On January 21, 2026, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Trump elevated cryptocurrency market structure legislation to one of the core agendas of the White House, drawing collective attention from the global financial and tech circles. In a joint statement with White House crypto and AI advisor David Sacks, the two positioned cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence as key technological tracks where "the U.S. must maintain its advantage," attempting to respond to the intensifying geopolitical competition with a unified technological narrative. Surrounding the grand goal of "the U.S. must maintain its global cryptocurrency center status," a new order shaped by Washington and Wall Street is emerging, with the sharpest conflict being: as traditional banks begin to move into the on-chain world, the once-clear boundary between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency industry is quietly being redrawn.
From Ban to Support: A Sudden Shift in the White House's Attitude
● Review of Regulatory Path: For several years, the U.S. has maintained a harsh enforcement attitude towards the cryptocurrency industry, with the SEC and other agencies attempting to compress industry space under a framework of "first regulate, then discuss rules" through high-frequency lawsuits, compliance investigations, and licensing controls. However, in January 2026, the White House directly brought "advancing cryptocurrency market structure legislation" to the Davos stage, signaling a shift from point enforcement to overall legislative "normalization," indicating a structural change with a noticeably softened policy tone.
● Trump's Political Motives: In the public forum at Davos, Trump not only listed cryptocurrency policy as an important agenda but also promised to sign relevant market structure bills to maintain the U.S. as a global cryptocurrency center. This statement responds to the demands of tech and financial interest groups at the voter level and demonstrates a stance to competitors at the international level: the U.S. will not abandon this new financial track but will seek to claim rule-making power through legislation, packaging "pro-crypto" as a political chip to defend American innovation and capital market vitality.
● Shift in Power Center: Previously, U.S. regulation resembled "enforcement-driven regulation," with agencies like the SEC and the Department of Justice taking action under ambiguous rules, while the market explored boundaries through case law and settlements. Now, the increasing mention of Congress-led cryptocurrency market structure legislation indicates a shift in the power center towards "legislation-driven regulation": legislative bodies are attempting to outline the framework first, followed by regulatory agencies refining execution within that framework, as Washington's agenda-setting power begins to overshadow the discretion of individual regulators.
● Narrative Shift on National Competitiveness: This round of legislative discussions is no longer simply categorized as financial consumer protection or anti-money laundering risk issues but is actively framed by the White House and its advisors as part of "national competitiveness" and "technological security." Under this framing, cryptocurrency market structure is not just a financial regulatory issue but a grand strategic question of whether the U.S. can maintain its advantage in the next round of technological revolution and capital flow restructuring, seeking political legitimacy for subsequent looser institutional arrangements.
Bundling Crypto and AI: A New Mainline in U.S. Technological Narrative
● Technological Tracks Positioned as National Strategy: Trump emphasized at Davos that "the U.S. must maintain an advantage in key technology areas such as cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence," bundling these two previously evolving technological paths into the same national strategic framework. Rather than a single policy declaration, it resembles a message to the market: whether in value transfer infrastructure or computing power and data governance, the U.S. must control core nodes to avoid being surpassed by other major powers in the new generation of technology stacks.
● Geopolitical Implications: When cryptocurrency market structure legislation and AI regulation are discussed under the same narrative, the implications extend beyond single industry regulation and pertain to the U.S.'s discourse power in the global technological order. The former determines the rule templates for future cross-border capital flows, asset rights confirmation, and payment systems, while the latter concerns the standards for algorithms, models, and data flows. Washington aims to achieve "rule output" through a comprehensive technological regulatory design in geopolitical competition, rather than passively accepting paradigms set by other countries.
● Considerations of the Dollar System and Data Sovereignty: From the dollar-dominated global settlement system to the vast data controlled by U.S. tech giants, the U.S. has relied on dual hegemony in finance and information to maintain its advantage. Washington is reluctant to cede cryptocurrency leadership to other countries, fearing that a new on-chain asset system and cross-border clearing network could weaken the traditional dollar pipeline's locking effect on global funds; simultaneously, the innovations in data rights confirmation and privacy computing brought by the combination of AI and cryptocurrency will directly impact data sovereignty distribution, with the U.S. preferring that related infrastructure be built within its domestic or currency influence.
● Market Endorsement: As this policy narrative rises, U.S. tech and financial sectors have recently strengthened in tandem, providing a real price signal for the "technology + finance dual-driven" story. Tech stocks have been repriced due to AI expectations, while financial stocks benefit from the imagination of "clearer regulatory frameworks and expandable business boundaries." This resonance in the capital market does not prove that policies will be implemented, but at least indicates that mainstream capital is trading on the macro narrative that "the U.S. will use institutional engineering to protect technological leadership."
Banks Entering the On-Chain World: The Disappearance of Boundaries and Associated Risks
● Judgments on Banks Issuing On-Chain Assets: White House advisor David Sacks pointed out at Davos that "banks may enter the cryptocurrency market by issuing certain types of on-chain tokens," seen as a key channel for traditional finance to delve into the on-chain world. If commercial banks issue on-chain certificates linked to deposits or financial assets within a compliant framework, they will bridge vast on-balance-sheet assets with on-chain liquidity, significantly enhancing traditional finance's penetration into the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
● Evolution Path of Boundary Integration: Once large banks, custodians, and payment giants participate in the market through on-chain assets, the core infrastructure of the on-chain world may be restructured: banks provide issuance and settlement, custodians are responsible for the custody and auditing of on-chain assets, and payment networks shield consumers from on-chain complexity at the front end. This complete channel from account systems to public chain assets will gradually transition the previous parallel structure of "off-chain banks, on-chain DeFi" towards multi-layered nesting and deep interconnection.
● Credibility Judgments on "Disappearing Boundaries": Research briefs indicate that "the boundaries between traditional banks and the cryptocurrency industry will gradually disappear" as a medium credibility judgment, meaning the trend direction has logical support, but the pace and depth are highly uncertain. On one hand, regulation may tighten at any time under risk preferences and political pressure; on the other hand, there are concerns about compliance arbitrage and systemic risk amplification during the technological integration process. Therefore, rather than saying boundaries will completely disappear, it is more accurate to say that traditional finance and on-chain assets are forming a more complex gray interface that requires long-term observation of its evolution.
● Redistribution of Industry Power: Once banks and other traditional institutions enter the market on a large scale, compliance standards, credit endorsements, and profit distribution mechanisms will be restructured. Banks can leverage capital, regulatory licenses, and customer trust to capture a larger share of fees and interest spreads, while native cryptocurrency institutions will need to seek new comparative advantages in technological innovation, asset creation, and globalization services. Whether centralized exchanges, public chain projects, or DeFi protocols, they will inevitably be drawn into a power redistribution battle over "who defines safety and who prices risk."
Congressional Games and Lobbying Struggles: The Fog of the Legislative Process
● Current Status of Legislative Advancement: According to high credibility information, the U.S. Congress is advancing broader cryptocurrency market structure legislation, but current public information has disclosed almost no specific terms or regulatory framework designs, nor is there any reliable timeline for reference. Trump's promise at Davos to sign relevant bills indicates a shift in the White House's attitude towards support, but there remains a considerable amount of procedural and negotiation space before a complete law is enacted.
● Multiple Stakeholder Interests: In this legislative process, large Wall Street investment banks and asset management firms hope to gain predictable compliance pathways to facilitate the launch of more financial products related to on-chain assets; native cryptocurrency companies are concerned about being squeezed out of core profit areas by traditional institutions and prefer lighter regulation that is friendly to innovation; tech giants are focused on data and algorithm governance, hoping to retain sufficient business expansion freedom in the intersection of cryptocurrency and AI. These forces influence the direction of the bills through lobbying, hearings, and research reports, making any outcome a product of multi-party compromise.
● Uncertainty of Party and Regulatory Boundaries: The brief lists "the impact of congressional party divisions on bill passage" as information to be verified, and does not disclose details of power divisions between regulatory agencies. What is certain is that how to redraw lines between Congress and regulatory agencies will determine who has the final interpretive power over the market in the future. These highly uncertain institutional designs have not been made public, and any judgment on "which party will ultimately dominate" can only remain at the level of macro speculation, insufficient to serve as a hard basis for trading or long-term allocation.
● Market Trading on Expectations: At this stage, the market reflects more of a trade on the expectation that "regulation will gradually relax and rules will become clearer," rather than already implemented policy dividends. Prices and valuations are often extremely sensitive to expectations but react late to specific terms; therefore, if future bills impose stricter specific requirements and compliance costs exceed expectations, the market may experience severe repricing. This state of "expectations leading, details lacking" is a core risk that current participants must confront.
Global Table Reorganization: After the U.S. Takes Action, Who Can Still Hold the C Position?
● Global Regulatory Competition Position: The U.S. push for cryptocurrency market structure legislation must be understood within the context of global regulatory competition. Europe has previously acted quickly on technology regulation but has taken a more conservative path regarding on-chain assets and new financial systems; some other major regions have frequently taken action on licensing systems and tax incentives to attract cryptocurrency companies. If the U.S. truly establishes a systematic set of market structure rules after 2026, the focus will shift from "whether to regulate" to "how to regulate," positioning the U.S. more proactively in the global rules game.
● Whether Innovation Centers Will Further Concentrate: From the perspective of capital flow and innovation landscape, the leading capital and teams in the cryptocurrency and AI tracks are already highly bound to the U.S. market, dollar financing, and dollar assets. Once the U.S. provides clear institutional expectations, combined with its deep capital market and research ecosystem, global innovation teams and funds are likely to be further attracted to gather in the U.S. or its jurisdictional influence. Conversely, regions with unclear regulations or a hostile attitude towards cryptocurrency may be marginalized in this round of competition.
● Geopolitical Friction and Technological Camp Formation: The brief mentions that the EU-U.S. trade agreement was halted due to Greenland disputes (single source, for geopolitical background reference); while such events have no direct legislative connection to cryptocurrency, they reinforce the trend of "each fighting their own battles" in technological camp formation. Under the pull of more trade and security issues, major economies are more inclined to build relatively closed or nationally centered technological circles in areas such as AI, cloud computing, and on-chain finance, thus developing their own versions of cryptocurrency and AI regulation.
● Pressure of Rule Spillover: If the U.S. takes the lead in providing clear, executable, and attractive cryptocurrency rule templates, its "regulatory spillover effect" will force other jurisdictions to accelerate their actions to avoid large-scale capital and project outflows. Some countries may choose to directly benchmark the U.S. framework with localized adjustments; others may deliberately differentiate themselves by offering looser or stricter versions. Regardless of the chosen path, the U.S. taking the initiative will change the global negotiation chips, making "who sets the rules" a core issue in the new round of international financial and technological coordination.
Legislative Window: Cryptocurrency Industry Aligns and Self-Saves
From this high-profile statement at Davos, it is clear that the U.S. has essentially completed the paradigm shift from "whether to embrace cryptocurrency" to "how to design the cryptocurrency market structure." The question is no longer whether to tolerate this track, but how to structurally embed it within legal and regulatory dimensions so that it can serve both the dollar system and national technological strategy without triggering systemic risks. This shift provides a potential "sunshine" possibility for cryptocurrency businesses that have been lingering in gray areas and opens up new imaginative space for regulation.
In this process, traditional finance and the cryptocurrency industry are moving from long-term opposition to competition and cooperation: banks and brokerages are seeking business opportunities in on-chain assets, while exchanges, public chains, and DeFi protocols are being forced to reposition their roles in the future financial system. Who serves as the infrastructure, who acts as the traffic entry point, and who holds the pricing power is no longer determined unilaterally by technological narratives, but must be reshuffled in the multiple games of compliance, capital, and global layout. For every industry participant, this is a necessary alignment and self-rescue.
At the same time, it is essential to be wary of overly optimistic interpretations of the legislative progress and specific terms. Research briefs clearly indicate that there is currently a lack of public information regarding the content of the bill and the timeline for its passage, and the partisan divisions within Congress and the boundaries of regulatory power are also listed as variables to be verified. In this high uncertainty, viewing any expectations as "set in stone" policy dividends is a relinquishment of one's own risk management. Rational participants need to retain a buffer space for policy reversals and tightening details beyond emotions and prices.
In the medium to long term, the key to the new pattern will not be who shouts the loudest, but who can simultaneously excel in compliance, technology, and global layout: in compliance, who can adapt to the new market structure rules first and establish stable regulatory relationships; in technology, who can combine on-chain infrastructure with cutting-edge capabilities like AI to provide real and usable products and services; in global layout, who can transcend a single jurisdiction to build multi-location compliance and multi-currency asset management capabilities. Players who can form a positive feedback loop across these three tracks will have the opportunity to occupy a new high ground at the table being jointly reconstructed by Wall Street and Washington.
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。
