Why Wall Street says ‘no bill is better than a bad U.S. crypto bill’

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-01-16Last updated on 2026-01-16

Abstract

Industry players strongly oppose the recently proposed U.S. crypto market structure bill, arguing it fails to provide adequate regulatory clarity. While the legislation aims to classify digital assets and define regulatory roles, key figures like Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong criticize specific provisions—such as restrictions on asset tokenization and stablecoin rewards—as counterproductive. Armstrong notably stated, “no bill is better than a bad bill,” emphasizing that overly restrictive rules could limit competition and exclude Americans from emerging financial opportunities. Despite ongoing negotiations, concerns over consumer protection, pension risks, and rising crypto-related fraud continue to drive opposition. The industry seeks clearer guidelines, especially for DeFi and institutional involvement, but believes innovation will continue regardless of the bill’s outcome.

Industry players have pushed back strongly against the recently released draft of the crypto market structure bill, which lawmakers scheduled for a vote earlier this week.

Although the bill aims to deliver long-awaited regulatory clarity, it has failed to win broad support across the sector.

The legislation aims to define how digital assets are classified and clarify the roles of regulatory agencies in overseeing the space. It also seeks to outline which products and services crypto companies can legally offer, while prioritizing consumer protection for U.S. citizens.

The industry has reacted far more critically to this bill than to earlier crypto legislation, such as the GENIUS Act, which established a stablecoin framework and won broad support.

Why the pushback?

Hunter Horsley, CEO of Bitwise Asset Management, said regulators have made progress in supporting the crypto industry, but they still leave major clarity gaps.

Speaking to CNBC, Horsley highlighted concerns about the bill. He pointed out that certain provisions, such as restrictions on asset tokenization and the ban on stablecoin rewards, pose significant challenges.

He added that there is strong interest from large institutions, including Bitwise clients, banks, wealth management firms, and hedge funds, all of whom need clearer regulatory language around DeFi.

“There are a lot of firms that want to tokenize securities, equities... some of the world’s largest asset managers. They want, if possible, to know clearly what the rules of the road are.”

Horsley emphasized that the situation is no longer driven solely by the crypto industry. Traditional financial institutions are now actively looking to bring their clients into the ecosystem, a shift he believes may be influencing the structure and direction of the current bill.

“I don’t think it’s coming from a place of attempting to be counterproductive. I think the reality is that these are complex issues, and there’s a lot of voices.”

He concluded by stressing that the outcome of this bill is not a “make or break” moment for crypto, adding that innovation in the space will continue regardless.

Coinbase CEO also pushes back

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has echoed similar concerns, stating that “no bill is better than a bad bill,” as the company withdrew its support for the current version of the legislation.

Armstrong acknowledged that while some elements of the bill do not fully align with the interests of American consumers, Coinbase remains open to engaging with lawmakers to find a workable path forward, according to his CNBC interview.

He argued that banks must not use legislation to limit competition or “put their thumb on the scale,” warning that this approach would exclude Americans from emerging financial opportunities.

To illustrate his point, Armstrong highlighted how stablecoin rewards could offer users yields of up to 3.8%, compared to an average of 0.14% (or 14 basis points) from traditional banks on dollar deposits. He also noted that stablecoins are typically backed by reserves such as U.S. Treasury bills, while banks operate on a fractional reserve basis.

Despite the disagreements, negotiations remain active. Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott confirmed that discussions are ongoing, stating that “everyone is at the table working in good faith.”

Pushback and hurdles

Opposition to the bill has been building for months, as various stakeholders seek to protect their interests.

In December 2025, AMBCrypto reported that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) urged the Senate to reconsider the legislation, warning that it could place “profound risk” on workers’ pensions due to the volatility associated with crypto assets.

Concerns over fraud have also intensified. Crypto-related scams have surged, with an estimated $14 billion lost to fraud in 2025 alone, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis.

Market sentiment has reflected these concerns. The broader crypto market has experienced volatility over the past day, with the total market capitalization standing at approximately $3.23 trillion.


Final Thoughts

  • Bitwise CEO calls for greater clarity around how the bill addresses DeFi and asset tokenization.
  • Industry players push back on the legislation, although negotiations remain ongoing as all parties stay engaged in discussions.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason Wall Street and crypto industry players are saying 'no bill is better than a bad bill'?

AThey believe the current draft of the crypto market structure bill contains problematic provisions, such as restrictions on asset tokenization and a ban on stablecoin rewards, which could stifle innovation and limit financial opportunities for Americans, making it a 'bad bill'.

QAccording to Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley, what is a key concern for large institutions regarding the proposed crypto bill?

ALarge institutions, including banks and asset managers, need clearer regulatory language specifically around DeFi (Decentralized Finance) and the rules for tokenizing securities and equities.

QWhat specific financial comparison did Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong make to argue against the bill's restrictions?

AArmstrong compared the potential 3.8% yield from stablecoin rewards to the average 0.14% yield offered by traditional banks on dollar deposits, highlighting the better returns consumers could get with stablecoins, which are often backed by safer reserves like U.S. Treasury bills.

QWhat are some of the major risks cited by opponents of the bill, such as the American Federation of Teachers?

AOpponents warn the bill could place 'profound risk' on workers' pensions due to the volatility of crypto assets and point to the surge in crypto-related fraud, with an estimated $14 billion lost to scams in 2025 alone.

QDespite the strong pushback, what is the current status of negotiations on the bill according to the Senate Banking Committee Chair?

ASenate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott confirmed that negotiations are still active, stating that 'everyone is at the table working in good faith' to find a path forward.

Related Reads

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit41m ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit41m ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2h ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbit2h ago

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片