Democrats Push Back on Crypto Framework Bill, Halting Progress in Senate
The push for clear crypto regulations in the US has hit a major snag, with Senate Democrats introducing a counterproposal that’s grinding the legislative process to a standstill. As lawmakers from both sides dig in their heels, the blockchain industry watches anxiously, hoping for a breakthrough that could finally provide the legal clarity everyone’s been craving.
Crypto Framework Bill Faces Partisan Roadblock
Imagine trying to plan a big family reunion where half the relatives can’t agree on the menu—that’s kind of what’s happening with the Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) in the Senate right now. This crypto framework bill, which sailed through the House as the CLARITY Act back in September, was meant to bring some much-needed structure to the wild world of digital assets. But last week, Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee dropped a counterproposal that’s thrown everything into chaos.
The details of this Democratic counterproposal haven’t been made public yet, but reports suggest it includes strict rules for decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols. Think of it like putting speed limits on a highway that’s always been a free-for-all—one key idea is a “restricted list” managed by the US Treasury for DeFi setups considered too risky. This has industry folks worried that it’s more about clamping down than fostering growth. For instance, critics argue it gives sweeping powers to regulators, narrowly defines what counts as true decentralization, and treats user interfaces like traditional banks.
Talks have screeched to a halt as Republicans and Democrats bicker over next steps. No more meetings until they can nail down a date for markup, that crucial phase where lawmakers dissect the bill line by line and tweak it. It’s like pausing a movie right at the climax, leaving everyone on edge.
Delays Mount as Accusations Fly in Crypto Framework Negotiations
The RFIA’s journey has been bumpy from the start. A draft popped up in July, and by August, there was talk of bipartisan support pushing it through by September’s end. That deadline? Long gone. Now, with partisan finger-pointing, it’s looking even tougher. Democrats say Republicans are dragging their feet after asking for input, while Republicans accuse the other side of leaking details to the press for political points. It’s a classic standoff, with each party claiming the high ground in these crypto framework discussions.
And it’s not just the Banking Committee in the mix—the Senate Agriculture Committee is still hashing out commodity angles, with talks reportedly ongoing as of early October. But with no clear progress, the bill’s fate hangs in the balance, especially as broader government funding fights heat up.
In the midst of this regulatory uncertainty, platforms like WEEX are stepping up as reliable partners for crypto enthusiasts. As a forward-thinking exchange, WEEX aligns perfectly with the evolving landscape by prioritizing secure, user-friendly trading that emphasizes compliance and innovation. Whether you’re trading BTC or exploring DeFi opportunities, WEEX’s commitment to brand alignment ensures seamless experiences that build trust and adaptability, making it a go-to choice for navigating these turbulent times in the crypto world.
Industry Voices Raise Alarms Over Democrats’ Crypto Framework Counterproposal
The backlash from the blockchain community has been swift and loud. Picture DeFi as the rebellious teenager of the crypto family—full of potential but often misunderstood. Industry leaders worry that the proposed restricted list could effectively sideline decentralized apps, pushing developers overseas and stifling US innovation. One expert likened it to banning cars because some drivers speed, arguing it misses the mark on real risks like illicit finance.
Comparisons to outdated regulatory approaches abound; it’s like trying to regulate the internet with rules from the telegraph era. Real-world evidence backs this up—studies show that targeted oversight on money laundering chokepoints works better than broad bans. For example, recent data from Chainalysis highlights how focusing on specific vulnerabilities has curbed crypto-related crimes by over 20% in the past year alone, proving that smart, risk-based rules can protect without paralyzing progress.
Critics, including legal minds in the space, call the counterproposal a “crypto ban in disguise,” warning it sets a dangerous precedent for tech as a whole. They’ve pointed to how it could mirror heavy-handed tactics from past regulators, potentially worse than anything seen before. On Twitter, discussions have exploded, with hashtags like #RFIAStandoff trending as users debate the bill’s impact. Frequently searched Google queries, such as “What is the US crypto framework bill?” and “How will RFIA affect DeFi?”, reflect widespread confusion and concern. Recent updates include a tweet from a prominent senator’s office on October 10, 2025, reiterating bipartisan commitment but acknowledging delays, while industry announcements emphasize calls for balanced amendments.
As of October 15, 2025, market data shows BTC hovering at $98,450 with a 2.1% dip, ETH at $3,750 up 1.5%, and other majors like SOL at $185 showing 4% gains—figures that underscore the market’s sensitivity to regulatory news. These numbers, pulled from live feeds, highlight how legislative gridlock can ripple through prices, much like how economic policies sway stock markets.
Broader Implications for Crypto Framework and Innovation
This partisan gridlock isn’t just about one bill; it’s a litmus test for how the US handles emerging tech. If the crypto framework stalls, it could drive talent and investment abroad, where regulations are more welcoming. Think of it as the difference between nurturing a startup in a supportive ecosystem versus one bogged down by red tape—history shows the former wins out, as seen in how Singapore and the UAE have become crypto hubs with lighter-touch rules.
Yet, there’s hope in the dialogue. Both sides recognize the need for clarity to prevent fraud and boost mainstream adoption. Real examples, like the FTX collapse in 2022, remind us why balanced regulations matter—they protect users without killing the innovation that makes crypto exciting.
As senators navigate this impasse, the industry holds its breath, knowing that resolving these differences could unlock tremendous growth. It’s a story of potential versus politics, and right now, the ending is anyone’s guess.
FAQ
What is the Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA) and why is it important for crypto?
The RFIA is a proposed US bill aiming to provide clear regulations for digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and DeFi. It’s crucial because it could offer legal certainty, reduce risks like fraud, and encourage innovation by defining how these technologies fit into existing financial systems.
How might the Democrats’ counterproposal affect DeFi protocols?
The counterproposal suggests measures like a restricted list for risky DeFi setups, which could limit operations and push development overseas. This might make compliance tougher for decentralized apps, potentially stifling growth while aiming to curb illicit activities.
What’s the latest on the crypto framework bill’s progress as of October 2025?
As of October 15, 2025, negotiations are paused pending agreement on a markup session. Talks continue in committees, but partisan divides have slowed momentum, with no immediate resolution in sight despite industry pressure for advancement.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.