As Washington embraces crypto–and is developing new policies to build a framework for the industry–Future Nexus recently spoke with Ji Kim, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation about the opportunities and challenges facing the industry heading into 2026
Perhaps unsurprisingly, after years waiting in the wings, crypto-lobbying groups have come out in full force during this year’s conference season, making the case for crypto’s full embrace by regulators and industry incumbents. As bulge-bracket banks make somewhat tentative forays onto the blockchain through sandbox initiatives and low-ish-volume products, crypto’s found a tailwind through its bedfellowship with the Trump administration, and with members of the Trump family empire. Through their stake in World Liberty Financial, for instance, the Trumps may have seen their net worth balloon by as much as $5 billion — tying sector growth with personal, dynastic, conflict-of-interest-inducing gain.
Hurdles remain for the crypto sector to grow beyond its current footprint. The path forward is wrapped up in Trumpian welfare, creating a double bind. The CLARITY Act is something of a make-or-break obstacle. It aims to explicitly outline a market structure for decentralized finance: the ability to use “digital assets” — everything from speculative, highly volatile cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, to relatively more vanilla products like a GENIUS-compliant stablecoin — as the basis for a capital markets-like ecosystem. It’s currently in a holding pattern, which was exacerbated by the government shutdown, and Democrats will likely want to ban elected officials’ family members from engaging in crypto-sector business activity, an unacceptable prospect for Republicans responding to the Executive’s marching orders.
We recently interviewed Ji Kim, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation on the sidelines of Money20/20; and as he outlines, there are other hurdles coming down the pike as well. From open banking to tax statutes — not to mention the systemic risks of integrating technologies that have collapsed spectacularly in the past — major regulatory and legislative blockages prevent crypto’s total proliferation. Kim is optimistic (and that’s his job!), citing bipartisan interest in solidifying the US as a global destination for crypto as a wind in lawmakers’ sails — further fueled by pressures from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
There have been several regulatory changes, or tentative ones, that stand to affect the crypto industry writ large. Open banking is one component of this. But then there’s Governor Waller’s proposed skinny Fed master account, which, I imagine, provisionally shifts market forces in a way that might work in the crypto industry’s advantage as far as disintermediation goes, and more. That’s one development; there’s also an uptick in charter-review and charter-approval activity, which stands to enable more direct access to monetary and financial systems that have been off-limits for a long time. Where does the CCI situate itself in relation to all this?
We’ve been front and center on a lot of these issues. I think GENIUS was very important. Our country has been missing a comprehensive payment stablecoin framework for some time now; that got across the finish line in a bipartisan manner and has been signed into law. We’re now focused on the rulemaking process and market structure. That’s been top of mind for members: a comprehensive framework for how everything works, and determines how the ecosystem and industry proceed. We want a clear delineation of SEC and CFTC responsibilities, and there are many DeFi functions and capabilities that don’t fit neatly into an intermediary-driven world.
The Fed’s recent roundtables, I think, were positive and overall a step forward. I think there’s still more to come in terms of details for the skinny Fed master account, what it looks like, who and what is legally eligible for that account access, but it’s certainly a positive reflection of where this administration wants things to go.
Where are things still up in the air?
Some of this is just tied to the process. CLARITY passed the House in a bipartisan fashion. It’s been great to see the Senate Agriculture Committee and Senate Banking Committee focused on their key areas of jurisdiction. With Banking, they’re going to focus on the SEC piece, what that looks like, the nature of the asset itself, how you assess decentralization. On the Ag side, they’re going to focus on oversight of digital commodity intermediaries, the standards for digital commodities to have clear authority from the CFTC. I think we are going to have to see the process unfold once the Senate Banking and Senate Ag drafts are out publicly.
Because Ag and Banking have different focus areas, the drafts will complement each other. The Senate has always combined their jurisdictions in a positive way. I’m hopeful that we can get there.
The crypto industry also works with the banking sector in all sorts of ways. There are many instances where these sectors stand on opposite sides of an issue: market structure, stablecoin interest — as well as open banking. Where do you see open banking rulemaking headed such that new rules enable the ongoing interaction between the crypto firms and banks?
In general, we’ll see continued integration and collaboration between the banks and crypto-native companies. But to address your most specific question, open banking is an example where the statute, in my opinion, is clear. There’s no clear mandate for fees to be put in, and there is no fiduciary standard for representatives. Consumers should be able to determine how their data should be shared with a third party, their duly authorized representative. The CFPB recently asked four key questions, which I think are the right questions: You want to make sure that consumers have access to their data and that they can provide authorization when they want to share it. We’ll see how the CFPB weighs in on this. But the CCI submitted a comment letter and joined the effort with the FTA on their letter.
Congressman Mike Flood said at Money20/20 that CLARITY might pass by the end of the year. Do you share that perspective?
I think there will be a concerted effort from members of Congress and from the industry to get things moving in a positive way. This administration has been clear that they want a market structure bill as soon as possible. So the short answer is, yes, I’m optimistic, I’m hopeful, and the goal is to get something done as soon as possible. But you know, there are other considerations. Other jurisdictions have MiCA [for the EU] and other frameworks, so I think the US will work aggressively to make sure that market structure gets done as soon as possible.
At the same time, some prominent stablecoins are not GENIUS compliant. USDe, for example, is an algorithmic stablecoin, and recently depegged. How much do you expect regulation to be a driver of adoption, versus a major hiccup for now non-compliant incumbents in the space?
That’s why rulemaking is so important, and it provides an opportunity for different stakeholders, including CCI and our members, to weigh in. So far, my experience has been positive with the regulators when it comes to rulemaking. We saw the Presidential working group report come out earlier this year. The relevant regulatory agencies seem very committed to playing their part in ensuring this crypto sprint. You want rules of the road, but you want consumers, investors, and users to be adequately protected. And I think once you combine all those things, I think that could be a positive thing when it comes to digital assets.
What else is on the CCI’s radar?
We’re very focused on tax clarity. House Ways and Means had a very positive hearing on the topic. Senate Finance had a positive hearing as well. I think there’s a clear understanding of the need to bring further tax clarity when it comes to digital assets, items like de minimis exemptions for usage of crypto transactions.
