Disputes in the crypto industry over the CLARITY Act escalate: Pass or abandon?

Question

【Chain Wen】Regarding the US Crypto Market Structure Act (CLARITY), there has been quite a bit of heated discussion in the industry recently.

On one hand, the CEO of a leading trading platform recently made a statement — rather than having a flawed bill, it’s better to have no bill at all. This stance is quite firm. But it has certainly caused a stir within the community.

On the other hand, other industry leaders hold completely different views. Arjun Sethi, CEO of a major exchange, came out saying, don’t give up. Years of bipartisan cooperation are not easy, and negotiations are needed to resolve lingering issues. Chris Dixon, partner at a16z; Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of a blockchain company; and David Sacks, who handles AI and crypto affairs at the White House, all share the same tone — sit down quickly and resolve differences before the end of the month.

What’s more interesting is that Seth Hertlein, Global Policy Lead at a hardware wallet company, pointed out a real issue: the current favorable policy environment is truly rare. The industry’s feeling is that if this opportunity is missed, future efforts will either be impossible to push legislation or will be forced through in a very unfavorable environment. No one wants to see software features and content permissions change constantly with each new government.

In short, this is a major strategic debate — should we aim for a perfect plan or a workable one?

MoneyBurner · Accepted Answer

Haha, are we starting internal conflicts again? Instead of stressing over whether CLARITY passes or not, it's better to watch on-chain data to see who is building positions—that's the real gold and silver.

---

Basically, it's a game among big players. Passing the bill benefits them, but they can also accept it; anyway, retail investors like us will end up getting cut last.

---

Arjun is right. Bipartisan cooperation is so rare, and blindly opposing it would be really foolish. Negotiating offers more arbitrage opportunities than a one-size-fits-all approach.

---

Wait, haven't you noticed? The more this bill is debated, the more intense the fire gets. Behind the scenes, funds are quietly positioning, the floor price is almost moving, and the airdrop expectations are soaring.

---

Not passing the bill might actually be beneficial for us. The regulatory gap period is the golden time for IPOs and going long. Historical experience tells me this time I should go all in.

---

That tough talk from a certain platform's CEO is just a negotiation tactic. Don't believe it; in the end, there will still be compromises—that's the game of professional players.

---

I bet CLARITY will eventually pass; otherwise, the lobbying expenses over the past half-year would be wasted. I am optimistic about the liquidity premium space behind this.

DeFi_Dad_Jokes · Answer

Rather than a bad bill, it's better to have none. But can we really bet on this?

---

Party cooperation is precious. Can we just give up if we want to?

---

The bigwigs are arguing, and in the end, it's still us retail investors who suffer...

---

As for CLARITY, it feels like gambling on the fate of the country.

---

Is having no bill really better than a bad bill? I can't quite understand this logic.

---

After years of negotiations, is this all? Might as well just come clean and be done with it.

---

It feels like after all this talk, everyone is just talking past each other, with no common ground.

---

Everyone stop arguing. The real decision-making power is in Washington.

---

Can we win just by abandoning party cooperation? I doubt it.

---

These bigwigs are really bold. For the sake of principles, they'd rather have nothing than a bad one.

AirdropworkerZhang · Answer

Looking at this situation, the big players are about to clash again. One side says the bill is useless, a group says negotiations... Everyone is just talking past each other, and in the end, it's still us retail investors who suffer.

MidnightMEVeater · Answer

Good morning, I'm back at 2 a.m. again. Look at these people fighting on CLARITY, basically it's about who will pay the bill. I actually quite appreciate the logic of the CEO of the leading trading platform—rather than being trapped in a circle that can't escape, it's better to just flip the table. Arjun's advice to "not give up" sounds like he's afraid of missing this train and there won't be a next one; years of bipartisan cooperation are basically just waiting to see who can bite the hardest bone. Chris Dixon and Brad's group also can't figure out whether they want real regulation or fake regulation to block competitors. Watching this drama at midnight is even more exciting than a sandwich attack.

DegenWhisperer · Answer

Instead of worrying about whether it will pass or not, it's better to first understand what this bill actually aims to regulate... Really, every time it's just this kind of bickering.

MeltdownSurvivalist · Answer

These big shots are really something. One says no to the bill, another insists it must be pushed forward. Industry influence is all in the hands of these few people... It's a bit frustrating.

---

Another internal conflict. If CLARITY can't be sorted out, regulatory authorities will only become stricter.

---

The bipartisan cooperation has been going on for so long; giving up isn't very realistic... but there are indeed many things that need improvement.

---

Watching these people argue, small and medium players really just become the background.

---

Instead of arguing with each other, it's better to lay out the specific terms clearly.

CodeAuditQueen · Answer

Isn't this just a real-life version of the reentrancy vulnerability? Mutual calls and mutual vetoes, ending up with the contract state completely messed up. Passing a bill versus passing a bad bill—either way, the gas fees will explode.

Tokenomics911 · Answer

What else can we do if it doesn't pass? Anyway, it's all in our own hands now. Instead of arguing, it's better to just get it done.

DAOdreamer · Answer

I'd rather have no bill than a bad bill. This guy really dares to say that, but in reality, how many opportunities for bipartisan cooperation are there?

---

Same old story. Honestly, I think there's no point in talking about bipartisan cooperation. In the end, it's just being exploited again.

---

What is Chris Dixon and a16z's attitude? Why haven't I heard any response?

---

Negotiations? Ha, I think it's probably just everyone playing their own game again.

---

I really don't understand these big shots. They're united against external threats now, but at critical moments, they start shifting blame.

---

It's true that having no bill is better than a bad one, but in reality, not having one means continued regulatory suppression.

---

What does David mean? Who does the White House really favor?

---

Wait, Arjun Sethi is so eager to pass this. Is there some vested interest behind it?

BearMarketSunriser · Answer

No, how come these big shots can't get together? One wants all or nothing, and the other is determined to push forward. Judging by this stance, CLARITY is going to turn yellow.

Disputes in the crypto industry over the CLARITY Act escalate: Pass or abandon?

Trending Topics

GateLaunchesGateforAI

CryptoMarketBouncesBack

BitcoinHitsOneMonthHigh

USIranTensionsImpactMarkets

Trump’s15%GlobalTariffsSettoTakeEffect

Hot Gate Fun

Raffazka1919

tsuzaYield

EBTC

EBTC

vup

vup

bilibilivup

vup

YL

🇮🇷伊朗

Pin