2026-01-17 01:28:11

Regarding the structural legislation for the crypto market promoted by the U.S. Senate, industry voices are beginning to show clear divergence.

Galaxy Digital's head has a more pragmatic view — he believes that even if there are shortcomings in the bill, it doesn't matter; the key is to advance the legislative process first, and then revise and improve it if issues arise later. This attitude reflects some large institutions' desire for regulatory clarity, believing that policy certainty is more important than perfection.

On the other hand, platforms represented by Coinbase remain cautious. In their latest statement, they explicitly state that they cannot accept the current draft, mainly due to several specific issues: how to define tokenized stocks, the responsibility boundaries of DeFi platforms, the incentive mechanism design for stablecoins, and the division of SEC's powers within the entire framework. These are pain points in actual operations, and if the bill passes without resolving these issues, the compliance costs for industry participants could be quite high.

This difference in viewpoints indicates that the crypto industry still lacks a unified understanding of the regulatory path. How to balance rapid progress with meticulous refinement has become the core issue at present.

View Original

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
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SpeakWithHatOn

· 11h ago

Get on the bus first and then modify it. Those guys at Galaxy really dare to think... --- Coinbase was on the right side this time. If the details are not sorted out now, passing through will just be digging a hole for oneself. --- The internal conflicts have started again. How can we get ahead if this continues? --- Laughing to death. One wants to set the tone quickly, another wants to refine it meticulously, they just can't agree. --- If SEC's power gets any bigger, there will be no way out for our circle. --- The stablecoin sector is indeed a big pit; we can't just fudge our way through. --- Instead of arguing over these, it's better to first ensure your own business compliance, and wait until the wind blows over.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-afe07a92

· 11h ago

Honestly, Galaxy's attitude is about seeking certainty, but Coinbase's concerns are not unfounded either. Rushing in without sorting out the details can easily lead to failures. The most problematic area is stablecoins; if regulations get chaotic, who will bear the costs? Such severe polarization is actually quite dangerous. Everyone wants to push forward, but their directions are inconsistent. That's why the SEC's division of authority has always been a hot potato. Instead of pushing first and modifying later, it's better to clarify the pain points from the start, or else we'll just be messing around again. It's good that the bill is coming into effect, but those issues pointed out by Coinbase are really hard to bypass. I understand that big institutions want certainty, but it can't be a one-size-fits-all approach; small platforms will suffer. This time, the polarization is essentially a conflict of interests, nothing surprising about that. Bills rushed through often turn out to be problematic; history has proven this multiple times. The SEC needs to give a clear definition; otherwise, who will dare to touch stablecoins?

View OriginalReply0

ChainMelonWatcher

· 11h ago

Is Galaxy in a hurry? Didn't we just cause a mess... Coinbase is right, rushing through without clarifying the details will really lead to an explosion. One side says go ahead first, the other says we need to wait. Why can't these two factions agree? The crypto world is always fighting internally. If the SEC's power division becomes blurred, no one will be able to avoid trouble then.

View OriginalReply0

SelfRugger

· 11h ago

I don't believe in the idea of moving first and then adjusting. The details and pitfalls that Coinbase talks about are unavoidable. Galaxy's big fish really want to get on board quickly, but retail investors are the ones who suffer. It's both regulation and compliance—when will we be able to rest easy? The SEC is just waiting to find a handle to catch, and Coinbase is understandably cautious. But on the other hand, no matter how much this bill is refined, it won't produce good results. Big institutions take the profits and run, and we still have to pay tuition fees. It sounds ridiculous—just get on board first and then figure it out, right? It's a good thing that the regulatory framework is being implemented, but I'm afraid it might backfire once it’s in place.

View OriginalReply0

blockBoy

· 11h ago

Galaxy's approach of "get on board first, then adjust the direction" is really outrageous. Waiting for the bill to pass before making changes? By then, platforms like Coinbase will have to bear the compliance costs hard. Stablecoins and DeFi are details that can't be avoided. Being vague now will only make things more complicated later. Both sides have their reasons, but I still stand with Coinbase. Details determine life or death. Regulation can't be rushed. It's better to go slow than to leave pitfalls. Legislating first and then changing is not feasible in the crypto space; interests are too complex. It sounds like a game of利益博弈 between big institutions and platforms. So annoying. The core conflict lies within the SEC's jurisdiction. If this isn't settled properly, everything else is pointless. Pushing for progress and seeking perfection are essentially deadlocks. We'll see who compromises later.

View OriginalReply0

GasGoblin

· 11h ago

Well... Galaxy just wants to finalize things quickly. Anyway, big institutions are getting on board first, and we can discuss changing the regulations later. Coinbase is actually right this time; if the details aren’t clarified and it passes, they’ll have to bear the compliance costs themselves, which isn’t cost-effective. This is how the crypto world is—conflicting interests and different stances lead to division, and no one can really persuade anyone. If the SEC really starts regulating the incentives for stablecoins, how many projects will be ruined? A bunch of big shots arguing, and in the end, the ones who suffer are still the grassroots community users.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinEnjoyer

· 11h ago

Let's talk about it later, anyway changing the bill is much easier than changing the business. That guy from Galaxy is too idealistic; the few points Coinbase pointed out are the real deal breakers. It's also about the SEC's division of power—can these people really sit down and have a good talk... Big institutions feel reassured and want to run, while small platforms still have to struggle in the mud. This is how big institutions and platform parties play separately; regulation is still nowhere in sight. The stablecoin sector is not yet smooth, who dares to launch on a large scale? It's really funny. Basically, some want speed, others want safety, and in the end, retail investors are the ones who suffer.

View OriginalReply0