A recent joint meeting between the two parties involved intense policy discussions around the Crypto Market Structure Act. According to the meeting documents, the Democratic Party has proposed a series of quite stringent regulatory requirements in the DeFi sector.
First is the front-end compliance issue. The Democrats require DeFi front-ends to be incorporated into sanctions compliance frameworks, meaning that the access layer of decentralized platforms must also adhere to government sanctions list checks. They also want to grant the Treasury Department greater authority to take special measures, further strengthening regulatory oversight over non-centralized DeFi applications.
Regulatory demands also include redefining the classification of crypto assets, introducing new investor protection provisions for crypto ATMs, and enhancing the FTC’s consumer protection powers. The Democrats particularly emphasized anti-avoidance clauses to close loopholes that allow evasion of securities laws through technical means. Additionally, they are considering imposing hard caps on issuer fundraising, limiting it to a maximum of $200 million, with mandatory SEC filings to confirm that the offerings do not constitute securities.
Some thorny issues remain unresolved, including how to regulate stablecoin yields and conflicts of interest, which require further negotiation.
On the Republican side, efforts are underway to push the Senate Banking Committee to review the bill on January 15. However, honestly, whether the two parties can ultimately reach an agreement remains uncertain. While both sides are willing to promote structured regulation of the crypto market, significant disagreements still exist, and many key issues have yet to be clarified.
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.
12 Likes
Reward
12
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ponzi_poet
· 2h ago
The Democrats really want to clamp down on DeFi, even imposing sanctions and compliance frameworks on the frontend? Then just hand over all the code to the Treasury Department.
View OriginalReply0
TokenStorm
· 5h ago
On-chain data shows that this wave of regulatory expectations has already caused a sell-off. With the Democratic Party's series of measures, the DeFi arbitrage opportunities have been wiped out. Those of us caught in the eye of the storm need to quickly assess the risk factors.
View OriginalReply0
LightningClicker
· 01-09 11:22
With this combined approach from the Democratic Party, DeFi has been directly locked down, a $200 million cap? That's hilarious, isn't this essentially a de facto ban?
Wait, even front-end developers need to check sanctions lists? Then what's the point of decentralization? I'm just puzzled.
The two parties are starting to oppose each other again, and nothing will get through. Let's just keep watching the show.
If the Treasury Department's authority is expanded again, our industry might really be finished.
See you on January 15th to find out. The intention to patch vulnerabilities is quite malicious.
Why isn't the Republican Party speaking up? What are they scheming behind the scenes?
The stablecoin issue is still hanging, and ironically, that's where the most trouble lies.
With the $200 million cap introduced, how many projects will need to redo their fundraising plans?
View OriginalReply0
WalletDetective
· 01-08 15:49
The Democratic Party's moves are really outrageous, front-end compliance, sanctions lists, strict financing caps... Isn't this just trying to suffocate DeFi? A $200 million fundraising ceiling? Ha, it's basically stifling innovation.
View OriginalReply0
P2ENotWorking
· 01-08 15:49
Coming to suppress us again? Front-end compliance, funding caps, SEC filings... The Democratic Party's combination of measures is directly trying to push DeFi to the brink.
View OriginalReply0
SoliditySlayer
· 01-08 15:47
Here we go again, front-end compliance, sanctions lists, $200 million cap... With this approach, what’s left of DeFi? Might as well kill decentralization in its cradle.
View OriginalReply0
HodlKumamon
· 01-08 15:30
Well... Based on the policy volatility over the past seven trading days, this thing is probably mostly going to end up being shelved.
Front-end compliance + $200 million cap, really pushing the boundaries of innovation. Data shows that this wave of regulation exceeds the historical average by a large margin.
Neither party has figured out how to handle stablecoins. I’ve come to understand—this is essentially subtracting from the crypto space.
Honestly, regulation is always reactive. By the time rules are firmly established, the market has already moved elsewhere.
To be honest, I would prefer to see precise regulation rather than this kind of one-size-fits-all heavy-handed approach.
A recent joint meeting between the two parties involved intense policy discussions around the Crypto Market Structure Act. According to the meeting documents, the Democratic Party has proposed a series of quite stringent regulatory requirements in the DeFi sector.
First is the front-end compliance issue. The Democrats require DeFi front-ends to be incorporated into sanctions compliance frameworks, meaning that the access layer of decentralized platforms must also adhere to government sanctions list checks. They also want to grant the Treasury Department greater authority to take special measures, further strengthening regulatory oversight over non-centralized DeFi applications.
Regulatory demands also include redefining the classification of crypto assets, introducing new investor protection provisions for crypto ATMs, and enhancing the FTC’s consumer protection powers. The Democrats particularly emphasized anti-avoidance clauses to close loopholes that allow evasion of securities laws through technical means. Additionally, they are considering imposing hard caps on issuer fundraising, limiting it to a maximum of $200 million, with mandatory SEC filings to confirm that the offerings do not constitute securities.
Some thorny issues remain unresolved, including how to regulate stablecoin yields and conflicts of interest, which require further negotiation.
On the Republican side, efforts are underway to push the Senate Banking Committee to review the bill on January 15. However, honestly, whether the two parties can ultimately reach an agreement remains uncertain. While both sides are willing to promote structured regulation of the crypto market, significant disagreements still exist, and many key issues have yet to be clarified.