<\/p>\n
The \u201cGensler winter\u201d and its aftermath is upon us, writes Stefan Muehlbauer, CertiK Head of U.S. Government Affairs, in a viral new op-ed.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, crypto firms faced a campaign of \u201cregulation by enforcement,\u201d marked by high\u2011profile lawsuits<\/a> and an intentional refusal to provide clear compliance pathways. <\/p>\n This era, Muehlbauer argues, was defined by a calculated ambiguity that stifled domestic innovation, with many warning<\/a> that the industry\u2019s brightest minds and most significant capital would move to offshore jurisdictions. While the present atmosphere feels decidedly more optimistic, it is essential to note how this stability is tethered to political appointments rather than established law<\/p>\n Gensler\u2019s SEC brought cases against major platforms including Binance, Coinbase and Ripple, helping to define what many in the industry saw as the \u201cdark years\u201d of US crypto policy. That period fueled fears that \u201cthe industry\u2019s brightest minds and most significant capital would move to offshore jurisdictions,\u201d Muehlbauer notes, capturing the sense of domestic innovation being deliberately chilled.<\/p>\n The current easing began almost immediately after Donald Trump returned to the White House. In his first week back in office, Trump signed an executive order titled \u201cStrengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology,\u201d pledging to \u201csupport the responsible growth and use of digital assets, blockchain technology, and related technologies across all sectors of the economy.\u201d<\/p>\n Today with the industry currently enjoying a more friendly approach from Washington, starting with President Trump\u2019s signing<\/a> of an executive order supporting digital assets in his first week in office. A feat bolstered <\/a>by the SEC rescinding SAB 121, the SEC Commissioner issuing a statement proposing a four-part framework to categorize crypto assets, which required companies holding crypto assets to register them as liabilities, the dismissal of enforcement actions against crypto firms, including Coinbase, Kraken, and Ripple, and the appointment of Paul Atkins, a veteran crypto advocate, as SEC Chair.<\/p>\n Without formal legislative intervention, the crypto industry remains exactly one election cycle away from a return to the more hostile environment of the past. A new election cycle and a change from the current administration could usher in a new era of stringent oversight, effectively undoing the progress made in establishing the United States as a hub for financial technology. The threat may not feel immediate in the short term, but there is a coalition of politicians who view the legislative progress in digital assets as risking a financial meltdown<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n That order explicitly revoked Joe Biden\u2019s 2022 digital asset directive and banned federal agencies from \u201cundertaking any action to establish, issue, or promote CBDCs\u201d in the United States or abroad. At the same time, it set up a President\u2019s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets to push a unified, \u201ctechnology\u2011neutral\u201d regulatory framework within 120 days.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The SEC followed that political signal with a sharp pivot of its own. In 2025 the Commission dropped or resolved key cases against Coinbase, Binance, Kraken, Consensys and Ripple \u2014 all but one without financial penalties \u2014 and rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, a move that removed a major balance\u2011sheet obstacle to banks offering crypto custody.<\/p>\n Under Chairman Paul Atkins, described by Muehlbauer as \u201ca veteran crypto advocate,\u201d the SEC also issued a four\u2011part taxonomy that split crypto assets into new regulatory buckets and signaled that US dollar\u2011backed stablecoins and memecoins would not be treated as securities. A Cornerstone Research report found the SEC initiated only 13 crypto\u2011related actions in 2025, a roughly 60 percent decline from 33 in 2024, underscoring how much enforcement has cooled.<\/p>\nExecutive pivots are not a regulatory foundation<\/h2>\n