The White House's true stance on crypto policy: Revenue-sharing agreements become a key lever in the Market Structure Act

2026-01-18 01:00:11

Abstract generation in progress

【Crypto World】Recent discussions surrounding Coinbase CEO Armstrong and the White House stance have attracted attention. Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett responded by stating that her previous reports stand up to scrutiny—data is accurate, and logic is clear.

What exactly happened? Terrett pointed out that Armstrong’s statement about a “constructive attitude” toward the White House actually confirms the core of her report: the White House has already pressured Coinbase to coordinate with the banking industry to reach an agreement on revenue issues. This is not an implication or rumor, but a tangible policy leverage.

More importantly, Terrett emphasized that, based on her information, the White House’s attitude toward the Crypto Market Structure Act is not unconditional support. Instead, it is conditional: whether the revenue agreement can be negotiated directly determines whether the White House will continue to support the bill. In other words, the bill is being used as a bargaining chip to push the industry and banking system to compromise on revenue distribution.

This reflects the reality of current crypto policy-making: policy support is often not fixed, and there are actual interests and negotiation chips behind it.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ContractTearjerker

· 10h ago

Oh no, the White House's move is really brilliant. The profit agreement becomes a bargaining chip, and the support for the bill can be casually cut. This is politics. Armstrong's comment on "constructiveness" directly sold himself out, and journalist Terrett's eyes are really sharp. So, in the crypto world, you still have to suffer in the middle. Banks want money, politicians want chips, and Coinbase has to obediently act as the middleman. It feels like the White House doesn't genuinely support any crypto bill; they're just using it to exchange for conditions. If this game isn't played well, the bill could be abandoned at any minute. It's very realistic.

View OriginalReply0

SoliditySlayer

· 10h ago

Haha, this White House trick is basically using the bill as a bargaining chip, negotiating with Coinbase.

View OriginalReply0

ProxyCollector

· 10h ago

Oh no, so the White House is playing a conditional game... The yield agreement has become a bargaining chip, I see through this trick.

View OriginalReply0

PortfolioAlert

· 10h ago

Haha, the White House's trick is really quite slick, using profits as chips to shut Coinbase up... Feels like an outright deal, with the support for the bill directly linked to the protocol, it's truly clever. So Armstrong's comment about "constructive" actually means being pressured into negotiations, right? This reporter Eleanor is impressive, directly exposing the truth. The data is right here, no one can argue. Wait, if the profits are really negotiated successfully, what will happen to the banking industry... It feels like the crypto world is about to be played again, a bill turning into bargaining chips.

View OriginalReply0

SelfCustodyBro

· 10h ago

Ah, so the White House's move is—if you help me solve the revenue issue, I'll give you the bill. It feels like this game is much more complicated than it appears on the surface... The White House is really using the bill as leverage, and it’s starting to feel more and more like traditional power struggles. Now Armstrong's "constructive" stance seems a bit helpless... So the key is still that revenue agreement—if it can't be sorted out, there's no hope?

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 10h ago

Wow, so the White House is using the bill as leverage? If the profit-sharing agreement can't be reached, they just turn their face? That's a pretty ruthless tactic.

View OriginalReply0