Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Ethan (@ethanzhangweb3)_

On July 30, Eastern Time, the White House officially released the "Digital Asset Policy Report." This article provides a quick overview of the five major conclusions and two uncertainties, along with the regulatory and business implications and next observation points. (The report referenced in this article is the official version)

Five Major Conclusions

1) Stablecoins "enter the payment channel," with clear definitions and regulatory boundaries:

The report provides a legal definition of "payment stablecoins": used for payment/settlement, redeemable at a fixed amount, and "not a national fiat currency, not a deposit, and not a security"; at the same time, (licensed) stablecoin issuers are clearly defined as "financial institutions" under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and require foreign issuers to lawfully execute freezing/seizure orders in U.S. law enforcement scenarios. This means stablecoins are included in the payment and anti-money laundering/anti-terrorist financing framework, rather than the securities issuance channel.

2) Banks "unfreeze" and accelerate access:

The requirement for prior regulatory reporting and joint "risk" warnings has been withdrawn, and "reputational risk" is no longer a check item. The application for a master account must provide a clear time limit, and if overdue, it can be "deemed approved"; and qualification cannot be denied solely due to involvement in digital asset business. For the industry, this directly relates to the availability and predictability of bank custody, clearing, and payment.

3) Market structure provides a "toolbox":

The SEC/CFTC is advised to use rule-making and exemptions to provide a limited-time "safe harbor"/exemption for projects that have not fully realized their functions or are not sufficiently decentralized; for digital assets that are unrelated to investment contracts or do not constitute securities under specific conditions, it is suggested to allow trading on non-SEC registered platforms (under accompanying conditions); and to explore a regulatory sandbox, establishing clear entry and graduation paths. This approach aims to orderly incorporate financing, trading, custody, and clearing into regulation, avoiding a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

4) Taxation path: writing digital assets "into the law" to fill in key rules like wash sales.

The working group recommends Congress: to include digital assets as a new category of assets in the reformed securities/commodity tax provisions; **to expand the applicability of "wash sale rules" (§1091) and "constructive sales" (§1259) to digital assets; for payment stablecoins, it leans towards discussing and *exempting/optimizing* the applicability of related wash sale and anti-naked bond provisions to avoid unnecessary compliance friction in daily payment processes.

5) National-level "Bitcoin reserves/digital asset inventory" enters "institutionalized" promotion:

The Treasury has reported to the White House on how to gradually increase holdings and custody safely and operationally without increasing taxpayer burden (budget neutral), and the next step will be to promote the implementation of "reserves and inventory" with the White House and working group. The report text does not disclose any holding scale or timetable.

Two Uncertainties

Uncertainty A: The U.S. "Bitcoin reserves" still do not provide specific values.

Although the mechanism and division of labor for "strategic Bitcoin reserves/digital asset inventory" have been written in, the report does not disclose the federal government's current available BTC balance, nor does it provide a regular disclosure standard. The fact sheet released simultaneously by the White House and interpretations from several media outlets on the same day also did not reveal verifiable balance/purchase rhythm details. If the Treasury supplements disclosures later, it will be a focus for market and policy tracking.

Uncertainty B: Cross-border mutual recognition and equivalence details.

The report emphasizes that global regulatory fragmentation will weaken the reliability of stablecoins as "monetary tools," and proposes the need for coordination in payment, interoperability, governance, and privacy, but leaves blank the operational-level arrangements for cross-border license mutual recognition/equivalence, meaning that issuers and cross-border platforms will still need to comply with local rules in the short term.

Why is it important? Who does it affect?

The report first clarifies the regulatory boundary for stablecoins from "whether they can be issued" to "how to operate compliantly as a payment tool."

For issuers, as long as they improve reserve quality and transparency according to the payment and BSA system, establish redemption commitments, and pre-set response processes for U.S. freezing and seizure orders, there is an operable compliance path for payment and settlement products. Meanwhile, the uncertainty on the banking side has significantly decreased: the prior reporting and "reputational risk" barriers have been removed, the master account application is required to set a clear time limit and be deemed approved if overdue, thus providing room for the restart and expansion of custody, payment collection, and on-chain payment businesses. At the capital market level, the limited-time safe harbor/sandbox and trading platform adaptation mechanism provide a "trial operation—disclosure—graduation" institutional channel for projects that gradually deliver functions or decentralize, reducing the structural risk of "violating regulations before getting on the road."

In terms of specific responses, stablecoin issuers need to complete reserve disclosures, monthly reports, and redemption commitments along the payment tool route, and embed cross-border law enforcement collaboration into internal control processes. Banks and custodians should simultaneously assess the feasibility of restoring custody business and expanding on-chain payments, promote master account applications, improve risk control standards, and pay attention to updates on third-party/sub-custody and technical best practices. Trading platforms and developers can prepare disclosure materials regarding token economics, governance rights, upgrades, and emergency mechanisms in advance, matching compliance requirements around the thresholds, timelines, and "graduation paths" of the safe harbor/sandbox. Tax and finance teams should research the applicable boundaries of wash sales and constructive sales rules, improve the handling of crypto lending and stablecoin taxation, and transform the 1099 reporting and cost basis systems according to the timetable to ensure smooth tax reporting and auditing processes.

Next Steps to Observe (What to Watch?)

What to watch next is the rhythm of implementation from principles to operations, focusing on four lines:

First, bank standards. The Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC need to write the time limits and overdue deemed approval for "master account" approvals into executable processes, while clearly stating that they cannot refuse on a "one-size-fits-all" basis due to "involvement in digital asset business"; and disclose statistics on acceptance volume, average duration, etc. Meanwhile, the description of reputational risk in the inspection manual should be completely removed to avoid de facto "discouragement."

Second, market structure pilot. The SEC/CFTC is expected to initiate consultations or small-scale pilots on the safe harbor/sandbox, and refine the operational specifications and disclosure requirements for trading non-security digital assets alongside traditional securities through ATS/brokers/custodians/transfer agents, providing a clear "entry—trial operation—graduation" path.

Third, operationalization of national digital asset reserves. The Treasury needs to launch a complete set of processes for source reception, custody structure, accounting, and governance, and decide whether to establish regular disclosure standards and rhythms. This will directly affect market expectations regarding "reserves" and policy certainty.

Fourth, congressional collaboration. Legislative levels will promote the subsequent negotiations and implementation of stablecoins (supporting the implementation of GENIUS), CLARITY (market structure), and anti-CBDC paths; the report's stance is clear—no promotion of CBDC.

Which line lands first will determine the order of lifting the "funding bottleneck"; if master accounts and market structure tools become clear first, fiat currency inflows and compliance liquidity will benefit the most.

Conclusion

This 166-page report pushes U.S. digital asset policy from the "gray area" into the "operational zone." Its main line is clear: using payment stablecoins and BSA as the framework, restoring bank access capabilities, relying on SEC/CFTC's regulatory tools to improve market structure, filling institutional gaps with a gradual tax system, and clearly stating no promotion of CBDC.

At the same time, what remains undecided is not the attitude, but execution: the specific rules for master accounts and safe harbor/sandbox, the technical standards for cross-border equivalence, and whether a disclosure mechanism for "national digital asset reserves" will be established. In the coming months, the speed of these details' implementation will determine the rhythm of the U.S. compliance marketization and the spillover effects of dollar stablecoins.

Overall, the path is clear, and the red lines are defined; the market is still waiting for a "verifiable timetable."

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。