On January 15, 2026, at 8 AM UTC+8, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a marking and deliberation vote on the digital asset/cryptocurrency market structure bill. After both parties suddenly shelved the hearings at the end of last year, this topic has been brought back to the agenda, attracting significant attention from Wall Street and the cryptocurrency industry. The delay of the hearings from December 2025 to warnings from TD Cowen that legislation could be postponed until 2027 creates a time gap of one to two years. Faced with increasing political pressure before the elections and the market's urgent demand for a clear regulatory framework, the pace in Washington appears both hurried and hesitant. Surrounding this scheduling, external observers are beginning to question: Is this a genuine acceleration of legislation, or yet another procedural advancement masking a tactical delay? This has become a key window for observing the direction of U.S. cryptocurrency regulation.
A Year of Two Betrayals: From Shelving to Hasty Scheduling
Returning to the timeline, the Senate Banking Committee originally planned to hold a hearing on cryptocurrency market structure issues in December 2025, but it ultimately did not take place as scheduled, and the deliberation was postponed to early 2026, with bill negotiations moving behind the scenes. By January 2026, the pace of negotiations had noticeably accelerated, directly scheduled for marking and voting on January 15, creating a stark contrast from "temporarily shelved" to "hastily scheduled." As the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Tim Scott plays a key role in this round of changes, primarily in procedural advancement. He is responsible for including the marking vote on the agenda, allowing the bill to formally enter the committee's voting track. This committee itself holds critical oversight power over regulatory issues related to on-chain assets, trading platforms, and related financial infrastructure, and its stance directly influences subsequent Senate votes and even regulatory enforcement by the executive branch. Meanwhile, TD Cowen warns in its report that even with seemingly accelerated actions now, key legislation still has the potential to be delayed until 2027. This sense of "immediate acceleration and long-term delay" keeps the market cautious about the true implications of the current process. The media has offered another interpretation; for example, @cointelegraph believes that the marking vote plan at least indicates that the regulatory agenda has been brought back to the table, taking a procedural step forward, symbolizing a nominal acceleration of the process. This narrative of optimism and caution also forms the tension background for observing the current legislative rhythm.
Political Calculations in an Election Year: Who Wants to Delay…
In the broader context of the U.S. election year, the general logic of bipartisan games around financial regulation and cryptocurrency often oscillates between technical legislation and political calculations. On one hand, those advocating for the implementation of rules emphasize that regulatory certainty helps stabilize the market, form capital, and create jobs, hoping to demonstrate their governance capabilities in the emerging fintech sector by "providing the industry with a clear set of rules." On the other hand, those opposing hasty decisions at sensitive moments worry that making easy statements on a controversial topic like cryptocurrency, when the electoral structure is still unclear, could expose them to potential risks, thus preferring to avoid making overly distinct regulatory choices before the elections. TD Cowen points out in its report that political factors may cause key cryptocurrency legislation to be delayed until 2027, meaning that the legislative timeline is likely to be dominated by the "election political clock" rather than the "technical detail clock." This explains why the market remains vigilant about any advancement of timelines. Therefore, the committee's early scheduling of the marking vote in early 2026, aside from its procedural significance, is also inevitably interpreted as a form of "gesture politics"—sending signals to voters, the industry, and regulatory agencies that Congress has not abandoned addressing the cryptocurrency market structure issue. However, whether this gesture will translate into substantial bill passage or remain at the "statement" level depends on whether they are willing to bear responsibility and costs during truly sensitive political moments.
Regulatory Uncertainty: Why the Market Still…
In terms of information, the cryptocurrency market structure bill currently lacks publicly verifiable details, leaving outsiders unable to discern its specific provisions or confirm the real differences between the two parties on finer points. This lack of transparency itself becomes a source of risk. For key issues such as exchanges, custodians, and token classification, a market structure bill means setting an overall framework for "who regulates, by what standards, what is allowed, and what is restricted." Therefore, both traditional financial institutions on Wall Street and native cryptocurrency enterprises are waiting for a sufficiently clear and predictable regulatory outline to guide their long-term strategies. Currently, the fluctuating regulatory progress amplifies both compliance costs and risks: companies must reserve resources for potentially strict regulations while not over-investing before rules are fully formed, leading institutions to generally adopt a wait-and-see approach or cautiously "test the waters" in only certain jurisdictions and business lines. In this context, signals from the media and research institutions present a parallel state: on one side, there is anticipation for "regulatory acceleration," viewing the marking vote on January 15 as a sign of the process moving to the forefront; on the other side, there are concerns about "long-term delays," represented by TD Cowen's judgment of "possibly until 2027," emphasizing that any short-term procedural advancement does not mean the end is near. This tug-of-war narrative reflects the market's forced maintenance of a contradictory mindset in a foggy regulatory environment.
Wall Street and On-Chain Sentiment: Cautious Optimism…
From the perspective of asset and institutional behavior, the sentiment of traditional capital and the on-chain world is also adjusting in sync. While TD Cowen issues a political risk warning in its report, actions from index compilation institutions send another signal—MSCI has chosen to delay removing companies like MicroStrategy, which heavily invest in Bitcoin, from relevant indices. This at least indicates that at this stage, some traditional capital has not chosen to aggressively reduce exposure to cryptocurrency-related assets but is closer to a "not expanding, nor hastily exiting" wait-and-see posture. On the compliance trading platform side, Coinbase announced it would suspend certain trading pairs on January 7 to optimize liquidity. Such preemptive liquidity and risk management measures are particularly typical during periods of high regulatory uncertainty: tightening marginal varieties and concentrating resources on core markets to enhance resilience before potential new regulations take effect. On a macro level, the January FOMC meeting's interest rate forecast shows that the market assigns only an 18.3% probability to a 25 basis point rate cut, indicating that interest rate expectations remain cautious, and the overall valuation space for risk assets is constrained. In this combination, the flow of funds into cryptocurrency assets is easily influenced by dual expectations: if the regulatory process makes substantial breakthroughs, clarifying market structure rules and reducing compliance uncertainty, it could accelerate institutional allocation alongside improved interest rate expectations; conversely, if legislation is delayed again and political noise rises, funds are more likely to shift towards defensive and diversified layouts, increasing the weight on cash flow-stable assets and multi-jurisdictional allocations to hedge against dual regulatory and macro risks.
Clashing Timelines: Advancing in 2026…
Zooming out to a longer regulatory cycle, the industry currently faces two clearly defined yet entirely different timeframes: on one end is the scheduled January 15, 2026 committee marking vote, and based on this, the possibility of achieving phased legislative results within 2026; on the other end is the warning from TD Cowen of "possibly delayed until 2027," meaning at least another complete political cycle of tugging. For the cryptocurrency industry, this is not just a difference in timing but a divergence in survival cycles and competitive landscapes. If phased legislative results can be achieved within 2026, even if it is just clarifying some market structure principles, it would be enough to change the strategic rhythm of exchanges and custodians—more U.S.-based projects might consider developing "onshore" or seek a new balance between going offshore and returning, while multinational institutions could assess the reasonable limits for expanding business lines and capital investments in the U.S. Conversely, if key legislation is delayed until 2027, the ongoing regulatory vacuum will further heighten companies' willingness to migrate jurisdictions, with compliance costs continuously rising amid multi-jurisdictional filings and responses. Innovation teams are also more likely to relocate R&D and issuance processes to markets with clearer regulations and pathways. Meanwhile, multiple overseas jurisdictions are accelerating the rollout of their own cryptocurrency frameworks. If the U.S. continues to prolong the process, it will face not only the real pressure of talent and project outflow but also have to answer a future-oriented question: in this round of global cryptocurrency regulatory competition, will it choose to provide directional signals around 2026, or will it inadvertently allow the dominance of financial innovation to gradually shift to other countries with more proactive regulations?
The Unresolved Game: What Should Investors…
Returning to the aspects most concerning investors and project parties, this tug-of-war surrounding U.S. cryptocurrency market structure legislation is essentially the core contradiction between "a market urgently needing clear rules" and "Washington oscillating between political and technical details." In the short term, the marking vote on January 15 and the subsequent hearings that may restart are merely the starting point in a long chain; they determine whether the topic remains on the table, not when the final rules will land. Under the constant reminders of political variables from institutions like TD Cowen, the actual landing time remains highly uncertain. For funds and projects, concentrating the game on a single legislative timeline is clearly a high-risk strategy. A more rational response is to reduce bets on any "key meeting days" or "single votes" and instead strengthen diversified layouts in jurisdiction selection, compliance path design, and business structure: maintaining necessary touchpoints in the U.S. while also reserving flexibility to migrate or expand into regions with clearer regulations. In this ongoing temporal game, whether the U.S. will provide a clear directional answer around 2026 or leave the final decision-making power on cryptocurrency rules to the next political cycle remains an open question for the global market.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
