The future of U.S. crypto regulation is increasingly being shaped by federal agencies as Congress struggles to move forward with sweeping digital asset legislation. The stalled Clarity Act has created a regulatory gap that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are now expected to address through agency rulemaking and policy changes. While those steps could provide the cryptocurrency industry with greater clarity in the short term, they may not offer the lasting certainty that companies have been seeking from Congress.
The development comes after years of lobbying and political spending by major cryptocurrency companies and industry groups. Digital asset businesses have invested heavily in Washington in an effort to establish clear rules governing tokens, trading platforms and other crypto-related activities. Their goal has largely been to replace regulatory uncertainty with a framework that clearly establishes which digital assets fall under securities laws and which should instead be treated as commodities.
For now, however, that legislative effort has hit a major obstacle. The Clarity Act has stalled in the Senate, reducing the likelihood that Congress will establish a comprehensive framework in the near term. With lawmakers facing limited time before the arrival of a new Congress next year, regulatory agencies are being pushed into a more prominent role.
The SEC and CFTC are particularly important because both agencies have significant influence over how digital assets are treated under U.S. financial laws. The SEC is expected to move ahead with a rule that could exempt certain token offerings from existing securities regulations. Such a move could be welcomed by crypto companies that have long argued that traditional securities rules do not adequately account for the structure and technology of digital assets.
The CFTC is also preparing to discuss cryptocurrency regulation at an industry gathering, signaling that the agency is likely to remain active as policymakers attempt to establish clearer boundaries for the market. The combined efforts of the two agencies could give businesses greater insight into how regulators intend to approach different categories of digital assets.
“The agencies … seemingly are ready to act, given that Congress has been unwilling or unable to do so,” said Miller Whitehouse-Levine, CEO of the Solana Policy Institute, which advocates for policies to advance digital asset technology.
For cryptocurrency companies, agency action could provide an important short-term boost. Businesses operating in the sector have spent years dealing with uncertainty over whether individual tokens should be classified as securities, commodities or something else entirely. Clearer regulatory expectations could make it easier for companies to plan products, interact with financial institutions and attract investment.
Yet the biggest concern is whether rules established by federal agencies can survive changes in political leadership. Unlike legislation passed by Congress, agency regulations can be modified, weakened or reversed by future administrations. They can also face challenges in federal court, particularly when regulators attempt to establish broad policies in areas where Congress has not clearly defined the law.
That possibility creates a difficult situation for an industry that is looking for long-term stability. A crypto company may benefit from rules introduced under a friendly administration today, only to face a completely different regulatory environment after the next presidential election.
The experience of the Trump administration itself demonstrates how quickly regulatory policy can change. Federal agencies have already moved to roll back a range of policies introduced during the previous Democratic administration. That broader reversal has reinforced concerns among crypto executives that regulations adopted today could eventually be dismantled by a future administration.
The political risk is particularly significant because cryptocurrency regulation has become closely connected to broader debates about financial oversight, investor protection and technological innovation. A future administration could take a much more aggressive approach toward digital assets, potentially reviving enforcement strategies that crypto companies have spent years trying to move away from.
Some industry participants are therefore looking beyond immediate regulatory relief and toward the possibility of a durable congressional framework. The Clarity Act is designed to address one of the industry’s most important unresolved questions: how digital assets should be categorized and which federal agency should have primary responsibility for regulating them.
Without legislation, that uncertainty is unlikely to disappear completely. Even if the SEC and CFTC introduce business-friendly regulations, future regulators could interpret their responsibilities differently. Companies may also have to account for the possibility of litigation challenging the authority or scope of those rules.
Josh Riezman, chief legal and strategy officer at crypto trading firm GSR, said he expected the SEC and CFTC to swiftly push through ambitious rules, which will be helpful to the industry in the short term.
“But then the next administration, depending on how that shakes out, we can be looking very much like a potentially Gensler 2.0 type scenario,” he added.
That reference highlights one of the industry’s central concerns. Under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the agency pursued enforcement actions against numerous cryptocurrency businesses, arguing in several cases that digital tokens qualified as securities and that companies dealing in them should have registered with the SEC. Gensler maintained that strong enforcement was necessary because of the level of fraud and risk present in the crypto market.
