Why is the "收益" (Profit) clause in the crypto bill stuck?

Although the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has paused the review of the Crypto Market Structure Act, the latest developments show that negotiations are still ongoing—this behind-the-scenes tug-of-war is mainly over one word: "收益" (profit).

What exactly is this "收益" clause arguing about?

In simple terms, it involves the rules for handling the profits of tokenized securities and similar products. It sounds very technical, but it actually concerns who will regulate these innovative products and how. Banks have their own positions, trading platforms have their demands, and opinions among all parties are not unified.

Different attitudes from different roles:

👉 A major trading platform hopes to rewrite or even delete this clause entirely, believing that the current version could stifle innovation.
👉 However, tokenization companies do not fully agree with this view and believe some bottom lines must be maintained.
👉 Additionally, there is also a discussion about a clause regarding public officials' integrity.

What’s the outlook? Don’t be too pessimistic.

An interesting detail: The delay in the Senate Banking Committee may not directly affect the progress of the Agriculture Committee’s review. If a bipartisan acceptable plan can be finalized, it might even accelerate the overall process. Communication between the White House and the Senate has been ongoing.

Ultimately, the outcome of this legislative battle will directly influence what the U.S. crypto regulatory framework will look like. There could be a breakthrough in the next one or two weeks.

#数字资产市场动态 $BTC $SOL