Crystal Ball 2026: Regulation or Legislation? The Dilemma That Defines the Crypto Sector

In 2025, the cryptocurrency industry experienced an unexpected shift toward public trust. But as 2026 approaches, an uncomfortable question arises that divides experts and political leaders: Is a market structure law necessary, or have recent regulatory changes made this legislative battle unnecessary?

The Ghost of the Market Structure Law

For months, passing a comprehensive law on the crypto market structure has been the industry’s top goal. This bill would formally and permanently legalize token issuers and intermediaries in the United States, granting the sector the legitimacy it has sought for years.

However, the political landscape has become more uncertain. Well-connected sources within the Washington D.C. crypto lobby warn that legislation faces significant hurdles in the Senate. The complexity of the bill, combined with its political sensitivity, makes many experts doubt it can be approved before Congress stalls due to the 2026 midterm elections.

The Unexpected Turn: When Regulators Move Faster Than the Law

Ironically, the same political leaders pushing for legislation now face a new dilemma: federal regulators are advancing aggressively. The SEC and CFTC have implemented sector-friendly changes at a speed few anticipated.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins was clear on this. When asked if the agency required additional authority through a new crypto law, he responded skeptically: “We have quite broad exemption authority, and it’s good that Congress gave it to us,” referencing the 1933 and 1934 securities laws that established the SEC during the New Deal. “That gives us a really solid foundation.”

The “Market Structure Disorder Syndrome” Phenomenon

This regulatory shift has sparked an alternative line of thought within the sector. A prominent expert even referred to his colleagues’ obsession with passing the market structure law in 2026 as “market structure disorder syndrome.”

The pragmatic argument is that regulators are achieving key victories for the industry that would be difficult to reverse under future administrations. In this context, why settle for imperfect legislation? A crypto policy leader stated: “Once we have a safe harbor for tokens, the discussion about market structure is over,” referring to the SEC exemption expected to be implemented in January.

The Cost of Skepticism: Long-Term Risks

Not everyone shares this regulatory optimism. Other crypto policy experts warn that abandoning comprehensive legislation poses a calculated risk. Their concern is not merely technical: it is existential for public trust.

The reason is simple but powerful: without formal market structure legislation, the industry will remain exposed to future political volatility. Moreover, it will miss a crucial opportunity to reshape public perception of the sector, which still sees it as a “shady casino” and illegitimate.

A senior crypto policy leader emphasized the importance of passing the market structure legislation in 2026, describing the goal as “still very achievable.” His main point: “Can the current administration do much to alleviate those issues? Yes, it can. But can it do so as well as legislation would? Absolutely not.”

The Pending Dilemma

As 2026 approaches, the crypto sector faces its own crystal ball: trust that regulators will stay on the favorable path, or fight for legislation that permanently cements the sector’s legitimacy? The response from Congress and political leaders in the coming months could define not only the future of crypto regulation but also the trust of millions of skeptical investors who still doubt the ecosystem’s legitimacy.