Crypto Industry's Influence in Washington Sparks Regulatory Capture Concerns

The crypto industry's influence in Washington has raised concerns about regulatory capture, where regulators or lawmakers are co-opted to serve the interests of a small constituency. This situation poses two main risks: the public interest is excluded from policy-making in favor of a single industry or company, and regulators may become blind to or paralyzed by economic risks.

Ask Aime: What trends in crypto regulation could affect investor confidence?

These concerns have been voiced by American lawmakers and industry observers, who worry that regulatory capture could negatively affect the country and curb competition within the crypto industry. In a March 28 letter, prominent members of the US Senate Banking Committee and Committee on Finance addressed Acting Comptroller Rodney Hood and Michelle Bowman, Chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governor’s Committee on Supervision and Regulation. The letter specifically addresses the launch of USD1, a stablecoin project from the Trump family’s decentralized finance project World Liberty Financial (WLFI), as Congress considers GENIUS Act legislation on stablecoins.

The senators suggest there are opportunities for regulatory capture and conflict of interest, stating that President Trump may review any actions the OCC takes with regard to USD1’s stablecoin application. He would be positioned to intervene in and deny the OCC from promulgating stablecoin safeguards, or force the agency to refrain from initiating any enforcement actions against wlf. They added that he could attempt to intervene or deny assistance to USD1’s competitors and that the GENIUS Act provides no provisions to prevent such conduct.

Crypto industry observers have also echoed concern over a single entity's undue influence over policy when it comes to Coinbase’s influence in Washington’s development of stablecoin policy. In January, coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong signaled that his firm would be willing to delist Tether (USDT), the world’s largest stablecoin, if the version of the stablecoin bill under consideration in Congress became law. Under those terms, USDC, in which Coinbase is a major shareholder, would essentially be fencing out its largest competitor from the US market.

Castle Island Ventures partner Nic Carter cried foul, stating that “Regulatory capture is poison. Reminds me of what SBF used to do.” At the time, Vance Spencer, founder of crypto venture firm Framework Ventures, said that it was “a blatant attempt at regulatory capture by US players done at the expense of US national interest.” He concluded that “The future of stablecoins can be US dollar-based only if we allow a broader competitive set of stablecoin issuers to flourish and deny gatekeeping/gaslighting by those interested in regulatory capture.”

Ask Aime: What are the risks of regulatory capture in the crypto industry?

George Selgin, senior fellow and director emeritus of the Cato Institute's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, highlighted the Bitcoin reserve as another clear example of the crypto lobby’s influence over the regulatory process. He stated that it's unlikely that anyone would have considered it desirable, let alone necessary, for the US government to maintain digital asset stashes had it not been for intense pressure from cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

Regulatory capture is not a new phenomenon in Washington lawmaking. Selgin noted that the Biden administration’s approach to crypto was equally an example of regulatory capture, just in favor of traditional financial firms that, with their lobbying efforts, wished to limit competition from industry upstarts. He said, “Regulators' relatively hostile stance toward crypto [under Biden] was no less evidence of regulatory capture than their more indulgent stance toward it today. The main difference was in who did the capturing.”

When asked how one would differentiate between legitimate industry advocacy and regulatory capture, Selgin said, “I don't think you need to. First of all, the line between them is very thin.” He explained that industries rarely take complete control of regulators due in part to the fact that individual firms within an industry have different ideas about what ideal regulation looks like. Furthermore, any kind of successful advocacy “‘captures’ regulators to some extent” if only by virtue of the fact that it makes them change their beliefs about how best to regulate.

The question remains: is regulatory capture just to be accepted as a natural part of the policymaking process? Some academics have suggested creating entirely new government bodies to deal with the problem. However, such proposals face nearly impossible headwinds, not only because of their technical complexity, but due to the simple fact that lawmakers have no incentive to set up an organization that oversees them.

According to Selgin, the ultimate determination is not “whether or how the industry manages to influence regulators. It's whether the resulting regulatory regime serves the public interest [...] If a regulation is harmful, it's harmful whether it was lobbied for or not.” And the public’s interest in crypto is getting harder to see. Even crypto lobbyists admit that the (barely) bi-partisan drive for crypto is driven by a desire to appease the crypto industry’s deep pockets ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Dave Grimaldi, executive vice president of government relations at Blockchain Association, said, “There are [...] pro-crypto candidates who won and were funded by our industry and had votes coming to them from crypto users in their district. [...] And then there were also incumbent, sitting members of Congress who lost their seats because they were so negative for completely unnecessary and illogical reasons.” Little can be done until lawmakers and regulators agree there is a problem to solve and exert the political will to solve it.