This report was written by Tiger Research . In 2025, the U.S. government is pushing for a policy that supports cryptocurrencies with a simple goal: to regulate the existing cryptocurrency industry in the same way as the traditional financial industry.
Key points summary
- The United States is working to integrate cryptocurrencies into its existing financial infrastructure, rather than simply absorbing the entire industry.
- Over the past year, Congress, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have gradually incorporated cryptocurrencies into this system by introducing and adjusting rules.
- Despite tensions between regulatory agencies, the United States continues to support industry growth while refining its regulatory framework.
1. US absorption of the cryptocurrency industry
Following President Trump's re-election, the administration introduced a series of radical pro-cryptocurrency policies. This marks a sharp shift from previous stances—the cryptocurrency industry was primarily seen as an object of regulation and control. The United States has entered a phase previously unimaginable, rapidly incorporating the cryptocurrency industry into its existing system with near-unilateral decision-making.
The shift in the stances of the SEC and CFTC, along with the increasing involvement of traditional financial institutions in cryptocurrency-related businesses, all indicate that widespread structural changes are underway.
It is particularly noteworthy that all of this comes just one year after President Trump's re-election. What specific changes have occurred in the US at the regulatory and policy levels so far?
2. A Year-Long Shift in the US Stance on Cryptocurrency
In 2025, with the Trump administration taking office, U.S. cryptocurrency policy underwent a major turning point. The executive branch, Congress, and regulatory agencies worked together, focusing on reducing market uncertainty and integrating cryptocurrencies into existing financial infrastructure.
2.1. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Source: Tiger Research
In the past, the SEC has primarily relied on enforcement actions to address cryptocurrency-related activities. In major cases involving Ripple, Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken staking services, the SEC filed lawsuits without providing clear standards on the legal attributes of tokens or what activities were permitted, and its enforcement was often based on post-hoc interpretation. This has led cryptocurrency companies to focus more on managing regulatory risks than on business expansion.
This stance began to shift after the resignation of Chairman Gary Gensler, who held a conservative view of the cryptocurrency industry. Under Paul Atkins' leadership, the SEC moved toward a more open approach, beginning to build foundational rules aimed at bringing the cryptocurrency industry under regulatory control, rather than relying solely on litigation.
A key example is the announcement of the “crypto project.” Through this project, the SEC demonstrated its intention to establish clear standards for defining which tokens are securities and which are not. This once directionless regulator is beginning to reshape itself into a more inclusive institution.
2.2. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
In the past, the CFTC's involvement in cryptocurrencies was largely limited to the regulation of the derivatives market. However, this year it has taken a more proactive stance, officially recognizing Bitcoin and Ethereum as commodities and supporting their use by traditional institutions.
The Digital Asset Collateral Pilot Program is a key initiative. Through this program, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDC have been approved as collateral for derivatives trading. The CFTC applies discount rates and risk management standards to treat these assets in the same way as traditional collateral.
This shift indicates that the CFTC no longer views crypto assets purely as speculative instruments, but has begun to recognize them as stable collateral assets that can stand alongside traditional financial assets.
2.3. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
In the past, the OCC maintained a distance from the cryptocurrency industry. Cryptocurrency companies had to apply for licenses state by state, making it difficult to enter the federal banking regulatory system, limiting business expansion, and structurally hindering their connection with the traditional financial system, thus most of them could only operate outside the regulated system.
This approach has since changed. The OCC has chosen to bring cryptocurrency companies into the existing banking regulatory framework rather than excluding them from the financial system. It has issued a series of explanatory letters (formal documents clarifying whether specific financial activities are permitted), gradually expanding the scope of allowed businesses to include crypto asset custody, trading, and even banks paying on-chain transaction fees.
This series of changes culminated in December when the OCC conditionally approved national trust bank bylaws for major companies like Circle and Ripple. This move is significant because it grants these crypto companies equal status with traditional financial institutions. Under a single federal regulatory body, they can operate nationwide, and transfers that previously required intermediary banks can now be processed directly, just like traditional banks.
2.4. Legislative and Executive Orders
In the past, although the United States began to consider stablecoin legislation as early as 2022, repeated delays have led to a regulatory vacuum in the market. There is a lack of clear standards in terms of reserve composition, regulatory authority, and issuance requirements. Investors cannot reliably verify whether issuers hold sufficient reserves, raising concerns about the transparency of reserves held by some issuers.
The GENIUS Act addresses these issues by clearly defining the issuance requirements and reserve standards for stablecoins. It requires issuers to hold reserves equivalent to 100% of the issuance amount and prohibits the re-collateralization of reserve assets, while also centralizing regulatory authority with federal financial regulatory agencies.
Thus, stablecoins have become digital dollars with legal tender status and legal recognition.
3. With the direction set, competition and checks and balances coexist.
Over the past year, the direction of US cryptocurrency policy has become clear: to integrate the cryptocurrency industry into the formal financial system. However, this process has not been smooth or frictionless.
Divergent opinions persist within the United States. The controversy surrounding the privacy-focused cryptocurrency mixing service Tornado Cash is a prime example: the executive branch actively enforces the law to block illicit fund flows, while the SEC chairman publicly warns against excessive suppression of privacy. This demonstrates that there is no complete consensus within the US government regarding cryptocurrencies.
However, these disagreements do not equate to policy instability; rather, they are closer to the inherent characteristics of the US decision-making system. Agencies with different responsibilities interpret issues from their own perspectives, sometimes openly expressing dissent, moving forward through checks and balances and persuasion. The tension between strict enforcement and the protection of innovation may cause short-term friction, but in the long run, it helps to make regulatory standards more specific and precise.
The key is that this tension has not hindered progress. Even amidst the debate, the United States has been advancing on multiple fronts simultaneously: rule-making by the SEC, infrastructure integration by the CFTC, institutional absorption by the OCC, and congressional legislation to establish standards. It does not wait for complete consensus, but rather allows competition and coordination to proceed in parallel, driving the system forward.
Ultimately, the United States neither completely abandoned cryptocurrency nor attempted to suppress its development; instead, it simultaneously reshaped regulation, leadership, and market infrastructure. By channeling internal debate and tension into momentum, the US chose a strategy that would steer the global cryptocurrency industry towards itself.
The past year has been crucial because this direction has transcended the declaration and has been effectively translated into concrete policies and implementation.
