【Crypto World】In the past week, U.S. lawmakers have once again turned their attention to legislation in the cryptocurrency market. A bill that has been shelved for a long time has been brought back to the negotiation table, with the most controversial part being the clause regarding the powers of the Treasury Department.
This clause allows the Treasury Department, in conjunction with the SEC, CFTC, and Federal Reserve, to directly list certain DeFi protocols on a “restricted list,” making these platforms inaccessible to U.S. users. On the surface, it sounds like a measure for national security, but opponents have raised concerns—arguing that this effectively gives the Treasury Department sanction-level authority without proper due process. Once listed, American individuals and institutions are prohibited from interacting with these protocols.
The bill requires an annual report on DeFi risks and decentralization assessments, but the standards for evaluation have not yet been established. Many cite the Tornado Cash case as an example, fearing that such powers could be abused, leading to innocent infrastructure and ordinary users suffering, and even open-source developers being implicated.
Interestingly, the two parties have quite different stances on this issue. Republicans want to relax restrictions and encourage innovation, while Democrats seek stricter measures against illegal financial activities, even holding developers accountable. This overlap and lack of checks on these powers naturally raise concerns across the entire ecosystem.
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.
7 Likes
Reward
7
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MoonBoi42
· 21h ago
Here we go again with this? The Ministry of Finance basically just wants a remote control, and Tornado Cash is a living example of that.
View OriginalReply0
HypotheticalLiquidator
· 01-08 05:39
This is a typical signal of systemic risk. Once the risk control threshold is broken by policy, the domino effect that follows cannot be stopped.
The Tornado Cash incident hasn't settled down yet, and now this... They set the list without any standards? Isn't this just a disguised form of liquidation?
The Ministry of Finance's move is truly raising the entire ecosystem's borrowing rate. No one will be able to escape then.
By the way, if this clause passes, will US DeFi directly go leverage? Can we still check the health factor?
The chain reaction of liquidations can already be anticipated... Once market sentiment collapses, volatility soars, and that becomes a nightmare for liquidation prices.
Circumventing proper procedures to impose sanctions? That logic is truly absurd... Where's the promised decentralization?
It looks like they are about to start screening targets again. Risk control has really become a butcher's knife.
View OriginalReply0
TokenDustCollector
· 01-07 17:09
Coming back with this again? The Ministry of Finance claims it's for risk control, but in reality, they want to sideline DeFi. They haven't even set clear evaluation standards before trying to blacklist... Isn't the lesson from Tornado Cash enough?
View OriginalReply0
FUDwatcher
· 01-07 17:07
Coming back with this again? The Ministry of Finance directly bans DeFi protocols, isn't this clearly promoting centralization?
View OriginalReply0
BasementAlchemist
· 01-07 17:06
Coming back with this again? The Ministry of Finance basically just wants absolute say, and they haven't learned their lesson from the Tornado Cash incident.
View OriginalReply0
DAOdreamer
· 01-07 17:05
Another trick called "for safety," in plain terms, it's just trying to impose centralized authority on DeFi.
View OriginalReply0
BanklessAtHeart
· 01-07 17:01
Coming with this again? The Ministry of Finance wants to directly ban DeFi, which is basically power expansion disguised as security...
Tornado Cash hasn't even fully settled down, and now there's this "restricted list"—feels like we're really going to be on guard.
These people want to exercise power without even understanding the evaluation standards—ridiculous...
Sanction-level authority sounds nice, but in reality, they just want to choke us—getting a bit impatient.
Due process? I think the Ministry of Finance doesn't really care; American users are the easiest to bully anyway.
View OriginalReply0
MevTears
· 01-07 16:52
The Ministry of Finance's approach is really outrageous. They directly impose sanctions without following procedures. Tornado Cash isn't even over yet, and now they pull this stunt. It feels like DeFi is about to be wiped out.
U.S. Congress Reboots DeFi Regulation Bill: Treasury Department's Authority Sparks New Controversy
【Crypto World】In the past week, U.S. lawmakers have once again turned their attention to legislation in the cryptocurrency market. A bill that has been shelved for a long time has been brought back to the negotiation table, with the most controversial part being the clause regarding the powers of the Treasury Department.
This clause allows the Treasury Department, in conjunction with the SEC, CFTC, and Federal Reserve, to directly list certain DeFi protocols on a “restricted list,” making these platforms inaccessible to U.S. users. On the surface, it sounds like a measure for national security, but opponents have raised concerns—arguing that this effectively gives the Treasury Department sanction-level authority without proper due process. Once listed, American individuals and institutions are prohibited from interacting with these protocols.
The bill requires an annual report on DeFi risks and decentralization assessments, but the standards for evaluation have not yet been established. Many cite the Tornado Cash case as an example, fearing that such powers could be abused, leading to innocent infrastructure and ordinary users suffering, and even open-source developers being implicated.
Interestingly, the two parties have quite different stances on this issue. Republicans want to relax restrictions and encourage innovation, while Democrats seek stricter measures against illegal financial activities, even holding developers accountable. This overlap and lack of checks on these powers naturally raise concerns across the entire ecosystem.