2026-01-16 05:25:26

The US crypto market faces further setbacks in its structural reform. The heavy legislation originally scheduled for voting in the Senate Banking Committee this week has been delayed, with the behind-the-scenes push coming from a major exchange that previously supported the bill suddenly switching sides.

The turning point lies in the new version's handling of tokenized securities. Exchanges believe that once the ban takes effect, it would essentially hand over this market to traditional financial institutions—equivalent to helping banks do business. If this contradiction becomes public, the legislative consensus could shatter instantly.

The market has directly responded to this uncertainty. Expectations of a regulator-friendly outcome have been dashed, and the upward momentum of crypto assets has noticeably weakened. Coupled with recent sharp gains, a large amount of follow-on capital is experiencing "missing out" anxiety, leading to short-term selling pressure. Signs of profit-taking orderly exiting have already appeared.

The good news is that the Senate has pushed the vote to the end of January. A new negotiation window has opened. If both sides can reach a compromise on tokenization issues, or even introduce a friendly plan for stablecoins, market reactions could be very intense—historically, similar regulatory positive news often triggers a valuation re-rating of the entire ecosystem. This wave of market activity might be worth watching.

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.

26 Likes

Reward
26
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidityLarry

· 01-18 22:23

It's the same old story again. Leading exchanges are playing "turning against each other," and I always said that regulatory friendliness is just an illusion. As for tokenized securities, honestly, it's a battle of interests between traditional finance and on-chain ecosystems—everyone wants a piece of the pie. This time, pushing it to the end of January, I actually have some expectations to see what tricks both sides can come up with. If the stablecoin policies really get approved, the market might be reshuffled. But right now, with profit-taking selling off so aggressively, we still need to watch out for sudden crashes in the short term. I've known for a long time that this would happen—regulatory consensus is the easiest to break, especially when real money is involved. Let's wait and see; if the next rebound is coming, there might still be opportunities. This kind of tug-of-war is actually good news for long-term holders; short-term volatility doesn't need to be too alarming. The key still depends on the intelligence of the negotiation teams.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-18 18:32

It's the same old trick again, major exchanges support first and then turn against it. This tactic is really slick. If they could really compromise and re-evaluate the valuation? That seems a bit too good to be true. Let's wait until the end of January, then we'll know whether it's a positive or negative development.

View OriginalReply0

ApeEscapeArtist

· 01-16 08:11

It's the same old story. As soon as the major exchanges fall out, the legislative consensus shatters. Truly remarkable. After all the fuss, it's still a battle of interests. I’ll only believe in the stablecoin plan once it’s actually implemented. Retail investors who missed out must be feeling really bad now. Maybe there will be a reversal by the end of January. If this wave can truly reach a compromise, I’ll just be a lurker. After all, history tends to repeat itself. How can exchanges be so good at stirring up trouble? It’s really "helping banks do business," I laughed.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretDiary

· 01-16 05:55

It's the same old trick again, exchanges support first, then oppose, and in the end, they still have to compromise. Try again at the end of January? Is it a pie or a trap?

View OriginalReply0

governance_ghost

· 01-16 05:50

Here we go again? Exchange betrayals, regulatory friendliness falling flat—this is just the daily life of the crypto world... Negotiations at the end of January, I bet five bucks we'll still be stuck in a tug-of-war.

View OriginalReply0

FarmToRiches

· 01-16 05:41

It's the same old trick again. The big shot says they support it, then turns around and betrays, all because of money. AI-generated content does not include account names, profiles, or other personal information; it only contains comments on the article.

View OriginalReply0

SoliditySlayer

· 01-16 05:41

It's the same old trick again—exchanges turning against each other, bill delays, market crashes... I've seen it too many times. End of January? I can't believe it. Can the exchanges really reach an agreement? I bet five USDC this thing will fall through again. The so-called "regulatory friendliness" expectation, frankly, is just a dream of the little guys.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerWallet

· 01-16 05:38

It's the exchange causing trouble again. The previous vows of loyalty have now turned into a direct betrayal. How many times have I seen this script... Are you really just afraid that banks make money? Then don't bother with compliance, just grow wildly. Invest again at the end of January? I can't understand how many people will be cut in this time gap. Once the stablecoin plan is announced, the price will definitely surge, the historical pattern is right here. With such strong selling pressure now, it will depend on when institutions quietly start to buy the dip.

View OriginalReply0

GhostAddressMiner

· 01-16 05:36

The exchange's recent reversal is really interesting... The bill they originally supported suddenly turned against them, and the underlying logic is nothing more than fear of losing the tokenization pie. The moment regulatory consensus shattered, I saw several large addresses quietly start moving their holdings in the mempool, with funds flowing toward three suspicious wallets—clear signs of early coin-holding addresses.

View OriginalReply0