Mentioned in This Article
1. Crypto regulation timing: Smith's central argument
Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, said in early October that crypto rules finalized by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) before roughly summer 2028 would be hard to undo. Her reasoning ties the pace of agency rulemaking, which she estimates at 18 to 24 months, to the point at which later political changes could no longer easily reverse the results.
The argument arrives after Congress failed to pass its crypto market structure legislation, the Clarity Act, leaving the two agencies as the main authors of the rules that will govern digital assets in the United States. Smith's view is that the legislative setback does not leave the industry without a path forward, and that the agencies' calendar now matters more than the congressional one.
Smith's remarks are best read as a strategic argument about sequencing. She is not claiming that the rules will be perfect, only that the window for shaping lasting policy through agencies is finite, and that participants who wait for a better legislative moment may find that the opportunity has narrowed.
2. How long does agency rulemaking take?
Smith put the typical duration of rulemaking at the SEC and the CFTC at 18 to 24 months. Federal rules usually move through a sequence of steps: an agency drafts a proposal, publishes it for public comment, reviews the responses, and then issues a final rule. Each stage can take months, particularly when the subject is complex and the comments are numerous, as they tend to be for digital asset policy.
That timeline is the foundation of her argument. If rulemakings begin now and run for the length she describes, the final rules would arrive around the middle of 2028. Any delay in starting, or any slippage along the way, pushes the finish line later. She treats the calendar as a constraint that leaves little room for waiting.
The public comment stage deserves particular attention in this context. Agencies are generally required to consider the substantive comments they receive and to explain how the final rule responds to them. A rule that skips or mishandles that step can be vulnerable in court, which gives agencies a reason to be thorough even when they are under pressure to move quickly. The tension between thoroughness and speed is exactly what makes the 18-to-24-month estimate so central to Smith's timeline.
3. Why agency rules can be reversed more easily than laws
A statute passed by Congress and signed by the president can generally be changed only by another statute, which requires majorities in both chambers and a presidential signature or a veto override. An agency rule, by contrast, can be rewritten by a later administration through a new rulemaking, or struck down in court if challenged. This difference is why industry advocates have often preferred legislation for lasting certainty, and why the failure of the Clarity Act is significant.
Smith's contention is that rules completed early enough take on a durability close to that of law. The Congressional Review Act, a federal law that lets Congress overturn recently finalized agency rules, is part of the picture she draws. Rules issued before the relevant window, which she places around summer 2028, would fall outside its reach, in her analysis, and would therefore be far harder for a future Congress to remove.
She also points to a practical force that operates beyond the legal mechanics. Once institutions build products and compliance systems around a framework, removing that framework becomes costly and disruptive. In her telling, adoption entrenches rules because companies, investors and customers organize their activity around them.
Reversing a finalized rule through a later rulemaking is itself a lengthy process. The successor agency must propose the change, take comments, justify the reversal with a reasoned explanation and then finalize it, all of which takes time and invites legal challenges. This is why a rule that has been in effect for a while, and that companies have relied upon, tends to prove more stable than its formal legal status alone would suggest.
4. What is the Clarity Act and why did it stall?
The Clarity Act is the crypto market structure bill that was intended to divide oversight of digital assets between the SEC and the CFTC and to set out clearer definitions for the industry. It did not advance in the Senate, where legislation of this kind generally needs 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles. The bill's stall has left unresolved the question of which agency regulates which assets and under what conditions.
Smith described a revival of the bill before the November midterm elections, or in the lame-duck session that follows them, as unlikely but possible. She named two obstacles that she does not expect to be resolved by the end of the year: the crypto business tied to the president's family, and banks that are not fully on board with the legislation. Both issues have complicated negotiations by raising questions that cut across party lines.
For readers following the policy debate, the practical consequence is that the agencies have taken on a larger role by default. Without a statute that assigns responsibilities, the SEC and the CFTC rely on their existing authorities, interpretations and rulemaking powers to shape the rules.
Understanding the division of labor between the two agencies helps explain why the bill mattered. The SEC has traditionally overseen securities and the firms that trade them, while the CFTC oversees derivatives and commodity markets. Digital assets have sat awkwardly between those categories, and the market structure bill was meant to draw clearer lines. Without it, the boundaries depend on agency interpretation, which can shift as leadership changes.
5. The wins Smith says the industry already has
Smith argued that the industry is making progress in Washington despite the Clarity Act's failure. She cited two earlier achievements as evidence: the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law, and a change to an Internal Revenue Service rule on broker reporting. In her view, these outcomes show that the sector can win significant policy changes and that momentum can build from one success to the next.
She also suggested that the legislative fight itself produced a benefit. By drawing attention to unresolved questions and demonstrating that Congress could not deliver a comprehensive bill, the effort gave regulators political cover to act on their own. Agencies often prefer to move when there is a clear signal that lawmakers have not settled an issue, since it lowers the risk of being accused of overstepping.
The stablecoin law and the broker reporting change illustrate two different kinds of policy outcome. One created a regulatory framework for a specific product category, while the other adjusted how tax reporting obligations apply to participants in the sector. Smith's point is that both came from sustained engagement with policymakers, and that the same approach can work again at the agency level.
6. Who is Kristin Smith and what is the Solana Policy Institute?
Kristin Smith is the president of the Solana Policy Institute, a policy organization that advocates for the Solana (SOL) blockchain ecosystem and for public policies that support decentralized networks. Her remarks reflect the perspective of an industry advocate: she is making the case that the sector should focus its energy where decisions are actually being made, and that speed matters.
That context is important when weighing her argument. It is a forecast and a strategic recommendation, not a statement of settled law. Whether the rules finalized in the next two years prove as durable as she expects depends on court challenges, election outcomes and how future officials choose to use their powers.
Policy institutes of this type typically work by meeting with lawmakers and officials, submitting comments on proposed rules and publishing analysis. Their influence comes from supplying technical expertise and from representing the interests of builders and users who might otherwise lack a voice in rulemaking, which is why timing advice like Smith's is aimed at those who participate in the process.
7. The risk that durability cuts both ways
The logic of entrenchment applies to any rule, whether the industry likes it or not. If the SEC and the CFTC finalize frameworks that are less favorable to digital asset companies than advocates hope, those rules would be just as difficult to change. Speed, in other words, raises the stakes for the content of the rules, not only for their timing.
That makes the details of the coming rulemakings consequential. Questions such as how digital assets are classified, how trading platforms and intermediaries are registered, and what disclosure and custody standards apply will be settled in the text of final rules. Participants who engage during public comment periods have the best chance to influence those details before they harden.
8. What to watch next
The first thing to watch is whether the SEC and the CFTC open formal rulemakings on digital assets soon. If Smith's calendar is right, the timing of those proposals will largely determine whether final rules land before the window she describes. A slow start would make the summer 2028 target harder to meet.
A second marker is Congress. Any movement on a revived market structure bill before the midterms or during the lame-duck session would change the picture, even though Smith considers it unlikely. Together, agency action and congressional maneuvering will decide whether the United States ends up with a framework built mainly through rulemaking, through legislation, or through a combination of the two.
Stakeholders outside the industry have a role as well. Consumer advocates, banks, exchanges and investors each have interests in how the final text reads, and the comment process gives all of them a formal opportunity to be heard. The balance among those voices will shape whether the eventual rules are seen as durable settlements or as targets for revision by a future administration.