#白宫加密会议 | When Power Meets the Blockchain: Why Washington’s Crypto Rules Hit a Wall

February 2026, Washington D.C.
Snow on the streets, fire in the policy room.
Behind closed doors at the White House, a single sentence changed the entire direction of U.S. crypto regulation:
“Any clause that questions the President’s moral position will not be accepted.”
That line didn’t just stall a bill — it exposed the real tension between political power and decentralized finance.
⚖️ The Core Conflict: Regulator or Participant?
At the heart of the storm lies a reality Washington can no longer ignore:
The President is no longer just regulating crypto — he is economically connected to it.
World Liberty Financial (WLFI), once dismissed as a campaign-era Web3 experiment, has evolved into a serious DeFi ecosystem with global capital ties. Recent disclosures of foreign-linked investment pushed the issue from policy debate into national governance risk.
In traditional finance, this would trigger:
Asset divestment
Blind trusts
Strict conflict-of-interest protocols
But crypto doesn’t fit neatly into those old boxes.
🧨 Why the “Ethics Clause” Became a Red Line
Lawmakers attempted to introduce an ethics provision into the Digital Asset Market Structure Act, proposing that senior officials:
Refrain from holding regulated crypto assets, or
Fully disclose on-chain wallets and transactions
On paper, it looks like transparency.
In practice, the White House sees it as political weaponization.
From their perspective:
WLFI predates the presidency
Forced divestment equals retroactive punishment
Mandatory disclosure could open doors to endless legal attacks
In short: regulation turned personal.
🌊 Regulation Enters the “Deep Water Zone”
This is no longer about stablecoins, custody rules, or SEC jurisdiction.
It’s about who writes the rules when they benefit from the game.
The U.S. crypto framework now faces a paradox:
Pass the bill without ethics limits
→ Faster compliance, institutional clarity
→ But risk of “political favoritism” and distorted competition
Insist on strict moral clauses
→ Higher ethical standards
→ But near-certain legislative collapse
Either choice carries systemic cost.
📉 What This Means for the Market
For traders and investors, this episode delivers three hard lessons:
1️⃣ Regulation is political before it is technical
Charts don’t move on code alone — they move on power negotiations.
2️⃣ Decentralization has a ceiling
When protocols intersect with heads of state, decentralization bends.
3️⃣ Compliance paths may not be equal
Projects aligned with political gravity may enjoy smoother approvals — a reality the market must price in.
🔮 What Likely Happens Next?
The bill survives, but weakened
Ethics language diluted into “voluntary disclosure”
WLFI emerges as the first politically compliant DeFi model
Other projects race to decode that playbook
Short-term clarity.
Long-term credibility questions.
🧠 Final Thought
Crypto was built to remove middlemen.
But in 2026, it faces the ultimate intermediary: state power.
When blockchain meets the presidency,
“Code is Law” quietly steps aside for “Authority is Law.”
For investors, builders, and traders, the real alpha isn’t just on TradingView —
it’s on Capitol Hill.