What if U.S. crypto market-structure reform never arrives? Markets would have to learn to live with the fog

Why the question matters now and what’s at stake for markets

Washington has been promising clearer market rules for crypto for years. For investors and trading firms, that promise is shorthand for a calmer, more predictable business environment: regulated spot ETFs, clearer custody rules, and fewer sudden enforcement shocks. But what if those reforms simply never arrive? The practical result would not be a single disaster. It would be a long period of higher risk, slower capital flows, and a more volatile price path for tokens and the stocks tied to the industry.

How a stall would ripple through spot ETFs, exchanges and token liquidity

If Congress and the agencies fail to lock in a clear market structure, the immediate market consequences would be uneven but predictable. Spot ETF hopefuls would continue to face a squeeze: asset managers that want to offer plain-vanilla crypto ETFs would still need to navigate an unsettled regulatory backdrop. That keeps product launches slow, and it hands the advantage to the big incumbents that can absorb regulatory risk and wait for clarity.

Public exchanges and trading venues would feel the pain in two ways. First, venues that depend on fee growth tied to a mature derivatives-and-spot ecosystem would see slower revenue expansion. Cboe Global Markets (CBOE) and other listed venues that have invested in crypto-related products would face a longer ramp to meaningful volumes. Second, centralized and decentralized trading systems would continue to operate under patchwork rules. That keeps liquidity uneven: large-cap tokens and the biggest market-makers would still trade well, while smaller tokens would suffer more frequent depth shocks and wider spreads.

Token prices themselves would likely show a bifurcated pattern. The largest, most liquid tokens would remain tethered to macro moves and risk appetite, but they would be more sensitive to headlines — agency actions, court rulings, or legislative standoffs. Smaller tokens and newer projects would be punished harder because fundraising and secondary liquidity would stay thin. For equities, the companies that lean on crypto as a growth engine — exchanges, miners and custody providers — would see their multiples compressed if the revenue trajectory becomes harder to model.

Consider Coinbase (COIN): its trading and custody businesses will continue to be judged on how well the company manages regulatory friction rather than on steady ETF flows. Miners such as Marathon Digital (MARA) and Riot Platforms (RIOT) would remain exposed to token price gyrations and to the temptation of selling into rallies when cash is short.

Why momentum keeps stalling: money, politics and split agency power

The hold-up is not a mystery of technical rule writing. It’s a clash of political incentives and overlapping agency jurisdiction. Lawmakers want to show action, but Congress is fragmented: committees fight over jurisdiction, and legislation that would give one agency clearer power often alarms others. That dynamic turns any bill into a compromise that satisfies few and pleases no one quickly.

Regulators add another layer. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission both see pieces of the space as theirs. Each agency has its agenda and public priorities, and those priorities can drift with leadership changes. When agency leaders pursue long-running projects — or when one agency signals aggressive enforcement — the other side tightens its stance, producing regulatory friction rather than coordinated reform.

Then there’s money. The crypto sector and supporting financial firms are heavily active in political spending and lobbying. Industry PACs and big donations move the calendar; they can accelerate hearings and shape bill text, but they can also intensify opposition from groups that view crypto as risky. That polarizing funding pattern makes compromise harder and timing more uncertain. In short, the incentives of lawmakers, the turf fights among agencies, and partisan politics all conspire to make a clean, fast reform package unlikely.

Three plausible paths forward — and what markets would do

Best case (rough probability: 25%): A narrowly tailored package clears Congress or agencies negotiate a coordinated regime. Markets reward companies with clearer revenue paths: spot ETFs launch, trading volumes climb, and the largest listed crypto firms regain a steadier growth multiple. Timeline: months to a year. Stocks and token prices rally on relief, but gains are concentrated in big, liquid names.

Base case (rough probability: 50%): Incremental agency actions, selective approvals and ongoing court decisions create a muddle — partial clarity in spots but no full market-structure overhaul. Spot ETFs get slow approvals in a piecemeal way, and trading venues adapt. This favors large incumbents and prolongs volatility. Timeline: one to three years. Markets remain choppy; investors price in higher uncertainty premiums for crypto-linked stocks.

Worst case (rough probability: 25%): Politics and agency disagreements lock the status quo in place for years. Ongoing enforcement, state-by-state rules and episodic crackdowns dominate. Liquidity for smaller tokens dries up; fundraising dries up for new projects and smaller exchanges. Public companies linked to crypto trade at depressed multiples because growth visibility collapses. Timeline: multiple years. That scenario is the riskiest for equity holders and warrants defensive positioning.

Signals traders and policy professionals should watch

Watch the docket and the calendar. Concrete signs that change is coming include: coordinated rule proposals or memorandums between the SEC and the CFTC; formal spot ETF approvals or rejections with detailed reasoning; high-profile court decisions that set precedents about token classification; and a flurry of major PAC spending tied to specific pieces of legislation. Also pay attention to quarterly results and guidance from major crypto-linked public firms — sudden changes in custody assets or trading volumes can be early market signals.

On the political side, committee assignments, leadership changes and the voting calendar matter more than speeches. A hearing is news; a bill moving out of committee is market-moving.

A practical take for positioning: favor clarity, avoid bets on timing

If reform stalls, the right stance is simple: favor balance-sheet strength and optionality. Companies with diversified revenue streams, strong cash positions and low reliance on new product approvals will be least harmed. Traders can profit from headline-driven swings, but longer-term investors should price in a higher uncertainty premium and expect wider volatility. Timing reform is a poor bet; instead, lean toward names that can weather a drawn-out fog or benefit quickly if the rules finally arrive.

In short: a permanent stall isn’t a single crash. It’s a longer, bumpier road where winners are big, well-capitalized firms and losers are small projects and companies that depend on rapid product approvals.

Sources

• appropriations.house.gov
• fec.gov
• linkedin.com
• punchbowl.news
• coindesk.com
• coindesk.com