Can the Crypto Lobby Secure a Market Structure Bill in 2026?

The 2026 Market Structure Bill represents a pivotal opportunity to reshape the regulatory landscape for crypto assets and exchanges. Major crypto industry players and lobby groups are intensifying efforts to influence the bill, seeking clearer definitions and favorable regulatory treatment amid competing interests from traditional financial sectors and policymakers.

What happened

The 2026 Market Structure Bill is a legislative proposal intended to overhaul the regulatory framework governing financial markets, with significant potential implications for crypto assets and exchanges. In anticipation of this bill, major crypto industry stakeholders, including prominent ETF issuers such as Grayscale and Bitwise, have submitted official filings and comments to regulatory bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These filings advocate for clearer, more favorable regulatory definitions of crypto assets within the bill’s scope.

Concurrently, crypto lobbying groups such as the Blockchain Association have publicly emphasized the need for a regulatory framework that balances investor protection with fostering innovation. Their lobbying efforts have intensified, reflecting an industry-wide recognition of the bill’s critical importance in establishing long-term regulatory clarity.

Independent analysis from institutions like the Brookings Institution highlights that the bill could centralize regulatory authority over crypto under the SEC. This centralization may increase regulatory scrutiny but also provide clearer rules. Meanwhile, Coin Center’s report points to a dual dynamic: the crypto lobby is more organized and influential than in past years, yet it faces significant opposition from entrenched traditional financial interests and some policymakers concerned about crypto’s risks.

ETF issuers’ filings are interpreted as strategic moves to secure a regulatory framework that would facilitate broader institutional adoption of crypto products, signaling a shift toward mainstream financial integration. However, the final scope and authority of the bill remain undetermined, and lobbying disclosures offer only partial insight into the competing strategies at play.

Why this matters

The 2026 Market Structure Bill stands to redefine the regulatory architecture for crypto markets, which could have lasting effects on innovation, investor protection, and market participation. Centralizing regulatory authority under the SEC, as suggested by Brookings Institution analysis, could standardize oversight and enhance investor safeguards. This may benefit market integrity but could also impose regulatory burdens, particularly on smaller crypto startups, potentially influencing the pace and nature of innovation.

The heightened lobbying activity from the crypto sector reflects a broader shift toward seeking legitimacy and integration within the traditional financial system. Clearer regulatory definitions and frameworks could lower uncertainty for institutional investors, potentially accelerating crypto adoption. Conversely, resistance from traditional financial interests and political caution may limit the scope of crypto-friendly provisions, preserving regulatory ambiguity or imposing stricter controls.

Moreover, the bill’s treatment of emerging technologies such as decentralized finance (DeFi) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) could shape the trajectory of these rapidly evolving sectors. The outcome will influence whether regulatory frameworks support innovation ecosystems or constrain them under existing paradigms.

What remains unclear

Despite the confirmed lobbying efforts and institutional analyses, several critical questions remain unanswered. The precise language of the 2026 Market Structure Bill, including how it will explicitly define crypto assets and exchanges, is not publicly available. It is unclear under which regulatory authority crypto will ultimately fall—whether solely the SEC or shared with other agencies.

The interplay between competing lobbying forces—crypto advocates versus traditional financial institutions—has not been fully detailed, leaving the potential compromises or conflicts within the bill’s provisions uncertain. Additionally, specific investor protection mechanisms and their impact on innovation and market entry for new crypto firms have yet to be articulated.

There is also no clear indication of how the bill will address emerging technologies like DeFi and NFTs, which present unique regulatory challenges. Finally, the prospects for bipartisan political support or opposition, which could decisively influence the bill’s passage and final form, remain fluid and difficult to predict.

What to watch next

The release of any draft or proposed language of the 2026 Market Structure Bill that clarifies crypto-specific provisions and regulatory authority.
Further lobbying disclosures and regulatory filings from crypto industry groups and traditional financial sector stakeholders to gauge evolving influence dynamics.
Statements or hearings from key policymakers that might signal political alignment or opposition regarding crypto regulation within the bill.
Regulatory responses from the SEC and other agencies regarding submitted comments and filings, particularly those from ETF issuers like Grayscale and Bitwise.
Developments on how emerging crypto technologies such as DeFi protocols and NFTs are being considered within the bill’s framework.

The 2026 Market Structure Bill represents a critical juncture for crypto regulation, caught between an increasingly organized crypto lobby seeking clarity and accommodation, and entrenched traditional interests wary of crypto’s risks. While lobbying intensity underscores the bill’s importance, key details remain unresolved. How lawmakers balance investor protection, innovation, and market integrity will determine the future regulatory landscape for crypto assets in the United States.

Source: https://decrypt.co/352161/crypto-crystal-ball-2026-will-crypto-lose-fight-market-structure-bill. This article is based on verified research material available at the time of writing. Where information is limited or unavailable, this is stated explicitly.