2026-01-17 08:34:26

As Bitcoin approaches the $100,000 mark for the first time, the real covert battle has already begun in the Senate Banking Committee. A major crypto platform withdrew its support for the "Clear Act" at a critical moment, forcing the vote to be postponed. This is not just a public relations move; it involves the fight for the "pricing power" of the crypto industry over the next decade.

**Stablecoin Yields: The Business Lifeline Under Threat**

The seemingly neutral bill provisions are actually targeting a specific goal—banning "stablecoin yields." This is deadly for some mainstream trading platforms. Stablecoin rewards are a core revenue source for these platforms in 2026. Once cut off, funds will be forcibly pushed back into the traditional banking system. This is the so-called "using legislation for stock competition," which appears to regulate but is actually reshaping the market landscape through policy measures.

**The Ceiling Dilemma of Tokenized Assets**

The strict restrictions on "tokenized stocks" in the bill are the real killer move. Traditional brokerage lobbying groups have exerted significant influence here. RWA(On-chain Real Assets) should become the engine of the next bull market. If these assets are frozen within the "existing regulatory framework," the efficiency advantage of on-chain finance over traditional systems will vanish. The entire Web3 innovation ecosystem faces the risk of being confined within existing rules.

**Power Shift Hidden Behind "Compliance"**

The bill claims to clarify the boundaries of SEC and CFTC authority but actually grants the SEC more covert extraterritorial jurisdiction. Regulatory requirements for DeFi protocols essentially aim to embed government surveillance mechanisms at the technical layer. This is not transparent regulation but a power expansion under a different guise.

**Market Opportunities: What to Watch**

Bitcoin is currently retracing to the $95,000 support level, which is a hedge against the uncertainty caused by the bill. If this platform can leverage political lobbying to obtain exemptions or modifications to the "yield ban," regulatory uncertainty will dissipate, and the probability of Bitcoin breaking through $100,000 will significantly increase.

Finally, a truth: don’t be fooled by the word "compliance." The real positive should be the legalization of decentralized logic, not the extension of centralized power onto the chain. This "turnaround" is, to some extent, a last line of defense for the entire Web3 community’s innovation frontier.

BTC-1,33%

RWA-1,88%

DEFI-2,72%

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropDreamBreaker

· 01-19 17:13

It's the same old trick again, let's see who can take control of regulatory power first. Honestly, it's just a change of packaging without changing the substance. Traditional finance is still looking for agents on the chain. Once stablecoin yields are banned, retail investors can only obediently return to banks. It's really ruthless. This time, I think that platform suddenly turning hostile isn't for Web3, but for fighting over their own little territory. If RWA really gets frozen out, the next bull market engine will directly stall, which is a complete self-castration. The 95,000 level is indeed intriguing, a bargaining chip in political games. Decentralization being regulated and compliant—what's left of Web3 then? Just a variant of centralization. But on the other hand, the breakthrough still depends on when retail investors will truly awaken. This battle is long, don't rush to go all-in. Let's see who can endure until the end.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-40edb63b

· 01-17 13:46

Basically, it's a game of power struggle, with all the compliance underneath being about利益分配 (利益分配).

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentTherapist

· 01-17 09:04

It's the same old game, talking about defending the position, but isn't it just a game of everyone cutting each other's leeks? If you truly want decentralization, then don't rely on platform stablecoin yields to survive. The winners of this round of operations have long been decided; I bet five bucks that big platforms will still end up eating the most. Compliance is indeed annoying, but banning stablecoin yields? I actually think it should be banned. $100,000 isn't coming so quickly; let's wait and see what tricks the Senate pulls out next. The expansion of power is indeed disgusting, but from another perspective, having no regulation at all is hell. Basically, it's big fish eating small fish; none of us retail investors will get to win.

View OriginalReply0

ContractCollector

· 01-17 09:03

Coming back with this again? Big platforms turning hostile really is ruthless, cutting off stablecoin yields all at once. Honestly, it's still traditional finance causing trouble; the RWA dream is about to be dashed again. Under the guise of compliance, it's all about power expansion, which is the most heartbreaking. 95k rebounds once to reach 100k? Think too much, regulation isn't that quick to be decided. For decentralization to truly be legalized, it’s not the SEC’s game-playing tricks.

View OriginalReply0

defi_detective

· 01-17 08:55

Same old trick, secretly dividing the profits --- Stablecoin yields are banned? Basically, traditional finance is scared --- RWA is the real future, don’t be fooled by these bills --- SEC is secretly expanding power, who can’t see that? --- 95,000 is the bottom? Then just wait for it to break 100,000, it’s that simple --- The word "compliance" is the biggest deception, decentralization of power is the real picture --- The major exchanges’ moves this time, I think they’re playing chess --- If DeFi really gets stuck in a framework, it’s over, that’s the core --- Political lobbying won, BTC immediately took off, just waiting for this moment --- Well said, don’t be fooled by the false reputation of "transparency," it’s essentially the same old story

View OriginalReply0

DecentralizedElder

· 01-17 08:55

Basically, it's just that everyone's favorite has been messed with, and as soon as this bill comes out, everyone panics. The stablecoin yield part really hits home; platforms rely on this to make a living. The transfer of power needs to be watched closely; changing the name still means regulation. Let's wait and see who kneels first and begs for mercy. The $100,000 issue depends on who wins the political lobbying. The word "compliance" is really just a fig leaf; the current "regulations" are just new tools for centralized power. Actually, this move is quite ruthless, aimed at choking off the supply chain. If RWA gets frozen, Web3 is doomed; without efficiency advantages, why use the chain? Regulators are playing chess again; we're just pawns. Breaking decentralization is the real joke. They just want to extend power onto the chain; all that talk about clarifying roles and boundaries is nonsense. This time, a certain platform's sudden change of attitude seems pretty loyal; someone has to stand up. The tense situation will continue unless someone gains exemption rights. With this set of legislative combos, the entire ecosystem will have to be reshaped. The $100,000 issue isn't that simple; politics is the biggest variable.

View OriginalReply0

ThatsNotARugPull

· 01-17 08:48

Basically, it's just big fish eating small fish—a power game under the guise of regulation. I see through this turn of face; it's not about compliance at all, but vested interests fighting for the right to speak. Once the stablecoin yields are banned, funds will have to obediently return to banks. This move is ruthless. DeFi is frozen within the old framework, so what’s the point of playing Web3? The $95,000 level depends entirely on the outcome of political lobbying. SEC secretly expanding its powers this time—really disgusting. It reminds me that every time in the crypto world, rules are set by big platforms and traditional finance working together. RWA is being blocked, and the entire narrative collapses. Compliance, compliance—sounds so good, but in reality, it’s just a superficial upgrade of centralized power. The attitude shift of a certain platform this time is truly about protecting our last space for innovation. Don’t be fooled by the surface-level legislative clauses; essentially, it’s a strategic move in stock competition. Has anyone considered that their level of panic actually proves that on-chain finance is really threatening them?

View OriginalReply0

PerpetualLonger

· 01-17 08:46

Damn, this is a real covert war, the air force wants to pressure us from above again. This bill is really outrageous; banning stablecoin yields is like directly cutting off our food supply. If we can't hold 95,000, then just wait to buy the dip. Fully committed now, faith must not waver. If RWA gets frozen out, the bull market engine will stall. We absolutely cannot let this happen. Once that platform gets an exemption, $100,000 will be the next starting point. I'm betting on it. These traditional brokerages are really disgusting, insisting on pushing us back into their framework. Actually, the more they try to suppress us, the more it shows they're afraid. Isn't that the biggest advantage? Holding the DeFi position is like safeguarding the entire Web3 future.

View OriginalReply0

DataBartender

· 01-17 08:42

Wait a minute, does a top platform turning hostile expect us retail investors to buy it? This trick is even more absurd than the bill itself. --- In simple terms, it's interest groups playing cards; if the stablecoin yields are cut off, retail investors will suffer even more. --- Once RWA is frozen, there's really no hope; the lobbying from the brokerage group is way louder than our voices. --- Under the guise of compliance, power expansion sounds just frustrating. --- If 95,000 can't hold up, it might really drop; the bill issue isn't over yet. --- Where is the original intention of decentralization? Now it's been squeezed out by "regulatory compliance." --- This wave of platform operations is somewhat double standard, right? --- Did the SEC secretly embed monitoring mechanisms? That's why I don't trust the current regulatory framework. --- Those who truly protect the innovation front are those who insist on decentralization, not those platforms playing political games.

View OriginalReply0