A certain compliant platform recently expressed concerns about the upcoming US crypto regulation bill. Its policy head pointed out that the information disclosure requirements in the bill are excessively high, far exceeding the standards of mature markets like Europe’s MiCA. What does this high threshold mean? Many early-stage crypto projects may be unable to bear the huge compliance costs and ultimately choose to seek development opportunities outside the US.

The disagreement centers on two core issues. First is the disclosure standards themselves—early projects already have limited resources, and complex reporting obligations will further increase startup costs, creating significant obstacles to innovation. Second is the asset classification issue—industry consensus generally considers most cryptocurrencies to be commodities under the Howey test, which would make CFTC regulation more appropriate. However, the regulatory stance is unclear, leading many tokens to be improperly classified as securities and face strict SEC regulation.

Market opinions are beginning to diverge. Supporters believe that a clear regulatory framework is beneficial for market standardization, while opponents worry that excessive regulation could trigger an "innovation outflow"—ultimately damaging the US’s position in the global digital asset competition. How to balance investor protection and industry vitality remains a complex question with no simple answer.