The Washington Power of the Crypto Sphere

marsbitPublicado em 2026-03-04Última atualização em 2026-03-04

Resumo

The crypto policy landscape in Washington has evolved significantly, now comprising a network of think tanks, trade associations, and ecosystem-specific advocacy groups. Key organizations include: - **Coin Center (2014)**: The first crypto policy think tank, focused on user rights, self-custody, privacy, and tax reforms like taxing staking rewards only upon sale. - **Blockchain Association (2018)**: The largest industry group with 100+ members, advocating for tax equality, market structure legislation, and DeFi protection. - **DeFi Education Fund (2021)**: Focused on DeFi, protecting developers, empowering users, and promoting permissionless blockchains. - **Solana Policy Institute (2025)**: The first ecosystem-specific group, pushing for tokenized securities and expanded accredited investor definitions. - **Hyperliquid Policy Center (2026)**: Dedicated to regulatory clarity for decentralized perpetual futures trading. Shared priorities include developer protection (via the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act), staking tax reform, self-custody rights, and small transaction tax exemptions. While all align on core issues, each specializes in distinct areas—from ideological advocacy (Coin Center) to ecosystem-specific agendas (Solana, Hyperliquid). This reflects a mature, multi-faceted approach to crypto policy engagement.

Written by: David Christopher

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

The policy infrastructure of the crypto industry has matured considerably over the past decade.

From a single think tank in Washington D.C. initially, it has developed into a complete network comprising industry associations, advocacy organizations, and ecosystem-specific lobbying entities.

The current landscape includes both comprehensive industry groups and specialized advocates focused on single ecosystems, each playing different roles in the process of promoting regulatory clarity.

In February 2026, the Hyperliquid Policy Center was officially established, becoming the newest member; prior to this, the Solana Policy Institute had already debuted in 2025.

Let's take a closer look: which organizations are the voices within Washington's crypto policy power centers.

Coin Center (2014)

The earliest crypto policy think tank.

Coin Center has been deeply involved in Washington for over a decade, consistently advocating for open blockchain networks and user rights, and is also the most ideologically libertarian-leaning institution in the industry.

Unlike other organizations that focus on industry interests, Coin Center insists on prioritizing individual users: defending users' rights to self-custody, privacy protection, and the right to use crypto assets without being burdened by cumbersome tax obligations.

Its core goals for 2026 include:

  • Promoting the 'Keep Your Coins Act' to prohibit the federal government from banning self-custody;
  • Supporting the 'Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act' (BRCA), clarifying that developers who do not custody user funds should not be considered money transmitters;
  • Proposing detailed tax reforms: establishing a $600 de minimis exemption threshold for small transactions, simplifying cost basis reporting, and taxing staking rewards only upon sale, not upon receipt.

The taxation of staking rewards is a common pain point across the industry.

Currently, the U.S. IRS treats newly generated tokens from staking as current income, requiring validators to pay taxes even before selling any assets, resulting in extremely high compliance costs.

Coin Center advocates for treating staking rewards like other generated assets: taxed only upon sale.

Blockchain Association (BA, 2018)

The largest crypto industry association in the U.S., representing over 100 member institutions, including exchanges, mining companies, DeFi protocols, and infrastructure service providers.

If Coin Center speaks based on ideology, the Blockchain Association operates in a coalition model: coordinating member interests and translating them into legislative priorities.

Current key focuses include:

  • Tax equality, market structure legislation, DeFi protection;
  • Formally releasing tax principles, calling for de minimis exemptions, treating stablecoins as cash equivalents, and domesticating perpetual contracts;
  • Full support for BRCA and broader developer protection clauses.

DeFi Education Fund (DEF, 2021)

Initially established with a grant from Uniswap governance, specifically focused on decentralized finance.

Work revolves around three pillars: protecting software developers, empowering DeFi users, and defending permissionless blockchains.

At the developer level:

DEF argues that builders should be exempt from liability when third parties misuse tools, opposing the forced fitting of developers into regulatory frameworks designed for custodial intermediaries. Consistent with Coin Center and the Blockchain Association, DEF also strongly supports BRCA (the 'Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act').

At the user level:

Promoting the right to self-custody, privacy protection, reducing reliance on trusted third parties, and emphasizing financial inclusion—permissionless networks allow users to bypass gatekeepers and freely access financial services.

DEF's working style is more legal and research-oriented: submitting amicus curiae briefs, regulatory comments, publishing educational interpretations, operating the high-impact 'DeFi Debrief' newsletter, and continuously pushing for BRCA to be included in overall market structure legislation.

Solana Policy Institute (2025)

The first policy institution dedicated to a public blockchain ecosystem within the industry, co-founded by the former CEO of the DeFi Education Fund and the former CEO of the Blockchain Association.

It shares core demands (developer protection, staking tax reform) with the entire industry while closely serving the strategic interests of the Solana ecosystem.

Core distinctive agendas:

  • Project Open: Promoting a security tokenization pilot, allowing issuers to register equity as digital tokens on public chains, achieving instant settlement and transparent ownership records, positioning Solana as infrastructure for scaling traditional capital markets;
  • Supporting the 'Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act': Expanding the definition of accredited investors, moving beyond wealth thresholds to include knowledge qualifications. The institute points out that current rules exclude 87% of Americans from the private market.

Hyperliquid Policy Center (2026)

The newest and most narrowly focused crypto policy institution, established with a $29 million endowment from the Hyper Foundation, with the sole core mission: making perpetual futures compliant and available domestically in the U.S.

Led by the former Chief Policy Officer of the Blockchain Association, HPC precisely targets the regulatory gap for decentralized derivatives—this is Hyperliquid's core business and one of the fastest-growing sectors in the crypto industry.

Institutional goals:

Educating policymakers on the operational logic of non-custodial trading protocols and promoting a regulatory framework that does not require intermediary custody.

The timing is highly strategic:

With the 'Clarity Act' stalled in the Senate, HPC seizes the window to specifically shape regulators' understanding of DeFi derivatives.

Its core argument:

The perpetual contracts market will flow overseas and to decentralized protocols regardless; the U.S. must either establish a framework to compete or completely cede the market.

Data shows that perpetual contract trading volume reached $92.7 trillion in 2025.

Industry-wide Consensus and Differences

Although the five institutions have different positioning and scopes, they are highly aligned on core demands:

Common goals:

  • Developer protection: Almost all support BRCA, clarifying that developers who do not custody funds are not money transmitters;
  • Staking tax reform: Block rewards / staking rewards taxed upon sale, not upon receipt;
  • User self-custody rights;
  • De minimis exemption for small transactions.

Divergent directions:

  • Coin Center: Adheres to principles, focuses on privacy and user rights;
  • Blockchain Association: Coordinates the interests of over 100 industry members;
  • DeFi Education Fund: Focuses deeply on DeFi-specific regulation and legal support;
  • Solana / Hyperliquid policy institutions: Ecosystem-specific, with agendas closely tied to their core businesses (security tokenization, perpetual contracts).

These institutions collectively define the industry's core values, while simultaneously preserving specialized advancement space for key niche issues, marking the U.S. crypto industry's transition from 'unified voice' to an era of 'specialized, ecosystem-driven, and refined' policy博弈 (game theory / competition).

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core mission of the Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) established in 2026?

AThe Hyperliquid Policy Center's sole core mission is to make perpetual futures legally compliant in the United States.

QWhich organization is described as the earliest crypto policy think tank and the most ideologically libertarian in the industry?

ACoin Center, established in 2014, is described as the earliest crypto policy think tank and the most ideologically libertarian.

QWhat is a major pain point in crypto taxation that Coin Center aims to reform regarding staking rewards?

ACoin Center aims to reform the taxation of staking rewards so that they are taxed only upon sale, not at the time they are received.

QWhat is the primary focus of the Solana Policy Institute's 'Project Open' agenda?

AThe primary focus of 'Project Open' is to promote a security tokenization pilot, allowing issuers to register equity as digital tokens on a public blockchain for instant settlement and transparent ownership records.

QWhat is a key common goal shared by all five policy organizations mentioned in the article?

AA key common goal shared by all organizations is developer protection, specifically supporting the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) to clarify that developers who do not custody user funds are not money transmitters.

Leituras Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHá 51m

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHá 51m

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.

marsbitHá 1h

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

marsbitHá 1h

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.

marsbitHá 1h

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHá 1h

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.

marsbitHá 3h

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

marsbitHá 3h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片