Digital Asset co-founder and CEO Yuval Rooz used the current U.S. regulatory window as an argument for building blockchain’s institutional footprint quickly—suggesting that broad, everyday adoption could make it more difficult for future administrations to reverse course.

Speaking at Token2049 in Singapore, Rooz said the industry should push for a level of usage so widespread that “there is no going back,” even as U.S. policy priorities could shift around the next presidential election on Nov. 7, 2028.

Key takeaways

Yuval Rooz urged the crypto industry to leverage today’s regulatory environment to accelerate institutional adoption before political priorities change.
Rooz framed adoption as a strategic “entrenchment” play, drawing an analogy to how platforms like Uber and Airbnb became hard to unwind.
The remarks followed the U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act in a procedural vote in September.
Binance co-CEO Richard Teng said he still hopes the CLARITY Act becomes law to reduce the risk of regulatory backtracking.
Franklin Templeton CEO Jenny Johnson emphasized that while legislation would help, firms should not assume the CLARITY Act will pass, given ongoing work by the SEC and CFTC.

“No going back” hinges on adoption before politics shifts

Rooz’s central message was less about near-term legislative timing and more about achieving scale. He argued that if blockchain use becomes pervasive enough, future policy reversals would face practical and political obstacles.

His reference point was the U.S. election cycle. With the next presidential election scheduled for Nov. 7, 2028, Rooz suggested that regulatory priorities could change depending on the administration in office. Rather than waiting for new legislative clarity, he called for accelerating progress now—targeting entrenched usage that would be difficult to reverse later.

To make the argument, Rooz compared the crypto sector’s trajectory to the rise of Uber and Airbnb. He said both companies became deeply embedded before lawmakers could effectively move to restrict them, implying that early and broad adoption can outrun efforts to tighten rules after the fact.

CLARITY Act setback puts focus on existing regulators

The comments arrive after the CLARITY Act faced a procedural roadblock in the U.S. Senate. According to Cointelegraph’s coverage, the bill did not advance in a Senate procedural vote in September. That failure matters because the CLARITY Act has been positioned as a potential legislative route to clearer rules for digital assets.

In parallel, regulators have continued working under existing authority. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have advanced crypto-related regulatory efforts without waiting for a comprehensive legislative framework, including proposals and frameworks discussed by the agencies.

In this context, Rooz’s comments reflect a broader industry tension: whether certainty for institutional players will come primarily through new legislation or through regulators’ evolving interpretation and enforcement under current laws.

Binance and Franklin Templeton split the emphasis on legislation

On the same Token2049 panel, Binance co-CEO Richard Teng said he hoped the CLARITY Act would still be enacted. Teng argued that legislation could help prevent what he called “regulatory backtracking,” which he described as the industry’s “biggest fear.” His framing suggests that even if regulators act under existing powers, the uncertainty around future policy direction can weigh on long-term planning—especially for institutions considering regulated market participation.

Franklin Templeton CEO Jenny Johnson, however, pushed for a more cautious stance. She said legislation would offer greater certainty, but warned that the industry should not rely on the CLARITY Act passing as the sole path to clarity. Johnson also pointed to the SEC and CFTC’s ongoing efforts to provide regulatory guidance, describing this as a basis for innovation and continued institutional adoption.

Taken together, the exchange underscored a split in emphasis rather than an outright disagreement. Teng highlighted the risk of policy reversals without a legislative anchor, while Johnson signaled that institutions may need to proceed using the regulatory work already under way—rather than waiting for one bill to resolve uncertainty.

Why “entrenchment” is an institutional issue, not just a tech race

Rooz’s Uber-Airbnb analogy is more than rhetorical. For institutional adoption, the practical question is whether rules and market structures can become stable enough for firms to build products, custody arrangements, compliance processes, and long-term strategies.

If widespread blockchain usage grows faster than legislative action, adoption can create a more resilient ecosystem—but it can also intensify the stakes for policymakers. Platforms become harder to regulate when usage is broad, but lawmakers may also respond with new restrictions to address perceived risks. Rooz’s argument banks on the idea that broad entrenchment will limit the room for reversal.

What remains uncertain is how regulators will balance innovation and oversight in the absence of the CLARITY Act. While the SEC and CFTC have continued pushing forward using their existing authority, the extent to which their actions translate into consistent, predictable frameworks across tokens, platforms, and markets is likely to determine how quickly institutions expand participation.

With the next U.S. election still years away, industry leaders appear to be weighing two timelines at once: the near-term regulatory evolution under existing agencies and the longer-term political path for legislation like the CLARITY Act. Readers should watch whether regulatory guidance continues to converge across the SEC and CFTC—and whether the CLARITY Act regains momentum—as those signals will shape how confidently institutions can plan for the period after 2028.