the legal status of self-custody.

There is a major difference between regulating a company that holds customer assets and regulating software that allows users to control their own private keys.

A custodial exchange:

• holds customer funds;
• manages withdrawals;
• can freeze accounts;
• performs compliance checks;
• acts as an intermediary.

A self-custodial wallet may simply provide software that lets the user interact directly with a blockchain.

Treating those two models identically would create serious problems.

At the same time, governments are understandably concerned about sanctions evasion, money laundering and illicit finance.

That creates a difficult policy trade-off:

how do you regulate illegal activity without effectively requiring every blockchain transaction to pass through a regulated intermediary?

If self-custody becomes heavily restricted, crypto begins to look much more like traditional banking with blockchain settlement underneath.

If it remains completely unrestricted, regulators will continue arguing that enforcement becomes more difficult.

For me, control of private keys is one of the defining properties of crypto, not just another product feature.

Should governments explicitly protect the right to hold and transact crypto through self-custodial wallets?

And where, if anywhere, should the regulatory boundary be drawn?

In the U.S., the SEC and CFTC have spent years interpreting existing financial laws for digital assets.

In March 2026, the two agencies issued coordinated guidance that introduced a clearer taxonomy for categories including digital commodities, collectibles, stablecoins and digital securities, while also addressing staking, mining, wrapping and airdrops.

That provides useful clarity.

But regulation through agencies has one major weakness:

administrative policy can change when political leadership changes.

Legislation is harder to pass, but once enacted it creates a more durable framework.

On the other hand, technology changes much faster than Congress normally does. A detailed law written today could become outdated within a few years.

That suggests a hybrid model may work better:

Congress defines broad jurisdiction and legal principles, while regulators handle technical implementation.

The danger is giving agencies too much discretion and recreating the same uncertainty the legislation was supposed to eliminate.

Which model do you prefer?

Detailed crypto-specific laws from Congress, flexible regulation by agencies, or a combination of both?

Now the European Commission is already reviewing whether the regulation remains fit for purpose after its initial implementation.

The current consultation, which runs until September 30, specifically asks whether MiCA needs to be amended or expanded based on how the crypto market has developed since the original framework was introduced.

That is interesting because MiCA was supposed to provide one major advantage:

one regulatory framework across the EU instead of 27 different national approaches.

For exchanges and crypto businesses, that creates obvious benefits:

• clearer licensing;
• passporting across EU markets;
• defined stablecoin rules;
• disclosure requirements;
• consumer-protection standards.

But there are also legitimate criticisms.

Compliance costs can be significant, especially for smaller companies. There is also a risk that regulation favors large exchanges and established financial firms because they can absorb those costs more easily.

So the real question is not whether regulation is needed, but whether MiCA creates a competitive market or gradually concentrates it.

For people operating in Europe: has MiCA made the crypto industry easier or harder to work with in practice?

And if you could change one part of MiCA during the current review, what would it be?

The basic problem it tries to solve is familiar:

• when is a token a security;
• when is it a commodity;
• which assets fall under SEC jurisdiction;
• which fall under the CFTC;
• what rules exchanges and brokers need to follow.

The SEC and CFTC already moved toward greater coordination earlier this year, including a joint interpretation that clarified the treatment of several categories of crypto assets and activities. But agency guidance is still not the same as legislation because a future administration can potentially reverse it.

That is why the CLARITY Act matters more than another SEC statement.

The Senate debate has also become highly political, including disputes over ethics rules and potential conflicts of interest involving politicians with crypto exposure. A key procedural vote is expected this week.

From an industry perspective, I think the biggest benefit would simply be predictability.

Companies can adapt to strict rules. What is much harder to operate under is uncertainty about which regulator may challenge a product several years after launch.

Would passage of the CLARITY Act materially change your view of the U.S. crypto market?

And which matters more: clearer token classification, exchange rules, or limiting regulatory changes between administrations?