Bankers trying to kill Clarity should remember that incumbent media companies failed to halt the Internet’s upheaval of their industry. So, if you care about American leadership, then why not write the laws governing this transformation here and now, rather than cede that position to some other country keen to lead in global finance.
For years, regulatory ambiguity has functioned as an unlikely moat around the crypto industry. Startups and offshore firms can tolerate legal and regulatory risks that heavily regulated financial institutions cannot. Those risks have kept many of the world’s largest financial companies on the sidelines.
Clarity would fill the moat.
With clear rules, incumbents could wield their formidable advantages: trillions of dollars of capital, hundreds of millions of customer relationships, global distribution, sophisticated risk management, trusted brands, and decades of regulatory experience.
That should terrify crypto companies far more than it terrifies banks.
Critics portray Clarity as deregulation or, worse, a giveaway to the crypto industry. They have it backwards. Clear rules would expose crypto companies to the full force of competition from some of the most powerful financial institutions in the world.
Such competition is exactly what lawmakers should want.
The history of financial innovation is not a story of new technologies’ destroying incumbents. After all, banking has been transformed for the better by technologies from the telegraph to the internet. In each case, forward-looking institutions used such inventions to reach new customers, create new products, and cultivate new markets.
