Recently, a heated debate has erupted in American politics over a question: should cryptocurrencies be included in ordinary people's retirement accounts? This controversy stems from the Trump administration's push to incorporate cryptocurrencies into the 401(k) retirement plan, which was met with strong opposition from Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Warren recently formally wrote to the SEC Chairman, raising a series of sharp questions. Her core argument is straightforward: there is no reason to believe that doing so would lead to better outcomes for ordinary retirees. She highlighted three main issues—higher fees, lack of transparency, and the risk of losses due to the volatility of crypto assets. For her, using retirement funds to gamble on cryptocurrencies is like playing with fire.

But this is not just a policy dispute. Warren emphasized that this move could weaken the SEC's regulatory authority and expose ordinary workers to potential risks. On the other hand, supporters believe this is a necessary step to expand investment options and keep pace with financial innovation. For a time, the scales between protecting investors and encouraging innovation began to sway.

From a market perspective, this debate involves several popular assets—BNB, XRP, ASTER, and others—that could be affected by regulatory policy changes. Investors are generally concerned: how will policies ultimately tilt? If the retirement channel is truly opened, will it bring new opportunities or lay hidden dangers?

Ultimately, this game reflects the growing pains of the transition from traditional finance to Web3. The trend of integrating cryptocurrencies into the mainstream financial system seems irreversible, but how to balance protecting ordinary investors and promoting innovation remains a difficult challenge for all parties.

What is your view on this issue? Do you favor opening up more investment options, or do you believe strict regulation and protection are more important?