#美国众议院市场结构讨论草案 Hey, everyone! I saw an interesting piece of news today. The discussion draft of the (2025 Digital Asset Market Structure Act) recently released by the U.S. House of Representatives clarifies a very important definition: under certain conditions, the trading of 'digital goods' in the secondary market does not constitute securities. If this really comes to fruition, it would be quite interesting. Let me share my thoughts.
Impact on secondary market liquidity
First of all, from the perspective of liquidity, this is definitely a major positive. Many people shy away from digital assets now because the regulations are too vague, and they don't know when they might step on a landmine. If it is clarified that digital goods are not considered securities when traded in the secondary market, those funds that were previously concerned about compliance issues are likely to rush in. For instance, compliant platforms like XBIT saw a 210% increase in trading volume within 24 hours after the announcement of the bill, with a significant rise in the proportion of institutional users. This indicates the market's desire for clear rules; once the rules are clear, funds will start to move.
Impact on compliance
In terms of compliance, I believe this can bring significant improvements. The digital asset market was previously chaotic, with many projects skirting the edges, and investors had no idea what they were buying. This draft clarifies the distinction between digital goods and securities and requires exchanges, brokers, and other entities to register and disclose information. As a result, it will be difficult for non-compliant small platforms to survive, and the market environment will become more transparent and standardized.
Impact on token regulatory controversy
If similar regulations are truly implemented, it will certainly mean that many tokens can escape the regulatory controversy of being classified as securities. Currently, the SEC's regulation of digital assets mainly looks at whether it is an 'investment contract,' using the Howey test. However, this test is too vague, and many tokens are stuck in this regard. The new provisions in the draft effectively create a 'exemption channel' for digital goods trading; as long as the transaction does not involve ownership interests in the issuer's business, profits, or assets, it is not considered a security. This makes it easier for tokens focused on utility functions, such as those used for payments or services, to be classified as non-securities.
My overall view
I believe this draft is a significant step in the right direction. It provides clear signals to the market while protecting the interests of investors. However, we cannot be too optimistic; after all, this is just a discussion draft, and whether it can ultimately be passed will depend on subsequent negotiations. Moreover, the balance of regulation is difficult to grasp; if it is too loose, it may trigger new risks; if it is too strict, it may stifle innovation.
In summary, this draft gives us hope for the digital asset market moving towards compliance and regulation, but the specific effects remain to be seen. What does everyone think? Feel free to leave a comment and let's discuss!
