Two Years Ago vs Today: Looking at Crypto Regulation in the US

Two years ago, the defining feature of U.S. crypto regulation was its uncertainty. Regulators relied heavily on enforcement rather than formal rulemaking, leaving companies to interpret legal boundaries retroactively through lawsuits and settlements.

For CFOs, that uncertainty translated directly into risk. Treasury teams considering stablecoin usage or blockchain-based settlement systems faced unresolved accounting standards, inconsistent banking access and concerns over future compliance liabilities. Public companies hesitated to deepen crypto exposure for fear that shifting regulatory interpretations could later create disclosure or governance complications.

Today, the regulatory environment remains incomplete, but it is materially less chaotic. That shift matters because capital tends to follow regulatory predictability, even more than regulatory leniency.

See also: Crypto’s Big Senate Win Leaves Banks With Bigger Worries

Less Alarm Bell Than Market Design

Just a few years ago, the American crypto industry was operating in a state of defensive crouch. Executives spoke less about innovation than survival and the aftershocks of the collapse of major crypto firms including FTX, Celsius and Terra had left regulators, lawmakers and institutional investors scrambling for answers.

The Biden administration’s March 2023 Economic Report devoted an entire 35-page chapter to explaining why use cases of blockchain-based digital assets have not fulfilled their promises, outlining in broad strokes the various risks they present to both consumers and the U.S. financial system. The report came after New York Attorney General (NYAG) Letitia James alleged that the popular cryptocurrency ether is a security in a freshly filed lawsuit against KuCoin, one of the largest crypto exchanges by transaction volume behind similarly embattled peers Binance, Coinbase and Kraken.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell during that same period (March 2023) also called crypto “a mess,” adding that, “what we see is quite a lot of turmoil, we see fraud, we see a lack of transparency, we see run risk.”

Fast forward to today, and the new administration has constrained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) broadest interpretations of securities law in relation to digital assets. Instead of relying primarily on lawsuits and interpretive guidance, lawmakers are beginning to establish formal categories for digital assets, stablecoins, decentralized finance platforms, and tokenized securities. The biggest shift took place last summer (July 2025) when the stablecoin-specific GENIUS Act was signed into law by President Trump, marking the first ever digital asset policy in the U.S.

The proposed Clarity Act in the U.S. Senate, which passed a key markup vote May 14, also reflects this transition. The legislation as written defines when digital assets fall under securities law, commodity regulation, or separate oversight structures. It also introduces anti-money-laundering obligations for crypto platforms and establishes parameters around decentralization claims.

The PYMNTS Intelligence and Citi report “Chain Reaction: Regulatory Clarity as the Catalyst for Blockchain Adoption” found that blockchain’s next leap will be shaped by regulation, and that that evolving guidance is beginning to create the foundations for safe, scalable blockchain adoption.

Still, the Clarity Act’s path forward to passage is far from guaranteed as lawmaker delays continue to hamper momentum. Washington has four full working weeks in June and just three in July before the August recess during which to make progress.

See also: Crypto Regulation Moved From Theory to Market Force This Week

Institutional Adoption Changed the Conversation

What crypto in prior years lacked was a pathway for responsible institutional participation. Banks, asset managers and payment firms faced fragmented oversight from the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, Fed, OCC, FDIC and state regulators. Perhaps the single biggest difference between then and now is the degree of institutional normalization.

“We don’t start with the asset,” Biswarup Chatterjee, global head of partnerships and innovation, Citi Services at Citi, told PYMNTS. “We typically start with our client need, and then we look at the pros and cons of each type of asset or financing instrument.”

This February, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) clarified that national trust banks may issue payment stablecoins. Fidelity Investments officially launched its FIDD stablecoin on Ethereum; VersaBank detailed plans for stablecoin custody and interest-bearing deposit tokens; and Goldman Sachs continued to advance stablecoin use cases in emerging markets, among other developments.

The SEC also rescinded SAB 121 through SAB 122, reversing controversial accounting guidance that had made crypto custody more expensive for many public companies and banks. In practical terms, that removed one of the key barriers separating traditional financial institutions from digital asset custody.

The SEC and CFTC have also moved toward coordination. In March 2026, the agencies announced a memorandum of understanding to support collaboration on innovation, market integrity and investor protection. Days later, they issued joint interpretive guidance on how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions.

In earlier years, the problem for crypto was uncertainty. In 2026, the problem is interoperability. A stablecoin issuer, exchange or bank can no longer claim there are no rules. The challenge is that the rules may diverge across markets, products and regulators.