Regulation is not the brake, but the steering wheel

Many people reflexively view regulation as a negative, but the history of mature markets shows the opposite: major market movements often emerge after rules are established. ETFs, futures, market-making systems—aren't they all first constrained by regulation before attracting massive capital?
If the White House crypto summit promotes a unified stance, the biggest beneficiaries will actually be leading compliant platforms and mainstream blockchain ecosystems. Because once rules are clear, the competition shifts to transparency, governance structure, and technological strength, rather than gray-area arbitrage. Industry competition moves from “who dares more” to “who is more stable.”
Consumer protection is equally crucial. In past bull markets, ordinary investors often fueled the narrative. If information disclosure, reserve proofs, and custodial segregation become standard, market trust will increase, and more users will naturally join. In the long run, this is more beneficial than short-term reckless freedom.
The true balance lies in proportionality: regulation is like salt—too little, it’s bland; too much, it’s overpowering. If the U.S. can strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and controlling risks, it might bring the Web3 startup wave back home, creating a positive cycle of technology and capital.
So the question is not “whether to regulate,” but “how to regulate.” Good regulation will weed out bad actors and let good projects shine. #白宫加密会议