“The Struggle for Clarity in Crypto Regulation”

The CoinDesk’s Consensus conference has reached its conclusion and several critical issues emerged as keynotes and panels debated the future of the blockchain industry. The editors of CoinDesk’s editorial team shared their observations through Twitter Spaces, highlighting the optimism shown by crypto enthusiasts despite an otherwise pessimistic regulatory climate. From the widespread enthusiasm evinced, it seems regulations are of little practical significance, yet this view masks significant concerns underlying the sector about clarity of regulation. 

The Confidence of Traditional Finance

At the event, Matt Leising, one of the editors of the Inside the Crypto, noted the enthusiasm displayed by traditional financiers for cryptocurrency, echoing some of his colleagues’ outlook for the landscape in which he identified optimism. Despite substantial haircuts from the 2018-2019 halcyon days of the ICO madness, driving more cautious postures, speakers all expressed inclusive energies for targeting the various attendant prospects offered by innovations along the horizon.

Corporate and National Security Through Cohesive Clarity

Added Kate Brady of Monsanto to the discussion, as reported by CoinDesk, emphasizing the consumer costs mobilized by a lack of clarity across corporate American interests pertaining to cryptocurrency adoption. Also of significance beyond corporate interests: the ability for the U.S. Congress to codify coherent considerations for cryptocurrency as part of an actionable agenda. European and Asian policymakers have headed in more organized regulatory regimes than American legislators; if unreformed, the perceived institutional randomness threatened national competitiveness to Ethereum-deficient central legacy trust institutions.


The stringent controls necessary as cryptocurrency evolves for bureaucratic efficiency can undermine the expectation of decentralization with pronounced vexation striking individual consumers requiring patience as each factor fights for coherent authorities among technology insights combative for individual customized solutions. Recent policy developments have progressed through such judicial procedures, with further disagreements persisting between the Commodities Future Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding operational tactics, and rifts in plans for practical dissemination of enumerated classified consensus.

The far-reaching lack of regulatory improvement leaves a few critical questions unanswered: will the progressive optimism feel sensible in retrospect in the face of more targeted attempts at international regulation that advantage more plainly agreed frameworks? How will companies strategize their respective operational agenda rounds the nature of the legislation that caps regulation?
[h/t Michael J. Casey, Nick Baker, Ben Schiller, Nikhilesh De, Amitoj Singh, Cheyenne Ligon]