2026-01-17 15:21:35

a16z Crypto Managing Partner Dixon recently spoke out in support of advancing the legislation of the "CLARITY Act." He emphasized that crypto builders urgently need a clear regulatory framework—simply put, clear "rules of the game."

This view actually reflects the current state of the industry. Over the past five years, whether it’s the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Trump administration, there has been in-depth dialogue with the crypto community. The goal of cooperation is very clear: to protect the core values of decentralization while providing developers and innovators with enough room for support and growth.

The "CLARITY Act" essentially aims to solve this problem—allowing builders to move forward without stumbling in a vague regulatory environment, with rules to follow and evidence to rely on. This is indeed of great significance in promoting the mature development of the entire industry.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropFatigue

· 2h ago

Finally, someone has spoken out. These past few years have been a blind scramble in the dark... If clarity can really come through, then us builders can finally breathe a sigh of relief.

View OriginalReply0

HalfPositionRunner

· 2h ago

The words are correct, but how exactly should the "game rules" be set to be clear? It seems everyone has their own opinion. Honestly, after all this hype about the regulatory framework, has it really been implemented? Decentralization and providing support space sound contradictory... Will this time truly advance, or will we have to wait another five years?

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 2h ago

It's finally happening, someone in Washington is finally speaking up for us. These past couple of years of secretive development have been really frustrating. One department says no, another agency keeps messing with you. Now there's a clear framework, which is good for everyone. Dixon finally dares to openly take a side; the power of a16z is not to be underestimated. It should have been like this a long time ago—rather than guessing, it's better to set clear rules. But honestly, the real question is, when will it actually be implemented? Does anyone know the chances of this bill passing? Let's wait until next year; after all, we’re not in a rush.

View OriginalReply0

ProbablyNothing

· 2h ago

Finally, someone dares to say it openly: regulation must be transparent. Otherwise, constantly being on edge while building—who can handle that? --- Dixon didn't beat around the bush this time; the clarity framework is indeed a necessity, a hundred times better than mindless FUD. --- Basically, it's about wanting rules and not wanting to be caught off guard later—understood. --- That's what is said, but the actual implementation is another matter... But at least the direction is correct. --- Wait, is this really happening or just another round of empty talk? --- Decentralization and regulatory frameworks—how to balance these two is also a skill. --- Compared to blindly guessing, having rules is indeed more reassuring, and builders can also feel more at ease.

View OriginalReply0