. One company says it's just about undermining negotiations? What about the White House itself, just a spokesperson for interest groups. This bill has been designed for bankers from the start, it's laughable. When CEOs dare to tell the truth, they are seen as the bad guys, how ironic. Just wait, they'll come up with a plan that no one is satisfied with. Money and power games, retail investors' opinions don't really matter. Why does it have to go through? Is maintaining the status quo really that bad? I think, actually, this CEO is betting that the White House will make concessions.

View OriginalReply0

alpha_leaker

· 6h ago

What game is the White House playing? If a company says no, isn't that enough? Do they still have to listen to you? It's just a trick of interest groups; at the negotiation table, it's always big fish eating small fish. The CEO is scared, and this kind of backpedaling only makes it look worse. Basically, it's about not dividing the cake properly, each with their own thoughts. If you don't support it, then just don't support it. Why bother with this fake agreement drama? Regulation is even worse and still being pushed hard; this legislation is really a joke. The White House is applying pressure—typical coercive negotiation. This industry is really dirty. Maintaining the status quo is better than a bad bill; the CEO has a point. What are we even talking about? It's basically just cleaning up after the banking industry.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHarvester

· 6h ago

Is this the same gameplay again? One platform turns hostile, and the entire situation is a total loss. This CEO is really bold. How could the White House possibly swallow this? They start shifting blame before the profit distribution is even discussed. Truly outrageous. A compliant platform betrays? Then what's the point of regulation? Let's wait and see how the White House handles this mess. There will definitely be follow-up. Using the "drain the swamp" move is quite ruthless. Industry folks still have to continue the awkward conversations. The bill is stuck, and the industry has to wait a bit longer. The White House originally had good intentions, but they were forcefully spoiled. It feels like negotiations are far from over. Let's just wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

SpeakWithHatOn

· 6h ago

It's the same old trick again, a company jumps out pretending to be the representative, and the White House gets anxious. This bill has been a trap from the start, and now anyone who dares to tell the truth becomes a troublemaker. Profit sharing? At the core, it's still about money. What the banks want is control. The CEO is indeed a bit reckless, but rather than getting caught up, it's better to get out first. I understand. That kind of "big picture" rhetoric from the White House is just for show, don't take it seriously. If you ask me, this bill should be either revised until everyone is satisfied or just dropped altogether. What's the point of squeezing toothpaste like this? Who wins? In the end, everyone has to compromise. That's politics.

View OriginalReply0