One of the biggest policy questions in crypto is not just what the rules should be, but who should create them.
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 A detailed law written today could become outdated within a few years.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?