Recently, multiple media outlets cited a CoinDesk report stating that over 100 American crypto companies jointly sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, urging the advancement of the Clarity Act review. The significance of this statement comes from the fact that it is not the lobbying of a single leading company, but rather a collective effort from Coinbase, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, and institutions like a16z and Paradigm, covering various sectors such as exchanges, payment companies, and venture capital, directly pushing their demands towards Congress.

The letter does not merely express a broad "support for regulation." What the industry truly seeks is the manner in which rules are formed: in the context of long-standing fragmented state regulations and uncertain enforcement, an increasing number of participants are unwilling to continue being led by "rules defined by enforcement" but are instead demanding clear federal legislation to establish a clearer market structure and regulatory framework for the U.S. digital asset market. In some sense, this joint letter represents not just a policy statement but a collective showdown where the industry shifts from passive response to actively promoting legislation.

Hundreds of Companies Unite to Pressure the Senate

If the previous disputes over regulations were more scattered around individual cases, enforcement, and verbal battles, then this "call from over 100 institutions" carries a distinctly different weight from mere public statements. Participants include Coinbase, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, a16z, Paradigm, and other exchanges, payment institutions, and venture capital entities, making this effort feel more like a systematic policy advocacy: the industry wants to be viewed as a whole industry rather than being broken down into individual cases awaiting separate treatment.

More crucially, the target of the joint letter is not a specific regulatory body but the U.S. Senate Banking Committee. This choice itself indicates a change in the industry's judgments—no longer merely trying to get a particular agency to relax its stance, but directly betting on legislative entry, trying to shift the focus of discussion from "how to enforce" to "how to write rules." The core demand of the joint letter is also very clear: to advance the review and legislation of the Clarity Act and to establish a federal-level market structure and regulatory framework for the U.S. digital asset market.

This also explains why the action has been quickly amplified. For a long time, the industry's public argument has been that relying solely on regulatory enforcement cannot provide clear and predictable rules; the Clarity Act is seen as a potential solution to the fragmented and uncertain enforcement issues across various states. When over 100 institutions present this set of claims directly to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, the Clarity Act becomes more than just a text name in policy discussions; it is formally pushed to the forefront of Washington's political arena.

In other words, the significance of this joint letter lies not just in "supporting a specific bill," but in its clear articulation of the industry's collective pressure on its targets, pathways, and goals: what is sought is not sporadic exemptions or passive responses to individual cases, but clear legislative action at the Congressional level. For Washington, this means that the Clarity Act is evolving from an industry demand into a pressing political issue that must be directly addressed.

Exchanges, Venture Capital, and Payments Rarely Team Up

If the previous significance lay in elevating demands directly to Congress, then the composition of this joint letter itself serves as a weightier statement. The research brief clearly indicates that the signatories are not just a few leading companies, but also encompass industry organizations; from trading platforms, payment companies, to project parties and venture capital firms, almost all critical roles in the U.S. digital asset industry chain are included in this single letter. This structure reflects that the pressure brought by unclear rules affects not just one business segment but the operating expectations and decision-making space of the entire industry chain.

More importantly, the disclosed representative names are telling enough: Coinbase, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, along with a16z and Paradigm, have all joined forces. The former represents front-line business entrants in trading and payments, while the latter signifies capital allocation and long-term industry bets. When these institutions no longer speak individually but collectively push the Clarity Act to the Senate Banking Committee, this action transcends typical policy initiatives—it no longer resembles a single company seeking a breakthrough but rather indicates a minimum level of shared stance within the industry on core issues.

This is also what makes this joint statement most notable for Washington. The cross-sector alliance is not merely aimed at amplifying their voices; it is to prove to the Senate that the demand for advancing a federal-level market structure and regulatory framework is not just a short-term lobbying effort by individual companies but a manifestation of industry consensus. For legislators, this synchronized pressure from exchanges, payment companies, project parties, and venture capital institutions signifies that the Clarity Act is faced not with scattered demands but with a collective urgency for clear rules from an entire industry.

Relying Solely on Enforcement, the Industry Won't See Tomorrow

The central judgment put forth by the joint parties is quite direct: "Relying solely on regulatory enforcement cannot provide stable and clear industry rules." This statement has become the focal point of public expression because it touches upon the most unavoidable reality faced by the U.S. digital asset industry for a long time—businesses are not dealing with a set of clearly defined unified rules but rather an operating environment where boundaries are repeatedly probed under uncertain enforcement.

The key issue is not just whether regulation exists but in what form the rules exist. For the industry, if market boundaries are primarily defined by post-facto enforcement, then what can be done today and what cannot be done tomorrow often remains unclear; if there are long-standing fragmented rules between different states, companies find it challenging to form stable expectations in expansion, compliance, and product design. Therefore, the joint parties focus their demands on the Clarity Act, not to debate "whether there should be regulation" but to call for the establishment of a federal-level market structure and regulatory framework that formalizes previously vague boundaries into legislative texts.

This is also the most noteworthy aspect of this call: it is not about lobbying for "relaxed regulation" but a pressure campaign to clarify regulation. The industry hopes to see not a continued struggle amid interstate differences and enforcement uncertainties but a unified market structure and clarified responsibilities and boundaries by federal frameworks, allowing participants to know exactly what they need to comply with and the pathways to do so.

In other words, this joint letter expresses a sense of urgency. The industry does not believe that order can naturally emerge by relying solely on enforcement; on the contrary, under long-term fragmentation and uncertainty, the market can only expect higher friction costs and weaker predictability. The reason the Clarity Act is being pushed to the forefront is that it is seen as a potential solution to this predicament: not sidestepping regulation but clarifying regulatory boundaries through legislation all at once.

From Confrontation to Lobbying, the Tide Has Completely Changed

What is more noteworthy is not just the letter itself but the shift it represents. In recent years, the relationship between the industry and Washington has often revolved around specific enforcement cases: who was sued, who was investigated, which company stepped up to contest, and the discussions remained centered on "who caused the problem." This time, however, over 100 American crypto companies and industry organizations have directly directed their demands at the Senate Banking Committee, advocating for the advancement of the Clarity Act review, which fundamentally shifts the topic from individual case defenses to institutional building.

This is also why some research reports define this joint statement as a concentrated voice at the policy level. The participants are not representatives of a single sector's interest but include exchanges, payments, project investments, and various institutions, featuring Coinbase, Circle, Kraken, Ripple along with a16z, Paradigm. The appearance of such a coalition conveys a signal that is no longer about a single company wanting to escape immediate pressures; instead, it is the industry's leading forces beginning to clearly communicate to Congress: the issue should not remain centered on enforcement discretion but should return to how rules themselves are formulated.

Thus, the shift in direction becomes clear. In-depth background materials have already indicated that this reflects a strategic shift from "confronting regulation" to "actively promoting legislation." In other words, the industry is no longer satisfied with passively explaining and responding after incidents of regulatory friction but is attempting to clarify boundaries, responsibilities, and applicable rules through a federal-level market structure framework. As more leading institutions choose to align themselves, the focus of discussions in Washington may also shift: from questioning "who violated" to debating "how rules should be set."

Behind this is not a short-term policy game nor an opportunistic grab for partial exemptions. The public argument presented by the joint parties has made it very clear: relying solely on regulatory enforcement cannot provide clear and stable industry rules. Under the long-term fragmentation of state-level rules and uncertain enforcement, what companies truly lack is a predictable operating environment that allows them to allocate resources, design products, and assess risks accordingly. This is precisely why the Clarity Act keeps being pushed into the spotlight—it embodies not an emotional counterattack but an ongoing pursuit of certainty by the industry.

If the Bill Gets Stalled Again, the U.S. Will Fall Behind

At this point, what truly deserves attention is not whether the industry will continue to coalesce and voice their opinions but whether the Senate Banking Committee will catch this ball. What can be confirmed now is that over 100 American crypto companies and industry organizations have placed their demands on the table; however, as of now, there has not been a confirmed formal response from the committee, and the full text of the joint letter and more specific demands have yet to be disclosed. The industry's cards have been played, but Washington has not yet made a clear move.

This also implies that the issue has not been automatically resolved by a high-profile joint letter. If a clear federal framework cannot be established soon, then the compliance uncertainties, policy friction, and operational costs faced by companies are unlikely to diminish. For businesses, the most troublesome issue is not merely whether a particular rule is stringent, but whether rule boundaries are always in flux: how to allocate resources, how to develop products, how to evaluate risks—all of this becomes difficult to base on a stable expectation. It is precisely for this reason that the industry has shifted from a focus on responding to enforcement in the past to clearly advocating for legislation today.

Therefore, the significance of this joint letter lies not just in its large coalition but also in the fact that it has redirected pressure back to the legislative side. Whether the Clarity Act will continue to be pushed forward will not depend on whether the corporate voice can amplify further but on whether the Senate Banking Committee is willing to transform this collective urging into substantive responses. The suspense now lies not within the industry but in Washington: the ball is now in the legislators' court, and it is their turn to make a statement.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。