A Dialectical View of the United States' Cryptocurrency Asset Policy

Author: Wang Yongli

Original link:

On March 17, the U.S. SEC and CFTC jointly issued detailed implementation rules for clear legislation, resolving regulatory disagreements over crypto assets, categorizing them into five major types and clarifying regulatory authorities. This classification and regulatory model is worth learning from. Countries need to view the changes in U.S. crypto asset regulation dialectically, learning from American experiences and lessons, while also adhering to the principle of truthfulness and basing policies on their own national conditions.

After long-term exploration, debate, reflection, and compromise—especially following the enactment and implementation of the “Guidance and Establishment of the U.S. Stablecoin National Innovation Act” (the “GENIUS Act”) in 2025—on March 17, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jointly issued the explanatory (Interpretation), guiding (Guidance), and final rule (Final rule) document numbered 33-11412, titled “Application of Federal Securities Laws to Certain Crypto Assets and Related Transactions,” which took effect upon release, replacing previous regulations. This signifies that the longstanding disagreements and conflicts between the SEC and CFTC regarding the classification and regulation of crypto assets have been resolved. The two agencies now act jointly to clarify the legal nature and regulatory authorities of activities such as crypto mining, staking, packaging, and airdrops based on unified classification, shifting from enforcement to regulation, and supporting innovation and stable, secure operation in the crypto space.

This is a significant improvement in the U.S. approach to classifying and regulating crypto assets, worth learning for the world in terms of understanding, classification, and appropriate regulation of crypto assets. However, the U.S. crypto policy still requires a dialectical perspective.

The U.S. classification and regulation of crypto assets is worth learning from

Uninfluenced by various self-named crypto assets, the focus is on their origin, operation, function, yield, impact, and risk factors, using the “Howey Test” evaluation model to grasp their essential attributes and economic substance. Crypto assets are divided into five major categories (mainly distinguishing securities from non-securities), with corresponding regulatory authorities clarified.

1. Digital Commodities

Refers to those generated through functional rules and procedural operation within a crypto system, whose value is entirely determined by supply and demand changes, not influenced by others’ management efforts, and lacking intrinsic economic rights to passive income. The document explicitly lists influential market assets such as BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA, DOT, AVAX, LINK, DOGE, SHIB, LTC, APT, HBAR, XLM, XTZ, BCH as digital commodities.

Digital commodities are not securities and are regulated by the CFTC.

2. Digital Securities

Refers to traditional securities (including stocks, bonds, notes, etc.) expressed in digital encryption form and operated on blockchain, or assets that fundamentally possess security attributes (such as requiring capital investment to obtain, representing ownership, dividend rights, debt collection, or interest rights). Digital assets issued via initial coin offerings (ICOs) fall into this category.

Digital securities are regulated by the SEC.

3. Payment Stablecoins

Refers to USD stablecoins issued by licensed institutions approved by regulators, linked to the US dollar or similar, mainly used for on-chain payments, in accordance with the GENIUS Act.

Payment stablecoins must be backed by USD assets exchanged with the issuer and redeemable at a predetermined amount. Issuers cannot issue stablecoins exceeding their reserve assets or pay interest or operational profits on the stablecoins (meaning issuers can only engage in payment clearing activities, not deposit, loan, or investment activities related to stablecoins). Institutions involved in deposit, loan, or investment activities with stablecoins must obtain specific licenses and meet regulatory requirements.

As a payment tool, stablecoins are not classified as digital commodities or securities. According to the GENIUS Act, they are mainly regulated by the U.S. Federal Reserve (FED), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), or other federal or state reserve systems.

4. Digital Tools

Refers to tokens that only serve functional purposes within specific crypto systems (such as access control or service payments) and are non-transferable. Examples include ENS domain names and CoinDesk’s Consensus NFT tickets.

Digital tools are not securities and are mainly regulated by the CFTC or OCC.

5. Digital Collectibles

Refers to tokens used for collection and/or use, representing artworks, music, videos, trading cards, game items, meme coins, etc., that can be issued and transferred on-chain. Examples include NFTs, CryptoPunks, Chromie Squiggles, Fan Tokens, WIF, VCION, etc. Their value is primarily determined by supply and demand rather than management efforts by issuers.

Digital collectibles are not securities and are mainly regulated by the CFTC.

However, if digital collectibles are fractionalized and allow investors to acquire corresponding ownership rights, they may constitute securities issuance or sale, as this could involve holders’ expectations of returns based on management efforts, thus falling under SEC regulation.

It is important to note: this document collectively refers to various digital products named “Coin” or “Token” as “Crypto Assets,” rather than calling them “cryptocurrencies” or “digital currencies,” fundamentally denying these products’ monetary attributes. In fact, aside from stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies—effectively on-chain tokens linked to fiat—other crypto assets are merely special digital assets and cannot truly be considered currencies, nor should they be called “tokens.”

Appropriate regulation is essential for the innovative development of crypto assets

From the legislative process of U.S. crypto asset regulation, it is clear that even in the U.S., emphasizing “decentralization” does not mean neglecting regulation. Effective regulation must be implemented. This requires a thorough understanding of the essential attributes and operational mechanisms of various crypto assets to enforce appropriate regulation; otherwise, issues like hesitance, inability, multiple authorities, or overregulation may arise.

Since Bitcoin’s official launch in early 2009, various crypto assets have emerged rapidly, with increasing transaction volumes and growing global influence. As a new phenomenon, driven by the pursuit of decentralization, disintermediation, and the application of blockchain and distributed technologies, these assets have exceeded existing national understandings. Countries differ greatly in how they classify and regulate these assets—some ban them outright, some turn a blind eye, and others actively support them. Especially as the issuer of the world’s primary international currency and with the most influential international financial order and markets, the U.S. has long debated how to define, regulate, and oversee crypto assets, with agencies like SEC and CFTC vying for regulatory authority. During President Trump’s first term, he was quite unfriendly toward crypto assets, supporting stricter regulation and penalties. However, before his second term, he shifted to highly endorsing crypto assets, with family members actively involved, promoting legislation for compliance and protection, publicly declaring plans to make the U.S. a global hub for Bitcoin mining, including Bitcoin and other major crypto assets into national strategic reserves, and banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar. This dramatic turnaround has made international joint regulation difficult, as crypto assets are widely used for money laundering, bribery, asset transfer, and other illegal activities, with prominent fraud and manipulation issues, threatening national sovereignty, currency, and financial stability. Evidence shows that lacking necessary regulation, especially international cooperation among major powers, can be very dangerous.

Even the U.S. recognizes that while stablecoins tied to the dollar can bring the dollar into the emerging crypto world and create a dominant advantage—enhancing the dollar’s international status and increasing demand for U.S. debt, thus lowering interest rates—losing regulatory control over dollar stablecoins could severely impact U.S. global influence through extraterritorial sanctions and financial controls. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain oversight and control of dollar stablecoins, actively promote crypto innovation, and leverage the borderless, 24/7 global on-chain circulation and trading features of crypto assets to strengthen control worldwide. This strategic approach underpins the Trump administration’s vigorous push for stablecoin regulation and development legislation, embodying the “America First” strategy.

A dialectical view of U.S. crypto regulation policy changes

Careful analysis of U.S. crypto regulation changes, especially the process of promoting the GENIUS Act in 2025 and further clarifying classification and authorities, reveals several key points:

First, the development of the on-chain crypto world must be highly valued.

Advances in blockchain, distributed systems, AI large models, and their integration drive the on-chainization of various crypto and real-world assets (including stablecoins), breaking through national borders, enabling 24/7 global trading, and creating a parallel on-chain crypto universe interconnected with the real world. This has profound impacts on human society and has become a strategic battleground for major powers. The most critical factor is whether a country’s currency can become the dominant currency in the crypto world, which will determine its global standing.

Second, effective classification and regulation must be based on an accurate understanding of crypto assets’ essential attributes.

In this regard, the U.S. has set an example. Other countries can refine classifications further and clarify regulatory authorities and principles accordingly.

Importantly, on-chain and off-chain activities of the same type must be regulated equally, with all participants subject to the same oversight, promoting fair market competition. Regulatory capacity must keep pace, covering the entire process of crypto asset issuance and trading, avoiding significant gaps or omissions.

Given the global and 24/7 nature of crypto trading, inadequate regulation could lead to severe impacts if a country opens its market fully—especially allowing foreign currencies (like USD) to flow freely via stablecoins—jeopardizing national monetary sovereignty and financial stability.

Third, in approaching crypto assets, countries should learn from the U.S. experience and lessons but also adhere to their own national conditions.

The U.S. has undergone significant shifts in its stance on crypto assets. Even now, it cannot be assumed that U.S. practices are universally correct or timelessly valid, nor that other countries can simply imitate them. The U.S. push for stablecoin legislation and crypto development reflects strategic priorities—primarily strengthening the dollar and U.S. international control—often at the expense of fairness and global consensus. While promoting non-official dollar stablecoins, the U.S. prohibits the Federal Reserve or government from issuing a digital dollar, which conflicts with the fundamental functions of money as a store of value, medium of exchange, and highly liquid asset, all of which require official backing or trust. Under national sovereignty, money must be a sovereign currency or fiat, inevitably moving toward digital and intelligent development. Hindering this process contradicts monetary development laws (fiat stablecoins are essentially on-chain tokens linked to fiat currency). The issuance of USD stablecoins mainly relies on assets like U.S. Treasuries, but if their prices fall sharply, stablecoins could face serious shocks. If different issuers’ reserve structures are not uniform and there is no central bank guarantee, the resulting stablecoins would not be homogeneous, creating arbitrage and regulatory challenges. The U.S. claims to treat Bitcoin and other crypto assets as national strategic reserves, assuming they will appreciate long-term and have high international liquidity. In reality, Bitcoin and similar assets are purely on-chain digital assets without real-world asset backing; their prices are driven mainly by speculation and faith, often highly volatile, and they do not meet the standards of “digital gold.” As RWA (real-world assets) develop, the value and viability of purely digital assets will face significant challenges. Using them as strategic reserves is fundamentally inconsistent with reserve asset principles.

Therefore, other countries should not simply imitate or follow the U.S. approach but must carefully analyze and accurately grasp their own conditions.

Considering these factors, China resolutely halted the development of the Renminbi stablecoin (see Wang Yongli: Why China is resolutely stopping stablecoins?), continues to strictly prohibit virtual currencies (i.e., crypto assets), accelerates the development of digital RMB (see Wang Yongli: Grasp the essence, innovate, and speed up the development of digital RMB), and explores supporting RWA development directly on the digital RMB chain (currently only allowing approved institutions to issue RWA abroad for exploration and experience accumulation). These policies differ significantly from those of the U.S… Hong Kong, despite announcing the official implementation of its “Stablecoin Regulations” on August 1, 2025, has been very cautious in license approval, granting only two licenses as of April 10, 2026—one to HSBC Hong Kong and another to “Anchorpoint Financial,” led by Standard Chartered Bank—reflecting a preference for banks to directly promote fiat (deposits) on-chain. These are very prudent choices.