On January 21, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee announced that it would soon release the latest text of the cryptocurrency market structure bill, drawing significant market attention against the backdrop of regulatory games in Washington and fluctuations in trading. During the same period, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of approximately 3,862 BTC in a single day, Ethereum ETFs had a net outflow of 61,706 ETH, while Solana ETFs experienced a net inflow of 6,907 SOL (all from a single source), illustrating the complex pricing of funds in response to regulatory expectations. With the text about to be made public, a core suspense was thrown into the market: how will this draft from the Agriculture Committee rewrite the power landscape of cryptocurrency trading and regulation in the U.S., and reshape the participation rules from Wall Street to retail investors?
Agriculture Committee Takes the Lead: Potential Expansion of CFTC's Regulatory Scope
● Draft Review: According to information from a single source, the Senate Agriculture Committee attempted to grant the CFTC primary regulatory authority over "digital commodities" in an early draft from November 2025, aiming to clarify its jurisdictional boundaries in the realm of crypto assets at a legal level. This setup implies that bulk "commodity-type" tokens, including Bitcoin, may be more systematically incorporated under the CFTC framework in the future, but the text had not yet reached the finalization stage, and its impact remained under observation.
● Shift in Power Dynamics: The market structure bill being pushed by the Agriculture Committee contrasts sharply with the delayed review of related bills by the Senate Banking Committee, objectively creating a narrative effect that shifts the regulatory focus toward the CFTC. The Banking Committee emphasizes issues related to securities, payments, and financial stability but has been delayed due to multiple factors, while the CFTC, which oversees commodities and futures, has taken the lead through the legislative pace set by the Agriculture Committee, giving "commodity attributes" of crypto assets a temporary advantage in regulatory selection.
● Reconstructing Exchanges and Derivatives: If the CFTC's powers are genuinely expanded in future versions, spot exchanges, futures, and derivatives platforms may be required to adapt to commodity regulatory logic, facing reconstruction from margin rules to market manipulation standards. Rising compliance costs and greater institutional confidence may present a dual effect of "higher thresholds and larger volumes," while weaker platforms may find it increasingly difficult to survive in the U.S., and the integrated licensing layout for derivatives and spot trading will become a competitive battleground for leading players.
● Early Negotiation Attributes: It is important to emphasize that the text soon to be released by the Agriculture Committee is still viewed as an early product of negotiations, far from the stage of "finalizing the regulatory framework." Whether it concerns the division of powers between the CFTC and SEC or specific registration paths and compliance requirements, these are still in a phase of potentially revisable negotiations, primarily providing a foundational version for subsequent hearings, amendments, and bipartisan bargaining, rather than a final blueprint that the market can directly lock in.
The Meme Coin and Token Classification Debate: Bipartisan Tensions Emerge
● Rising Conflict Focus: In discussions led by the Agriculture Committee, both parties have engaged in heated arguments over the legal definition of meme coins, whether they can be listed, and the standards for listing, as well as the overall token classification framework, gradually evolving into a high-pressure line at the negotiation table. If the definition is too broad, it may bring a large number of speculative assets into the regulatory funnel; if too narrow, it may be criticized for "condoning speculation and allowing for exploitation," forcing legislators to balance between political pressure and retail sentiment.
● Trade-offs Behind Definitions: Different definitions of meme coins and token classification schemes essentially correspond to trade-offs between regulatory intensity, investor protection, and innovation space. If strictly defined under "securities logic," issuance and trading will face heavier disclosure obligations and compliance costs, but may significantly reduce large-scale scams and pump-and-dump events; if leaning towards "commodities or special assets," it leaves more experimental space for startups and community projects, but inevitably amplifies volatility and risk exposure.
● Mainstream and Long Tail Divergence Under CFTC Preference: Against the backdrop of the Agriculture Committee's draft leaning towards CFTC regulation, the classification of securities-type and commodity-type tokens will directly impact the fate of mainstream and long-tail tokens. Assets like Bitcoin, which have strong commodity attributes, are expected to gain a relatively clear regulatory path, while many long-tail tokens and some projects with equity, dividend, or governance attributes may be labeled as "securities," forced to adhere to stricter issuance standards and trading thresholds, potentially evolving the market structure into a binary pattern of "mainstream compliance and long-tail marginalization."
● Consensus Still Far, Terms Variable: It should be noted that discussions regarding the definition of meme coins and how tokens are classified by function or rights attributes have not yet formed a stable consensus between the two parties and regulatory agencies. Various specific terms circulating in the public domain remain speculative or rumored focal points, and have not been fully verified by the text or hearing records at this stage. In an environment of high information opacity, overstating or oversimplifying the existence and strength of these terms could lead to misjudgments by investors.
Trump Pushes for Bill Signing, Fed Warned: Escalation of Monetary and Crypto Power Struggles
● White House Signals Relaxation: Former U.S. President Trump recently publicly stated his desire to sign cryptocurrency-related legislation as soon as possible, emphasizing the need to ensure that the U.S. maintains its status as the "world's cryptocurrency capital," which has been widely interpreted by the market as a clear relaxation of regulatory attitudes. For an industry long plagued by enforcement uncertainties, such statements undoubtedly provide political backing for legal certainty and release symbolic signals for Wall Street and tech companies to ramp up their crypto businesses.
● Continuation of Discontent with Monetary Policy: Extending the timeline reveals that Trump has previously criticized Federal Reserve Chairman Powell for raising interest rates, believing that such actions hinder the success of the U.S. economy, and now he is pressuring for crypto legislation, reflecting his long-standing dissatisfaction with the traditional monetary policy system. Under this logic, promoting crypto legislation can be seen as a political path to weaken the authority of a single monetary policy and open avenues for "diverse currencies and asset forms," making crypto another battleground in the power struggle over currency.
● Wall Street's Cautious Warning: In contrast to the proactive stance from the White House, the CEO of BNY Mellon issued a warning that "undermining the foundations of the Federal Reserve is detrimental to promoting interest rate cuts," cautioning the market and political circles against excessive advances in the monetary and payment systems. For large custodial and settlement institutions, the stability and credibility of the Federal Reserve are central to their operations; if crypto legislation is perceived as a substantial weakening of the central bank's authority, it may trigger broader expectations of tightening financial conditions, directly conflicting with current expectations for interest rate cuts and a loose environment.
● High-Level Divisions Amplify Uncertainty in Terms: This split between the White House and some traditional financial leaders will inevitably be reflected in specific legislative terms, especially those involving monetary sovereignty, payment system access, and banks' participation in crypto businesses. To alleviate concerns within the financial system about the "undermining of the central bank's foundations," legislators may tend to tighten relevant terms, setting higher entry thresholds and stricter risk isolation, resulting in a final text that presents a subtle contrast between politically relaxed expressions and tightened technical terms.
Regulatory Games Slow Legislation: Coinbase and Banking Committee Stalemate
● Surface Reasons for Delayed Review and Warnings: Research briefs indicate that the review of related bills by the Senate Banking Committee was delayed due to Coinbase withdrawing its support for certain proposals, but this cannot be simply identified as the sole reason. A more reasonable understanding is that this is a node event under multiple factors, including internal industry disagreements over the content of terms, the bipartisan struggle over regulatory scales, and the involvement of broader financial lobbying forces, which have forced the review pace to slow down.
● CLARITY Act and Lobbying by Leading Institutions: In previous discussions of proposals like the CLARITY Act, exchanges and other leading institutions have been key stakeholders in the legislative process, influencing the direction of terms through hearings, white papers, and behind-the-scenes lobbying. They seek clearer registration and compliance paths while fearing that overly strict rules may harm their business models, leading to fluctuating attitudes on specific terms. Coinbase's change in stance reflects more of the industry's tug-of-war over "how to be regulated" rather than "whether to be regulated."
● Sensitive Terms Still Rumored Focus: In discussions surrounding the Banking Committee's version, the market has repeatedly mentioned potential prohibitive terms regarding passive income from certain stablecoins and exemptions for code developers' responsibilities, but these contents remain speculative or rumored focal points at the current stage, lacking full verification from the text and hearings. In an environment of high information opacity, overstating or simplifying the existence and strength of these terms could lead to misjudgments by investors.
● Regulatory Misalignment and Time Tug-of-War: The advancement of the Agriculture Committee's text and the stagnation of the Banking Committee's review are creating a reality risk of "regulatory misalignment"—on one side, a CFTC-centered framework for commodities and derivatives is rapidly taking shape, while on the other, key pieces involving securities attributes, payment systems, and bank access are still not in place. The final result may be a fragmented regulatory landscape in the short term, forcing market participants to operate in ambiguous and overlapping jurisdictions, and the legislative timeline is likely to enter a tug-of-war, extending the uncertainty reflected in trading and financing cycles.
ETF Fund Flows Alternating: Bitcoin Under Pressure and Solana Attracting Capital
● Comparison of Fund Flow Data: According to statistics from a single source, within the time window leading up to the release of the Agriculture Committee's bill text, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of approximately 3,862 BTC, Ethereum ETFs had a net outflow of 61,706 ETH, while Solana ETFs recorded a net inflow of 6,907 SOL. The alternating configuration changes of these three products provide an intuitive slice for understanding current market sentiment and offer an observable sample for "how regulatory expectations influence fund behavior."
● Blue-Chip Deleveraging and High Beta Rotation: Structurally, funds are orderly withdrawing from blue-chip assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum while increasing allocations to high beta public chains like Solana, forming a contradictory combination of "risk-off deleveraging and pursuit of elasticity." On one hand, investors are reducing exposure to assets with overall market capitalization weight in the face of regulatory and interest rate uncertainties; on the other hand, they hope to capture excess returns through public chains with more growth narratives and on-chain activity, betting on volatility opportunities during the legislative window.
● Structural Impact of Regulatory Uncertainty: As the Agriculture Committee and Banking Committee have yet to form a unified regulatory framework, mainstream assets are often viewed as future focal points for regulation, making them more susceptible to valuation discounts due to "expected tax increases" and "expected additional regulations" in the short term. In contrast, some high-volatility and growth-oriented assets still in gray areas may attract more speculative funds in the short term due to the "regulatory vacuum," creating a structural divergence between ETFs and the spot market.
● Emotional Slice Not a Long-Term Conclusion: It is important to be cautious that the aforementioned fund flows reflect more of a phase of sentiment and allocation shifts rather than a definitive reversal of long-term fundamentals. Bitcoin and Ethereum still possess irreplaceable advantages in institutional acceptance, infrastructure status, and liquidity, while the on-chain performance of public chains like Solana may not necessarily lead in all cycles, and investors should not simply extrapolate short-term ETF flows as a fixed direction for long-term trends.
From Legislative Conflicts to Trading Dynamics: Strategic Coordinates for the Next Cycle
Currently, this round of the U.S. Senate's cryptocurrency legislative storm can be summarized into three intertwined main lines: first, the departmental struggle surrounding the expansion of CFTC's power, with the Agriculture Committee taking the lead and the Banking Committee lagging, shaping a temporary regulatory focus on "digital commodities"; second, the high-pressure line game over meme coins and token classification, with bipartisan disagreements on definitions, listing standards, and regulatory intensity directly determining the fate stratification of mainstream and long-tail assets; third, the tug-of-war over monetary and regulatory authority between the White House and traditional finance, from Trump's push for bill signing to BNY Mellon's cautious warnings, placing crypto at the forefront of the redistribution of monetary authority.
In terms of trading, three signals need to be closely monitored moving forward: first, the rhythm of text disclosures and revisions from the Agriculture Committee and related agencies; each public update of the text may trigger a repricing of sectors and tracks; second, the direction of compromise between the two parties on meme coins and listing standards, which will affect the intensity of junk coin clean-up and the valuation premium of compliant projects; third, whether ETF funds will continue the net outflow trend for Bitcoin and Ethereum, and whether high beta assets can continue to attract incremental funds, or if this is merely a prelude to a pullback after a brief emotional fluctuation.
It must be emphasized that all current bill texts are still evolving and under negotiation, with many details remaining in the realm of rumors and expectations. Investors should pay more attention to official documents, hearing records, and authoritative statements from regulatory agencies, avoiding high-leverage bets based on unverified terms. In the medium term, U.S. crypto regulation is likely to move towards a clearer but more tiered path: institutions and compliant products will gain a more stable institutional environment, but entry thresholds and compliance costs will rise simultaneously; retail investors and high-risk assets will face a new order of "narrowed participation scope and increased transparency," and the entire market's risk pricing system will be recalibrated.
Join our community to discuss and become 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。
