2026-01-15 09:20:40

It's Time for America to Set the Pace on Crypto, Says Robinhood Leader

Vlad Tenev, CEO of Robinhood, is making a case that the U.S. needs to take charge when it comes to cryptocurrency policy. Rather than letting other nations shape the rules, he believes America should establish clear regulations that actually enable innovation—not stifle it.

The core issue? Without smart policy frameworks, the country risks falling behind in the global digital asset race. Tenev is pushing for rules that strike a balance: protection for users and market integrity on one side, room for builders and entrepreneurs to push boundaries on the other.

Right now, the crypto space is fragmented across different regulators with unclear jurisdictions. Tenev's point seems to be that if the U.S. wants to maintain its edge, it needs a more cohesive approach—one that attracts talent and capital instead of pushing it overseas.

The discussion reflects a broader tension in crypto circles: how to build guardrails without killing the innovation that makes the space interesting in the first place.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FancyResearchLab

· 01-18 09:20

That sounds good, but we all know whether U.S. policy-making can keep up with the fluctuations of the coin price, haha. Are you already thinking about positioning now? The EU MiCA has long been in motion. In theory, it should be feasible, but in practice, regulatory agencies will start fighting each other during implementation. They've locked themselves in again, promising to protect innovation, but in the end, they still cut a slice. Maximum academic value, minimum practical value. Can the old tricks of the U.S. play out in the crypto field? It's even more difficult for American politicians to reach a consensus than for Ethereum to roll back. Tenev's words are basically saying: Hurry up and set the rules for us, so we can better cut the leeks (laugh). The problem is, who benefits from fragmented regulation? It's still those big players who exploit loopholes. It's just another useless topic of innovation; at the core, everyone just wants the cake.

View OriginalReply0

DefiPlaybook

· 01-17 04:31

This wave of bickering is back again. It's probably normal for the US to be a step behind [dog head] --- Everyone wants to dominate the rules, but in reality, they still get cut by various capital sources. History tells us it's not that simple --- Alright, let the US set the rules, then what? By the time regulations come out, the flowers will have withered. Capital will have already moved to Singapore --- Vlad's words sound comfortable, but on-chain data tells a different story. Capital has long been arbitraging globally, regardless of policies --- It's nice to say "protect market integrity," but in reality, it's about wanting to regulate and take cuts. Balance is a false proposition --- The real question is who defines "innovation"? Neither the SEC nor the CFTC agree, and the US can't unify internally --- Instead of waiting for regulations to be implemented, why not directly exploit other countries' loopholes? Capital has no borders anyway --- Fragmented jurisdiction is indeed annoying, but think from another angle — it's also an arbitrage opportunity. The gray areas not explicitly prohibited are the most valuable

View OriginalReply0

NestedFox

· 01-15 09:50

Is the US trying to set the pace? First, get their regulatory chaos under control... Honestly, Vlad's words sound nice, but the actual implementation feels tough, with different departments singing different tunes... Here we go again, always thinking about maintaining a leading position, while politicians are still bickering over there. Basically, they want to innovate freely but also want to control power—can they have both? It's hilarious. Fragmentation is a hallmark of American-style regulation. Want to unify? Dream on. This approach isn't wrong, but the key question is, do American politicians have this awareness... I doubt it. Instead of changing the rules, it's better to adapt directly to overseas innovation environments. Now, liquidity is flowing to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau. Sounds like a campaign speech... but what really matters is what actually gets done. Protecting integrity and encouraging innovation are inherently conflicting; it's impossible to have both. Wait until they come out with a unified framework, then we can talk. For now, it's just empty slogans. The crypto community says it needs rules but also complains that there are too many rules—what a joke.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 01-15 09:49

Is this the same old story? The US has been fighting internally for so many years, and now they want to lead global crypto? That's hilarious. --- Basically, they just want traffic and taxes. Don't dress it up so nicely. --- Tenev is right, but can the US really unify regulation? I doubt it. --- The key is whether American politicians can put aside party disputes. I’m not very optimistic. --- Instead of discussing these, it’s better to get the stablecoin bill done first before boasting. --- They already moved overseas long ago. It’s too late to regret now, haha. --- This is a power struggle among major nations. Crypto can't stay out of it. --- Just listen, anyway, in the end, money talks.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidationSurvivor

· 01-15 09:47

Basically, the US wants to establish a monopoly again. Having a set of rules that are universally applicable worldwide would be so great. Tenev's point is actually very clear: rather than being swept away, it's better to set the rules ourselves. I understand this logic, but the question is, can the US truly balance protection and innovation? What does history say? Fragmented regulation is indeed annoying, but if you ask me, competition actually promotes innovation. Unifying everything under the US would make things more rigid. This guy might have forgotten that America's greatest strength is saying one thing and secretly doing another, like cutting the leeks while claiming to protect. Wait a minute, will a truly balanced policy framework even emerge? I want to see that. It's just about leveraging policy advantages to attract global capital. Sounds good, but the execution is extremely challenging.

View OriginalReply0

fren.eth

· 01-15 09:40

Does the US want to lead? First, get their regulatory chaos under control... Who would trust them like this now? --- It sounds good, but isn't it just about wanting to do things cheaply... Can protecting users and innovation be achieved at the same time? --- Finally, someone has made it clear in front of American politicians, praise this idea. --- Fragmented jurisdiction is very real; SEC and CFTC are fighting each other every day. --- Relying on Robinhood to push policies? This script is a bit funny... --- Innovation and protection are inherently contradictory; stop fooling yourself. --- Actually, if the US really wants to compete, it depends on whether they are willing to let go of their old mindset. --- Tenev is smart; having the US set the rules themselves is also beneficial to them. --- Regulatory gaps actually give us opportunities; don't be in such a hurry to have them intervene.

View OriginalReply0

ShortingEnthusiast

· 01-15 09:36

Well said. If the US doesn't take action soon, they'll really be left behind. Instead of layered regulations, it's better to establish clear rules so everyone knows where they stand. Only then can talent truly be retained. --- It's the same old story—protecting market integrity... After all, it's just about how they want to regulate, no real innovation there. --- Vlad finally said something reasonable. Europe is already taking the lead, and what is the US still hesitating for? --- Fragmented governance is a joke. That's the real root of stifling innovation. Stop messing around and roll out new policies quickly. --- Sounds impressive, but in reality? It's just a game among interest groups. Small investors are still the ones getting exploited. --- Exactly. Why wait for others to set the rules? They should have taken the lead long ago—they've already fallen behind. --- Unified strategy? Come on, this is the US government. Don't overestimate their efficiency... --- The issue isn't how fast policies are made, but who profits and who loses in this game. Robinhood obviously wants deregulation.

View OriginalReply0

HodlKumamon

· 01-15 09:28

Basically, they want the cake and to eat it too. The fragmented state of U.S. regulators is indeed outrageous; data shows that the rules have changed more than 70 times in the past two years... But Tenev's explanation is just for listening, as capital always takes precedence over protection.

View OriginalReply0