rewrite this title Crypto Crystal Ball 2026: Will Crypto Lose the Fight for a Market Structure Bill? – Decrypt

This year proved to be a surreal, defining, and triumphant turning point for a crypto industry that looked to be on life support barely two years ago. But many of the battles waged by the industry in the last 12 months are not over.

In fact, some are just heating up: 2026 could turn out even more consequential for crypto, on topics ranging from regulation to market movements. Here’s a peek at some key questions experts say could define the next year for crypto—and what their answers could mean for you. 

We’ll start off with the question that’s been driving everyone in crypto policy nuts for months: Will the industry be able to pass its coveted market structure bill next year, or not?



Though crypto leaders notched more regulatory victories this year than almost anyone could have predicted, the crown jewel of their regulatory wishlist remains elusive. A crypto market structure bill would formally—and permanently—legalize the vast majority of token issuers and intermediaries in the United States, finally handing the industry the legitimacy it has long craved. 

But in recent months, a certain pessimism has overtaken D.C.’s crypto lobby regarding the bill’s chances of passage. Numerous well-connected insiders told Decrypt they feel that—despite positive public signals—the legislation is far too complicated, and touches on too many politically sensitive issues, to pass the Senate before Congress effectively grinds to a halt this spring in anticipation of the 2026 midterms. 

In an ironic twist, some of these policy leaders feel that recent aggressively pro-crypto moves from regulators like the SEC and CFTC have drained the battle for market structure of urgency.

Increasingly, industry stakeholders are arguing that with all these favorable shifts in federal regulation, there is less of a need to legislate immediately—or to pass a bill that isn’t perfect. 

“As soon as we get a token safe harbor, it’s over for market structure,” one crypto policy leader told Decrypt, referencing an SEC exemption for crypto projects expected to roll out in January.

Others are now openly questioning whether a market structure bill is really so crucial at this moment. One top industry insider referred to their colleagues’ fixation on getting the bill passed in 2026 as “market structure derangement syndrome.”

Regulators are notching key victories for the industry that will be difficult to unravel under future administrations, the source said, and it’s worth taking the time to get market structure right, even if that’s a few years down the road.

Meanwhile, said regulators are going full steam ahead with rewriting the crypto rulebook, while arguing they don’t need to wait for Congress to act.

When asked if the SEC needs any additional authority from a new crypto law to regulate the industry as it wishes, the agency’s chair, Paul Atkins, seemed doubtful.

“We have pretty broad exemptive authority, and it’s good that Congress gave it to us,” Atkins told Decrypt, referencing the 1933 Securities Act and 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which established the SEC during the New Deal. 

“That gives us a really firm foundation,” Atkins said.

But other crypto policy insiders are worried. They say that if they fail to pass a market structure bill in 2026, the industry will not only be exposing itself to future political volatility, but also wasting a crucial opportunity to onboard millions of crypto-skeptical investors—who still view the sector as illegitimate.

“I can’t overstate how important I think it is,” one senior crypto policy leader told Decrypt of passing market structure legislation in 2026—a goal they still think is highly attainable. 

The policy leader emphasized the degree to which the bill could shift the current “general public perception” of crypto as a shady casino.

“Can the current administration do a ton to alleviate those issues? Yes, it can,” the policy leader said. “But can it do as good of a job as legislation? Absolutely not.”