1inch Counsel: US Crypto Regulation Shaped by Agencies in Midterms

As US voters head into the midterm election, the question for crypto companies is whether Washington will finally move stalled legislation—or whether the industry will keep having to adapt to shifting regulator guidance. Maylea Ma, deputy general counsel at 1inch, said she expects the next meaningful phase of US crypto regulation to be driven more by federal agencies than by Congress.

Ma argued that agency engagement with digital-asset projects is increasing, but that this approach has not delivered the long-term legal stability many market participants are seeking. Her comments also echo concerns raised by institutional-focused builders: Michael Ho, co-founder of D3 and the team behind Doma Protocol, said uncertainty around the policy framework is still delaying serious capital, including in tokenized real-world assets.

Key takeaways

• 1inch’s deputy general counsel expects federal agencies—not Congress—to lead the next phase of US crypto rulemaking.
• Industry engagement from the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury is growing, but it does not replace the stability of statutes that can’t be reversed with elections.
• Doma Protocol’s Michael Ho said agency-based policy leaves institutional capital “waiting,” particularly while the market structure bill remains stalled.
• Recent agency activity includes SEC proposals on crypto fundraising and updated staff guidance, plus a CFTC regulatory plan submitted for White House review.

Why the election matters—but may not change the pace

With control of Congress at stake, the midterms could alter the political odds for the CLARITY Act, a bill that would create a clearer statutory foundation for parts of the crypto market. Ma said the election could reshape the legislative route, but she believes the more immediate “real movement” is likely to come from agencies such as the SEC, the CFTC, and the US Treasury.

That distinction is important. Congress may take time to reach consensus and pass new law, especially after prior setbacks. Meanwhile, regulators can issue proposals, guidance, and enforcement priorities under existing statutory authority—moving faster, but also leaving open the possibility that future administrations recalibrate priorities.

Ma emphasized the structural problem for long-term planning: a rule set based on guidance can be revised as political control changes. “The long-term goal, of course, remains a statute that cannot be reversed every time a government changes,” she said.

Institutional hesitation tied to policy uncertainty

Ho connected the legislative stall to investor decision-making. According to him, when the market structure bill is stuck and policy remains dependent on agency guidance, institutional capital tends to wait. His concern is not simply about ambiguity in the short term—it’s about the durability of the regulatory environment itself.

Ho said that with US crypto policy resting on guidance that “a future administration can reverse,” “serious capital” remains on the sidelines. He also framed the stakes in terms that matter to the next wave of crypto adoption: he argued that clear rules written into law are what will unlock more institutional involvement in tokenized real-world assets.

In practice, tokenization businesses face a higher bar than many purely crypto-native applications because their use cases often intersect with regulated industries like finance, securities, and custody. Investors typically want predictability on how assets will be classified and how compliance obligations will be defined, not only what regulators might say in a given policy cycle.

What the SEC and CFTC have been doing

Even without a new statute passing through Congress, recent months have shown the agencies actively shaping the regulatory conversation. In August, the SEC proposed a framework for crypto fundraising, according to Cointelegraph’s coverage of the development. The proposal included exemptions for certain token offerings and a safe harbor aimed at reducing the risk of treatment as investment contracts, as described in a Cointelegraph report linked in the source material: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bernstein-aggressive-rulemaking-sec-cftc-clarity-act.

In September, the SEC also updated staff guidance related to how different token activities may be viewed, including matters such as token buybacks, crypto networks, and staking receipt tokens. Cointelegraph highlighted these updates in a separate report: https://cointelegraph.com/news/sec-cftc-staff-guidance-crypto-clarity-fail.

Meanwhile, the CFTC has been moving in parallel. Cointelegraph reported that the agency submitted a crypto market regulatory plan for White House review on Sept. 17, which occurred shortly after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act. The referenced coverage is available here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/cftc-submits-crypto-market-regulation-plan-for-white-house-review.

Taken together, these steps point to a theme that Ma and Ho both underscored: agencies may continue to fill gaps while legislation stalls. However, the remaining question for market participants is whether this “agency-first” approach will provide enough certainty for institutions—or whether only statutory clarity can unlock large-scale, long-horizon capital.

Engagement isn’t the same as durable rules

Ma noted that agency engagement with crypto projects is increasing. For companies, that can be valuable: dialogue with regulators can clarify expectations and reduce compliance guesswork. But engagement still differs from a framework that is embedded in statute.

The reason is straightforward. Guidance and proposals may guide behavior, yet they can change as leadership shifts or as agencies decide that the legal interpretation should evolve. That’s the tension at the heart of the current US regulatory landscape: the industry is seeing more activity from regulators, but it is still searching for a stable baseline that doesn’t depend on who controls Congress or which administration is in office.

For investors, especially those considering exposure to tokenized assets tied to traditional markets, the distinction can determine whether they move forward now or wait for a legally durable rulebook. Ho’s comments suggest that, absent statutory clarity, institutions may prefer to remain cautious even when regulators appear to be working toward a coherent approach.

As the midterm outcome becomes clearer, readers should watch whether congressional momentum for the CLARITY Act returns—or whether the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury continue to set the practical pace through proposals, staff guidance, and regulatory plans. The larger test will be whether these agency-driven steps translate into predictable, lasting rules that institutions can underwrite, not just policy signals that may shift with the political cycle.