2026-01-15 11:27:39

A major exchange platform has publicly voiced concerns about pending Senate crypto legislation. The CEO argues that rushing through flawed market structure rules would do more harm than good—their stance is clear: better to wait for thoughtful regulation than accept poorly designed laws.

The critique centers on specific issues with how current proposals would structure market operations. Rather than endorsing compromised legislation, the exchange is pushing for clearer frameworks that actually make sense for the industry.

This reflects growing tension between lawmakers and crypto platforms over what "good regulation" actually means.

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MiningDisasterSurvivor

· 01-15 11:57

Back with this again? Exchanges now all pretend to be high and mighty, saying "willing to wait"—I've been through this before, and I'm tired of hearing this line since 2018. If strict regulation really comes, these platforms will be the first to run. --- Regulation is a joke. Platforms keep saying they want a "clear framework," but they really just want to leave themselves a backdoor. Don't be fooled by these pretty words. --- Wait, the CEO says not to design flawed laws? Then why didn't they speak up during the chaos in the crypto world in 2017? Profits are made quickly, and when regulation comes, they cry poor. --- "Thoughtful regulation" sounds good, but who defines what is considered thoughtful? Isn't it still up to the platform to decide? --- Basically, they just want the appearance of regulation but don't want to be truly regulated. It's the old trick—anyway, when the bear market comes, no one can run away.

View OriginalReply0

IntrovertMetaverse

· 01-15 11:57

Here we go again, I’d rather wait than settle for less. I approve of this attitude. Don’t rush to legislate; messing up would be even more troublesome... Honestly, it’s still about unclear rules. Are they trying to make the platform take the blame? Legislators and exchanges are both unyielding. This game of chess will have to be played for a while. Compromising on legislation is the most annoying; in the end, retail investors are the ones who suffer. Do regulators really understand this system? I have my doubts. Insisting on not approving bad proposals, this time the exchange is not at fault. At least someone dares to tell the truth, not afraid of sanctions... Instead of rushing recklessly, it’s better to wait and think about what’s right. The rules are vague and unclear. Whoever touches them will be unlucky. What about our coins?

View OriginalReply0

PensionDestroyer

· 01-15 11:54

No, no, this regulatory framework is just a facade; it's been obvious for a long time. This wave is really a product of compromise, making reckless moves for political achievements. Wait, wait, anyway, these people can't come up with anything good. I bet five cents they'll have to overturn and start over. Ah, here comes the excuse of "careful consideration" again. Basically, they just don't want to get stuck. Alright, at least some people dare to tell the truth, which is better than silent platforms. These current legislators are truly amateurs. If they don't understand the industry, they shouldn't arbitrarily set rules. I just want to know whether their "clear framework" will end up being a failure in the end. Bad laws are worse than no laws at all. I agree with that; there's really nothing to argue about. When it comes to regulation, don't do a one-size-fits-all approach. Is it really that hard?

View OriginalReply0

PonziWhisperer

· 01-15 11:45

Here we go again with this set? The exchange talks nicely, but isn't it just afraid that rules will block its profit Why are they still talking about "careful consideration"? Regulation should have come long ago This is called wants cake and eat it too, claiming to want a framework while opposing all proposals The "clear framework" they want isn't just a framework that benefits themselves Really can't understand, why not just write the laws themselves Instead of waiting, it's better to start making changes now, stop with the empty talk Anyway, in the end, retail investors will still foot the bill, while players are drinking coffee in the office Just listen, don't take it seriously... You can't trust a single word from these big platforms

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLarry

· 01-15 11:34

Blaming others again, I've heard this excuse countless times. Would rather have no regulations than be controlled? The real intention is just not to touch my money. Legislators and exchanges bickering, and in the end, retail investors are the ones who suffer. They talk about "thoughtful regulation," but in reality, it means I get whatever kind of regulation I want. This round is indeed hard to reconcile, but dragging it out like this benefits no one.

View OriginalReply0

DAOplomacy