The naming convention for regulatory legislation matters more than it might seem. Calling it the Clarity Act sounds reassuring on the surface, but critics argue Regulatory Capture Act would be a far more honest label. The distinction isn't semantic—it speaks to how the industry views the intended outcome. One framing emphasizes transparency and clear rules; the other hints at whose interests get prioritized when regulators and established players align. It's the kind of terminology debate that reveals deeper concerns about how policy actually shapes the crypto market.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
13 Likes
Reward
13
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ForkThisDAO
· 6h ago
Names can really be deceiving. Clarity sounds nice, but who would believe it... Regulatory capture is the real truth.
View OriginalReply0
SandwichVictim
· 6h ago
A nice name doesn't matter; you're still going to get cut anyway.
View OriginalReply0
fork_in_the_road
· 7h ago
Basically, it's just changing a name and a disguise to deceive the newbies... Clear legislation? Uh, sounds really comfortable.
View OriginalReply0
VibesOverCharts
· 7h ago
Names are just a cover-up; they really know how to come up with names to fool people.
The naming convention for regulatory legislation matters more than it might seem. Calling it the Clarity Act sounds reassuring on the surface, but critics argue Regulatory Capture Act would be a far more honest label. The distinction isn't semantic—it speaks to how the industry views the intended outcome. One framing emphasizes transparency and clear rules; the other hints at whose interests get prioritized when regulators and established players align. It's the kind of terminology debate that reveals deeper concerns about how policy actually shapes the crypto market.