Speculation is only a temporary opportunity, and without making changes, it will be swallowed up.

Written by: Christian Catalini, Jai Massari, Rebecca Rettig

Translated by: Block unicorn

If the United States wants to lead in the field of cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and other cutting-edge technologies, it needs to establish clear rules, recognize the value these innovations can bring to the economy, especially by restoring the competitiveness of the tech industry. Unfortunately, it seems that neither of the two presidential candidates is aware of this.

Cambridge—The cryptocurrency industry is fully engaged in the November presidential election in the United States, investing hundreds of millions of dollars to support candidates who may promote reasonable regulation. However, despite such a huge investment—making it the most funded sector during this period—how the two candidates will address this issue and prioritize support for builders rather than speculators remains unclear.

Casual observers may have heard that the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump, has come out in support of this cause. At a recent Bitcoin conference, he pledged to make the United States the "global capital of cryptocurrency," establish a strategic reserve of Bitcoin, and accept the application of stablecoins. The audience at the event responded enthusiastically. However, Trump's aggressive promotion highlights the biggest challenge facing the industry: for a long time, those who want to use this technology for financial speculation have dominated the policy debate, while those who truly want to use it to build some substantive results have been marginalized.

The Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, has remained largely silent on this topic, but now she has the opportunity to propose more thoughtful and progressive policies on financial innovation. Cryptocurrency policy, like artificial intelligence policy, is fundamentally about innovation and national competitiveness. To make the United States a leader in this strategic field, the next government must first replace the current group of financial regulators who are hostile to cryptocurrency, especially Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who has consistently refused to engage in meaningful dialogue with the industry.

However, simply appointing regulators who are more sympathetic to the fast profit mentality will not improve the situation. The greatest advantage of cryptocurrency—its ability to incentivize the construction of open networks—is also its greatest burden. Like the railway frenzy of the 19th century, cryptocurrency has driven the construction of valuable new infrastructure, but it has also been used by some irresponsible individuals to carry out scams and fraud—SBF (founder of FTX) is a typical example, as he knows how to play the game within the existing imperfect regulatory framework.

Those who engage in speculation or even direct fraud benefit the most from the current regulatory chaos. What's worse is that many who actively advocate for regulation or try to cooperate with regulatory agencies have been hit with enforcement actions, leading them to lose access to necessary banking services.

Regulators often lack the impetus to adjust existing rules to accommodate new technologies, and existing stakeholders often give them reasons to maintain the status quo. In the field of cryptocurrency, accountability for criminal behavior comes too late, if at all, resulting in consumer losses. In the absence of clear regulation, market participants with established businesses or the need for banking services are often unwilling to explore this technology, regardless of its potential. The result is a system that encourages recklessness and fraud, while innovators who hope to improve payment systems, reform the financial industry, protect data privacy, or address the market dominance of tech giants are hindered.

Comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation requires more than just pandering to Trump; this issue goes far beyond cryptocurrency. If the United States wants to maintain its leadership in artificial intelligence, national defense, and other fields, it needs to establish rules that recognize the enormous value these innovation-intensive industries bring to the overall economy, especially through restoring competitiveness. This is a complex task, and success depends not only on pleasing extreme supporters of Bitcoin or simply allowing stablecoins to exist.

Considering Trump's proposal to have the US government hold Bitcoin as a strategic asset, while this would clearly benefit the price of Bitcoin, it is unclear how it would serve national interests. Instead, the federal government should view blockchain-based networks as critical infrastructure, similar to 5G.

The government should also not blindly support domestic Bitcoin mining without encouraging the use of renewable and stranded energy, or providing support for an increasingly fragile power grid (as seen in Texas). Regulation should consider how Bitcoin mining and chip manufacturing can contribute to national security while minimizing their environmental impact.

In his speech in Nashville, Trump accused the Biden administration of its relationship with cryptocurrency companies and banks. But the real problem is a regulatory and supervisory environment that makes it difficult for banks to safely participate in cryptocurrency business. Many banks recognize that digital payments and assets will play an important role in the financial system, but they are constrained by unreasonable regulations such as Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 (SAB 121), which imposes punitive accounting standards on businesses, preventing them from privately discussing exceptions with staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Trump also pledged to support stablecoins to strengthen the dominance of the US dollar. However, this issue is much more complex than it seems. To prevent the market from becoming overly concentrated, the United States needs to promote a competitive environment for the issuance of stablecoins. The dominant use case should not be dollarization, as this goal could weaken capital controls, disrupt the stability of emerging economies, and undermine the effectiveness of sanctions. Instead, legislation should ensure that stablecoins become a secure means of payment, supporting instant global transactions.

Achieving this vision requires a strong compliance framework. Currently, stablecoin issuers either do not know or are unwilling to know whether their digital dollars are held by sanctioned countries or criminals, but this dangerous blind spot is a major obstacle to mainstream adoption. Cryptocurrency entrepreneurs need to develop innovative solutions to address identity verification and compliance challenges, but progress in these areas has been very limited so far. New regulations need to strengthen incentives for the private sector to take on the hard work.

Ultimately, policymakers in Washington must come together to create new rules, rather than trying to fit the use cases of cryptocurrency into laws from nearly a century ago. At the same time, the industry itself needs to address the many issues that traditional financial services and cryptocurrency leaders have long ignored. A comprehensive cryptocurrency policy should prioritize builders, not speculators. Its potential, like the early days of the internet, is to revitalize industries that have long lacked competition.

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。