Federal agencies lead near-term crypto rulemaking as midterms loom

By Elena Vasquez

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) submitted a crypto market regulatory plan to the White House on Sept. 17, two days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, according to the policy discussion featuring 1inch deputy general counsel Ma and D3 co-founder Michael Ho.

Who is setting the near-term rules?

Ma expects federal agencies to drive the next phase of U.S. crypto regulation more than Congress, even as the midterms could reshape legislative priorities. She said the “long-term goal” remains a statute that is not repeatedly re-litigated when administrations change.

Her forecast concerns the near term, not Congress’s eventual role. Regulators can shape markets through proposals, enforcement posture and staff interpretations, a pattern likely to persist until clearer statutory guardrails exist.

Ma also said engagement between regulators and crypto firms is growing. Yet guidance alone may not provide the stability institutions seek, and the account does not show how quickly any proposal or interpretation will become final.

For now, agency procedure is the faster route to new compliance expectations.

Why can guidance keep capital on hold?

Michael Ho, D3 co-founder whose team builds Doma Protocol, said policy dependent on the tenure of a future administration can deter serious capital. He said the uncertainty keeps “serious capital waiting.”

For institutional allocators, predictable legal treatment affects internal risk models and governance. When rules can shift, teams have difficulty validating exposure and tend to take more conservative positions, particularly for capital that must justify regulatory exposure internally.

Ho extended that argument to tokenized real-world assets. He argued that clear rules written into law can unlock institutional participation by resolving the sensitive legal, custody and investor-protection questions facing that market.

That argument remains a forecast, not evidence of pending allocations. The discussion provides no capital figures or adoption timetable, so it cannot establish when institutions would commit funds.

In short, uncertain legal treatment can delay major allocations even when current guidance is usable.

What have the SEC and CFTC done?

• In August, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a crypto fundraising framework. It included potential exemptions for certain token offerings and a safe harbor intended to reduce the risk that tokens would be treated as investment contracts.
• In September, the SEC updated staff guidance on token buybacks, crypto networks and staking receipt tokens.
• On Sept. 17, the CFTC submitted its crypto market regulatory plan for White House review, two days after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act.

For issuers and protocol teams, agency materials can shape rights documentation, network participation structures and the description and management of staking products. These are operating decisions, not abstract signals.

Proposals and staff guidance do not carry the same legal weight as a statute, although they can become the de facto compliance map in legislative gaps. Proposals, staff guidance and inter-agency planning can still shift product structures and risk controls; exchanges and intermediaries may tighten governance and compliance even without the CLARITY Act.

The agencies are moving, but their work does not yet carry the permanence investors say they require.

Can the midterms reset the policy?

Midterm results can change which congressional committees and lawmakers prioritize crypto policy. That shift could affect whether the CLARITY Act gains traction, although Ma expects agencies to remain the near-term driver.

Even a change in Congress may not immediately alter the regulatory framework. Agencies increasingly engage projects and shape legal interpretation, so election outcomes may alter emphasis without reversing direction.

That creates an asymmetry between day-to-day enforcement and long-term rulemaking: current guidance can be manageable once investors and operators understand it, while large commitments remain harder if a future administration may replace it.

An election can reorder priorities without halting near-term rulemaking.

What should the next wave show?

Market participants should watch whether agency plans become durable, legislatively anchored frameworks. If they remain staff guidance and proposals, product structures, disclosure practices and risk controls may continue shifting with each policy cycle.

The account does not provide a statutory deadline or the final text of the SEC proposal or CFTC plan. After the midterm results settle, the near-term market structure will still be shaped administratively unless Congress advances the CLARITY Act, leaving institutions to manage another cycle of potentially reversible rules.