Observations on Crypto Compliance Regulation

An observation, not necessarily correct, just a personal record:

Recently, both Cathie Wood and Tom Lee have publicly spoken out, explaining the reasons for the current downturn in Crypto. Both attributed the cause to the technical issues at exchanges on 10.10, which resulted in a $28 billion liquidity loss, and market sentiment is still recovering.

When influential analysts simultaneously use the same rhetoric to discuss the reasons, it means they are trying to establish a certain consensus and narrative—that 'crypto liquidity risks stem from technical issues at offshore exchanges.' When users, the industry, and regulators all align on this logic, it points to a new regulatory narrative:

Onshore compliant exchanges, operating by the book, are good and safe.
Offshore high-leverage platforms, with lax management, are bad and the source of risk.

This is positive for U.S. domestic exchanges and the compliance narrative. Players like Coinbase, DAT, and regulated ETFs are defined as 'stable and trustworthy' within this narrative. If something goes wrong in the future, funds will instinctively flow here.

It also paves the way for future regulatory tightening. If the public has already accepted the psychological anchor that 'offshore equals risk,' then when the government later strengthens sanctions on offshore platforms, cuts off fiat channels, or demands compliance disclosures, the resistance will be much smaller. By then, everyone will see it as protecting the market rather than stifling innovation.