U.S. crypto legislation is inevitable, and delaying action risks harsher rules later as Washington debates whether to lock in influence now or surrender control of a multi-trillion-dollar market to future political backlash.
Crypto’s Regulatory Future Is Certain, Industry Influence Is Not, White House Advisor Says
Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets Patrick Witt shared on social media platform X on Jan. 20, 2026, a forceful defense of advancing U.S. crypto legislation, framing the debate as a strategic choice between shaping policy now or facing stricter rules later.
He wrote:
“Let’s not kid ourselves. There will be a crypto market structure bill — it’s a question of when, not if. Assuming a multi-trillion dollar industry will continue to operate indefinitely without a comprehensive regulatory framework is pure fantasy.”
The executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets described the current political alignment as an unusual opening for the crypto sector, highlighting a pro- crypto President, unified control of Congress, and regulators at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) positioned to shape implementation. Witt framed delay as a strategic error rather than a neutral choice, arguing that inaction effectively postpones influence over the rules that will ultimately govern a multi-trillion-dollar market.
He opened his comments by invoking the “no bill versus bad bill” argument, pushing back against Coinbase’s view that the current Senate draft would leave the crypto industry worse off than operating under today’s regulatory status quo.
Read more:
“So, do we take advantage of the opportunity to pass a bill now, with a pro- crypto President, control of Congress, excellent regulators at the SEC and CFTC to write the rules, and a healthy industry? Or do we fumble the ball and allow Dems to write punitive legislation in the wake of a future financial crisis à la Dodd-Frank?” Witt posed, casting the decision as a binary outcome with long-term consequences. He cautioned that waiting could expose the industry to reactionary policymaking following a market shock, then added, “You might not love every part of the CLARITY Act, but I can guarantee you’ll hate a future Dem version even more.”
Addressing criticism from within the crypto sector, he emphasized pragmatism over ideological purity, concluding:
“Let’s keep working to improve the product, recognizing that compromises will need to be made in order to get 60 votes in the Senate, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of the good.”
Supporters of legislative clarity often point to defined compliance obligations, broader institutional participation, and stronger consumer protections as potential outcomes of a federal framework, while critics remain focused on safeguarding innovation, competition, and financial privacy.
FAQ ⏰
- Why does Patrick Witt say a crypto market structure bill is inevitable? He argues a multi-trillion-dollar crypto industry cannot operate long term without a comprehensive regulatory framework.
- What political conditions does Witt say favor passing crypto legislation now? He points to a pro- President, unified control of Congress, and aligned SEC and CFTC leadership.
- What risk does Witt see in delaying U.S. crypto legislation? He warns delay could lead to punitive Dem-led rules after a future financial crisis.
- How does the CLARITY Act fit into the crypto regulation debate? Witt says compromises in the CLARITY Act are preferable to harsher future legislation.
Author: Kevin Helms
Source: Bitcoin
Reviewed By: Editorial Team
