The message did not emerge from a congressional press release, but was first thrown out by crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett on X: she cited three industry insiders who had communicated with Democratic staffers saying that House Democrats are brewing a new crypto bill focusing on “market structure,” aiming to rehash a comprehensive legislative framework in the next Congress. The clues point to Congresswoman Maxine Waters—Democrats are preparing to "raise the stakes" based on the amendment to the “Crypto Investors and Consumers Protection Act” proposed in 2025, reintegrating parts of the previously rejected “CLARITY Act” into a larger market structure scheme. However, all of this remains at the stage of behind-the-scenes discussions and text refinement, with no formal number, no submission records, and far from entering the voting process. For the regulatory landscape, this means a new boundary-drawing game is in preparation: if this proposal ultimately takes shape, it is likely to be used to revisit the boundaries of SEC and CFTC in crypto asset regulation, bringing the compliance pathways for trading platforms, token issuers, and institutional investors back to the Congressional hearing table, but when this game will genuinely start and what compromises it will lead to remain completely undecided.
From Amendment to Market Bill: Waters’ Legislative Relay
For Maxine Waters, this round of discussions is not starting from scratch. The amendment to the “Crypto Investors and Consumers Protection Act” she proposed in 2025 is essentially a “narrow” text focused on investor and consumer rights protection, which is now being used internally by Democrats as the foundation for a new round of legislation: according to Eleanor Terrett who cited three industry insiders, the discussed crypto “market structure” plan intends to layer on top of this amendment, extending out a larger framework of market rules to be proposed in the next Congress. The amendment has shifted from a single-issue bill to being viewed as a template for future overall regulatory blueprints, pushing the question from “who to protect” towards a structural arrangement of “who regulates, how to regulate.”
Another thread of this layout is the previously unsuccessful “CLARITY Act” from the last Congress. The relevant clauses proposed by Waters at that time were not adopted, and now the new proposal discussed by Democrats plans to reintegrate these shelved contents into the “market structure bill,” forming a typical “old clauses in new packaging”: no longer just crashing the agenda as a standalone bill, but being embedded into a comprehensive structural discussion that may involve the division of responsibilities between SEC and CFTC. The pathway has shifted from isolated investor protection clauses to a comprehensive framework covering market structure, but currently, all clauses remain in the internal discussion and consolidation stage, far from official text, scheduling, or even bipartisan negotiations; this also means that the ultimate regulatory landscape presented may significantly deviate from the current conception.
SEC and CFTC Regulatory Boundaries May Be Redefined
Once “market structure” is put on the table, the issues touched will not only be investor protection clauses, but also the question of who draws and how to draw the boundaries between SEC and CFTC regarding crypto assets. Research briefs have pointed out that if this scheme ultimately takes shape, it is likely to go beyond mere principles and address a real structural problem: which products, platforms, and behaviors fall under whose regulation. The Democrats' choice to respond to the disputes over crypto regulatory authority in the form of a market structure bill is itself a statement—no longer merely adding another tool for single enforcement agencies, but attempting to rewrite the narrative of these two agencies' division of labor in the crypto field at the legislative level.
But at this point in time, all ideas about “boundary redefinition” can only remain at the level of speculation. There are currently no publicly available bill texts for verification, nor has any disclosed the extent of adjustments in SEC or CFTC responsibilities, specific class divisions, or registration obligation designs, and there is not even a timeline or formal schedule to speak of. In other words, whether it’s “enhancing SEC authority” or “increasing CFTC's voice,” these scenarios can only serve as pathways to consider rather than established conclusions. The real regulatory map will only take shape after the text is finalized and clause details are made public.
Trading Platforms and Issuers: Who Gets Assigned Under the New Framework First
From an industry perspective, the discussion scheme referred to internally as the crypto “market structure” naturally brings trading platforms, token issuers, and institutional investors to the same table. The name includes "market structure," which means lawmakers are focusing on how trading venues are defined, how assets are classified, and how regulatory agencies divide responsibilities, rather than single projects or individual violations. If the future text takes shape, platforms that facilitate trades, act as custodians, or perform market-making functions will likely be among the first required to “find their place” in the new asset classification coordinate system, determining whether they are traditional exchanges, alternative trading systems, or some entirely new cryptocurrency market infrastructure; token issuers will have to face under which regulatory track their products fall in this classification, and institutional investors will need to judge whether their holdings and strategies fall under stricter regulations.
The amendment to the “Crypto Investors and Consumers Protection Act” proposed by Waters in 2025 bears the name of “rights,” layered with the clauses attempted to be introduced in the earlier “CLARITY Act,” and is now treated as the foundation for the new proposal, pointing clearly to: how assets are divided, how rights and responsibilities are allocated, ultimately all will fall to investor protection obligations. This means that once the market structure bill enters the formal process in the next Congress, it could redraw boundaries in three directions: first, by using finer asset classifications to correspond different types of crypto assets to the regulatory tracks of SEC, CFTC, etc.; second, by designing a unified licensing and registration path for public trading platforms and issuers, pushing compliance thresholds from “grey areas” to a verifiable checklist; third, by writing obligations such as suitability, information disclosure, and conflict of interest management into the bill in the form of “crypto version clauses.” However, at the current stage, all of this remains in the realm of imagined paths—without published texts of license types, registration obligations, or compliance thresholds, any platform, project, or institution can only conduct scenario speculation and contingency drills based on existing clues, rather than reconstruct any proposals as established rules. The real variable still lies in how that yet-to-be-shaped clause will write the first line.
Democratic Defensive Counterattack: Layout on Crypto Regulatory Discourse
After the “CLARITY Act” was not adopted in the last Congress, the Democratic camp's crypto regulatory concepts were effectively blocked at the institutional door, having to “walk while watching” within the enforcement approaches of regulatory agencies. This time, Waters plans to upgrade the 2025 amendment to the “Crypto Investors and Consumers Protection Act” into a larger “market structure” text and repurpose parts of the previously rejected “CLARITY Act” back to the negotiation table. Research briefs hence describe this operation as a “defensive counterattack”—in the face of the opponent's partial discourse advantage, using a grander institutional framework to integrate the originally rejected clauses into a new narrative, redefining what “investor protection” and “market order” mean.
The key to this layout is not the short-term success or failure of votes, but the timeline: the proposal itself is designed to be introduced in the next Congress, representing a mid to long-term offense and defense around the division of regulatory authority of SEC and CFTC, and boundaries of market infrastructure, rather than a reactive legislative response to a single event. As long as the market structure bill is still in the making, the long-term bipartisan game over who will take the lead in crypto regulation and how to design trading and issuing orders will not cool down; instead, once the bill text genuinely takes shape and enters the process, platforms, project parties, and institutional investors will all be re-engaged in a rule redistribution concerning regulatory attribution and compliance pathways.
Legislation Still in Infancy: How Compliance Strategies Predict New Boundaries
For the industry, this “market structure” proposal is currently just a blueprint being brewed by Democrats internally, described as intended for “the next Congress,” but there is neither a specific date nor has it been included in any public agenda. Research briefs also clearly acknowledge that key details remain blank: no clause texts, no formal arrangements for dividing SEC and CFTC responsibilities, no submission and voting timelines, and no public records indicating that the bill has entered formal proceedings. In such a dense information environment, compliance teams truly need to closely monitor several observable variables: first, when a complete or nearly complete set of clause texts first appears; second, whether it is officially included in the legislative schedule for the next Congress; third, whether there is any softening of negotiations between the two parties regarding market regulatory authority. As for currently disclosed sensitive clauses marked as pending verification by a single source, they should be treated as rumors rather than decision-making bases. Treating discussions as established regulations while rules remain in the “draft” stage could lead to prematurely reconstructing business, misjudging licensing pathways, or making erroneous choices of regulatory counterpart institutions, thus losing adjustment space when the real bill text is published. In the face of a market structure framework still in its infancy, mature compliance strategies involve treating this discussion as scenario speculation rather than as an effective legal reality.
Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
