The U.S. Treasury's recent "identity binding" operation on DeFi has essentially split the crypto community in two; some shout "compliance dawn," while others curse "self-destruction of foundations."

Is it necessary? Indeed, the anonymity of DeFi has long become a breeding ground for gray areas, with money laundering and dark web transactions hidden behind smart contracts, making it difficult for regulators to grasp. Forcing KYC and biometric verification via API is akin to installing an "ID checkpoint" on decentralized finance, theoretically keeping illegal funds out. The Treasury has probably been unable to overlook it for a while: "Everyone wants to make big money but doesn't want to leave a trace? That makes no sense."

But the contentious point is even more explosive; isn't the soul of DeFi "trustlessness and disintermediation"? Now, forcing protocols to embed identity verification, what is the essential difference from centralized exchanges' "real-name registration"? Some mock: "This is not regulating DeFi; this is turning DeFi into a 'bank wearing a decentralized hat.'" Others worry that once identity information is on-chain, hackers will target not just money but also everyone's biometric data and privacy, and the cost of being "compliant" could lead to a more terrifying security black hole.

Supporters say: "Innovation without rules is dancing on the edge of a cliff." Opponents respond: "Using centralized shackles to bind decentralized necks is better called 'CeFi 2.0.'" This tug-of-war has just begun; the next six months of public consultation will likely turn into the crypto community's "century debate." #美联储取消创新活动监管计划