The Senate is working to agree on a legal framework for cryptoassets before the end of the year, driven by bipartisan negotiations aiming to address issues around stablecoins, custody, and jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC. The approval will reveal whether the law protects development and financial sovereignty or contributes to the concentration of power, directly affecting innovation and competitiveness in the U.S. crypto sector.
Negotiations and Timeline
Senators from both parties have taken the initiative to draft a structural market text, with figures like Cynthia Lummis, Tim Scott, and Kirsten Gillibrand leading the negotiations. The goal is to move the bill through committees toward a full vote before year-end.
The timeline is ambitious, aiming to resolve procedural differences in the coming months and bring the text to a vote, although the legislative path depends on committee agreements and political concessions, as well as the cooperation of regulators and the private sector to implement effective changes.
Key Points of the Proposed Framework
The discussions seek to:
-
Clarify the allocation of responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC.
-
Impose reserve and transparency requirements on stablecoin issuers.
-
Define the treatment of tokenized assets, providing regulatory certainty for exchanges, custodians, and institutional investors.
The text proposes:
-
Reserve and audit requirements for stablecoins.
-
Criteria to determine when a token is considered a security.
-
Clear custody and compliance rules for custodians and liquidity providers.
All measures are designed to reduce systemic risks, increase market participants’ confidence, and promote a safer, more transparent, and accessible cryptoasset ecosystem.
Obstacles, Risks, and Criticisms
Friction remains that could delay or significantly alter the text, including:
-
Opposition from certain senators
-
Differences in party priorities
-
Lack of full coordination between regulatory agencies
There are also concerns about regulatory capture, the risk that rules favor centralized providers over decentralized models, and risks such as:
-
Political polarization with very close votes
-
Regulatory ambiguity leaving assets without clear oversight
-
Market concentration in centralized intermediaries, potentially limiting competition and innovation in the sector.
Conclusion
An agreement before year-end would provide greater clarity, foster institutional investor confidence, and could facilitate the expansion of blockchain-based financial products and services, but the quality of the design will be decisive. The law must balance investor protection with the preservation of a decentralized ecosystem and financial sovereignty for users, avoiding solutions that consolidate power in unnecessary intermediaries and ensuring a more competitive and resilient market.
