Mentioned in This Article
1. Why is the crypto policy playbook under debate?
Colin McLaren of the Solana Policy Institute argued in an opinion column published on November 2 that the cryptocurrency industry should keep its long-running Washington strategy, the crypto policy playbook, intact, whatever the midterm elections or the 2028 presidential race deliver. His case rests on a record of bipartisan votes since 2022, warning that agency rulemaking and the 2028 contest could decide whether gains hold.
The argument arrives at a delicate moment. Forecasts, polls and commentators suggest Democrats could take the House and possibly the Senate, and some in the industry worry that a shift in control would require a new approach. McLaren's answer is that the existing approach, built on patient education of lawmakers in both parties, is the reason the industry has any momentum to protect. The piece is an advocacy column, so its claims about influence and the political outlook reflect the author's view rather than settled fact.
2. How did the strategy begin?
McLaren traces the effort to roughly four years ago, when crypto had few allies in the capital and a reputation damaged by its worst actors. At that stage, he says, regulation by enforcement cost the industry nearly half a billion dollars in investigations and litigation, money he believes should have been invested in American companies. The industry concluded that it could not win regulatory clarity through the courts alone.
It therefore turned to Congress and adopted what he describes as a patient, multi-year engagement plan. Beginning in 2022, advocates briefed congressional candidates from both parties on what digital assets are, what they could offer ordinary Americans and which obstacles stand in the way. In his telling, each election cycle since then has produced lawmakers willing to address unclear rules and to resist an enforcement-first posture.
For readers new to the debate, regulation by enforcement refers to the practice of agencies defining the limits of the law through lawsuits and investigations against specific companies, instead of through published rules or legislation. Crypto firms have long said this leaves them guessing about what is permitted, which is why the push for statutes and formal rulemaking became the centerpiece of the industry's agenda.
The column does not claim that the effort was free of setbacks. Its central premise is that a reputation damaged by bad actors had to be rebuilt through repeated, practical conversations with lawmakers who initially had little exposure to the industry. That slow work, in McLaren's view, is what turned a hostile environment into one where bipartisan bills can pass.
3. Which institutions carry the effort?
The column credits a set of Washington organizations with turning the strategy into sustained practice. He names the Blockchain Association, the DeFi Education Fund, Stand With Crypto, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the American Innovation Project and his own Solana Policy Institute, among others. These groups brief lawmakers and their staff, comment on draft legislation and have filed hundreds of comment letters.
McLaren also points to the change in how individual ecosystems are perceived. Solana, he notes, was once little known in policy circles and is now an established presence in Washington. His point is that the presence of dedicated advocates, not occasional visits during a crisis, is what allows technical arguments to reach legislators in time to shape text before it is finalized.
4. What does the voting record show?
The strongest evidence offered is the pattern of congressional votes. McLaren says Republicans supplied the foundation, with near-unanimous majorities on every crypto vote over the past two years. Democrats, he argues, supplied the expansion. He cites 21 House Democrats who voted to overturn SAB 121, an accounting bulletin that had burdened firms holding customers' digital assets, and 76 House Democrats who backed repeal of the broker rule a year later, reasoning that software developers should not be treated as regulated intermediaries.
A critical mass of House Democrats also supported the CLARITY Act and the GENIUS Act, he writes, and 18 Senate Democrats helped GENIUS clear the filibuster. He describes the broker rule repeal as the first crypto-specific law in American history and GENIUS as the first federal stablecoin statute. The GENIUS Act created the federal framework for payment stablecoins, while the CLARITY Act is the proposed market structure bill.
The most recent data point he cites came last month, when the House Ways and Means Committee advanced a digital asset tax bill by a vote of 38 to 5. On a bipartisan vote, the committee also rejected an amendment that would have revived the broker rule. In McLaren's reading, those margins show that crypto-friendly positions are no longer confined to one party.
Taken together, the votes describe a legislative pattern rather than a single breakthrough. SAB 121, the broker rule, GENIUS and the tax bill each drew a different mix of Democratic support, and in each case the Democrats who crossed over did so for reasons tied to the specific policy, such as custody of customer assets, the treatment of software developers or the creation of a payments framework. McLaren treats that diversity of reasons as proof that the case was made on the merits issue by issue.
5. How have regulators filled the legislative gap?
Congress has not yet passed a full market structure framework, and McLaren notes that agencies have moved in the meantime. He says the Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued what it calls Regulation Crypto along with an innovation exemption, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed a new structure for trading crypto on regulated exchanges. Regulators have also issued rules to implement the GENIUS Act.
He emphasizes that all of this has taken place under Republican leadership. The observation carries a warning that runs through the whole column: rules written by agencies can be rewritten by the next set of agency heads, whereas statutes are far harder to undo. Progress made through rulemaking is therefore real but, in his view, fragile.
6. What could a Democratic majority change?
McLaren sees two forces that would shape a more Democratic Congress. The first he calls moderation by necessity. To win the House or Senate, Democrats would have to prevail in districts that backed President Trump, some of them strongly Republican, so the members elected there must answer to pro-business constituents. He notes that moderate Democrats made up the majority of those who supported bipartisan crypto legislation in the 118th and 119th Congresses.
The second force is progressive energy in safely Democratic districts, including a growing bloc that is skeptical of financial services and new technologies. He expects that group to push for tougher regulation. The tension between the two blocs would define how a Democratic majority approaches digital assets.
On the Senate, he observes that neither party is likely to hold a supermajority, which makes sweeping one-sided reform difficult. That makes industry-backed legislation unlikely in the near term, but it also helps crypto supporters block measures aimed against the sector. For the next two years, he expects the SEC, the CFTC and other agencies to carry most of the crypto agenda through rulemaking.
This is also why McLaren frames the next two years as a period in which the agencies, instead of Congress, carry the load. Rulemaking is slower and more formal than a press announcement, but its outputs can be changed by future leadership through the same process. He therefore treats the current regulatory wins as an opening to build on, not a finish line.
7. Why does the 2028 election loom so large?
McLaren calls 2028 likely the most consequential election yet for the technology, and he says the race effectively begins the day after the November 3 midterms. Without market structure legislation in place, the leaders chosen by the next administration will set policy through the agencies and could reverse recent gains. Both presidential fields are crowded and neither has a clear frontrunner, so he argues that engagement should start now.
His advice differs by party. Democrats, he says, should cultivate supporters and identify prospective leaders for the SEC, the CFTC and the Treasury Department. Their potential presidential candidates differ sharply on crypto and technology, as their votes, the bills they signed as governors and their public statements show. Early outreach could secure neutrality or even support at the top of a ticket.
He also cautions that a technology-friendly Democratic administration might not embrace crypto as fully as the current one does, and that early engagement could help prevent a return to an SEC chair such as Gary Gensler or a successor with similar views. For Republicans, the task is to make sure the pro-innovation approach set by SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Chair Michael Selig outlasts the current administration.
The practical meaning for the industry is that outreach to lawmakers who currently oppose or doubt crypto is not wasted effort. If the progressive bloc grows within a Democratic majority, the moderates who supported earlier bills will be the main counterweight, and they are most likely to hold their positions if they have continued to hear informed arguments from advocates they already know and trust.
8. What should the industry do next?
McLaren's conclusion is that the industry should stick to its playbook regardless of what happens at the ballot box in 2026 or 2028. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum will shape fundamental policy over the coming decade, he writes, so planning should follow a multi-decade timeline instead of revolving around election cycles or single bills.
The near-term markers are straightforward. The midterm vote is on November 3, and the composition of the next Congress will determine how much room exists for market structure legislation. Beyond that, the decisions of agency heads and the choices of presidential hopefuls will test whether the relationships and arguments built over the past four years carry over to a new set of leaders. In the author's words, the next phase of crypto policy will depend on groundwork laid in advance.
Another implication concerns timing. Because both presidential fields are crowded, the relationships formed in the first months after the midterms may matter more than those formed later, when candidates have already settled their positions. McLaren's advice is built on the idea that a candidate who has heard the industry's case early is more likely to carry it into the transition planning that follows an election.