<p>作者：Daniel Li</p>
<p>2026 年年初，美國加密行業迎來了一個關鍵的轉折點——數字資產市場的清晰法案在參議院審查階段被延遲。這本應是一個旨在 “結束監管混亂” 的系統性項目，但意外地引發了行業內部最尖鋭的分歧。2026 年，美國股市中兩個最具代表性的加密貨幣交易所——Coinbase 和 Robinhood——異常地站在了對立面：前者公開反對該法案的當前版本，而後者則呼籲儘快通過立法。從表面上看，這似乎是對監管態度的辯論；但從更深層次來看，它代表了兩種商業模式、兩條增長路徑和兩種對加密未來的願景之間的直接衝突。對於普通的加密投資者來説，這不僅關乎政策方向，還關乎你將在哪裏交易、如何賺錢、承受什麼風險，以及加密資產是否會成為 “下一代金融基礎設施” 或僅僅是 “普通投資類別”。第一部分：為什麼一項法案會影響整個加密市場的神經？十多年來，美國的加密投資者生活在一種特殊的制度環境中：他們可以購買幣、交易和套利，但從未能確認自己所處的市場是否 “屬於合法金融體系”。同一種代幣可能被美國證券交易委員會（SEC）視為證券，但被商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）視為商品。不同州有不同的許可要求；同一業務可以在紐約運營，但可能在加利福尼亞被關閉。公司往往在收到調查信、律師函或甚至罰款後才意識到自己已經越界。市場不是由規則管理的，而是由訴訟驅動的。對於普通投資者來説，這種監管框架的模糊性並不是一個抽象的問題，而是日常風險的一部分：某個代幣會被退市嗎？某個平台會突然凍結其功能嗎？穩定幣收益會被暫停嗎？這些不是市場波動，而是政策不確定性直接帶來的 “監管風險”。在這種背景下，CLARITY 法案應運而生。它的初衷並不複雜，也不僅僅是 “加強監管”，而是試圖解決一個長期未解的問題：誰應該監管加密資產，以及以什麼邏輯？該法案計劃在聯邦層面將數字資產分為三類：證券、商品和實用工具。它還將重新定義 SEC 和 CFTC 之間的權力邊界，建立統一的國家合規框架，併為穩定幣、去中心化金融（DeFi）和代幣化資產等新形式提供明確的法律定義。換句話説，它希望結束 “先發展、再起訴、再補充規則” 的灰色秩序。</p>
<p>2025 年年底，該法案在眾議院通過了初步版本；2026 年文本=&#34;&#34; �3e21Robinhood 文本=&#34;&#34; �3e 資金賬户的規模已達到約 2600-2700 萬，而那些希望儘快獲得統一、明確和可複製的國家規則的人，將把加密交易轉變為一種標準化和可擴展的基本功能，就像股票交易一樣。</p>
<p>因此，CLARITY 法案不僅僅是一項監管法案，更是決定商業模式成敗的 “制度槓桿”。</p>
<p>如果監管收緊，穩定幣收益將受到限制，去中心化金融（DeFi）將收縮，代幣將完全證券化，從而顯著壓縮 Coinbase 的長期戰略空間。相反，如果監管集中在明確邊界、降低跨州合規成本和鼓勵採用標準化金融產品上，Robinhood 的用户擴展速度和業務複製能力將顯著增強。然而，需要注意的是，儘管 Coinbase 和 Robinhood 在具體條款上存在顯著差異，但在更高層面上，它們的目標並不矛盾：它們都希望通過立法結束長期存在的監管灰色地帶，使加密資產的法律屬性、業務邊界和合規責任變得清晰可預測。對於 Coinbase 而言，這意味着機構客户和長期資本可以更安心地進入市場；對於 Robinhood 而言，這意味着加密交易可以標準化並擴大到更廣泛的零售受眾，就像股票一樣。正是因為它們的不同路徑和利益結構，這兩家公司在同一法案上形成了公開對抗——它們爭奪的不是短期股價波動，而是未來美國加密市場中最核心的資產：數千萬普通投資者的資金入場點，以及圍繞這一入場點構建的金融服務生態系統。這場競爭的最終結果不僅將決定平台的勝負，還將深刻改變普通投資者在加密市場中的角色和生活方式。第三部分：普通加密投資者在監管轉折點後將面臨什麼？圍繞 CLARITY 法案的權力鬥爭，雖然表面上是國會與公司高管之間的較量，但最終受益的是普通投資者。一旦監管框架實施，它不僅會改變平台的業務邊界，還會重塑個人的投資方式、回報結構和風險特徵。最明顯的變化是市場將從 “自由增長” 轉向 “規則導向選擇”。在過去十年左右，加密市場的核心特徵是低門檻、項目眾多和快速發展：任何團隊都可以發行代幣，任何平台都可以上市交易。投資者面臨的是一個高度開放但同樣混亂的市場。CLARITY 法案要求資產明確界定其屬性，並接受相應的信息披露和註冊規定。這意味着許多中小型項目將逐漸退出主流平台，減少可供投資者選擇的資產數量，但整體透明度和可驗證性將提高。其實際結果是龐氏騙局和 “空氣幣” 生存的空間被壓縮，但 “100 倍幣” 和 “1000 倍幣” 的概率也在下降。市場將變得更加可預測，不太可能提供鉅額利潤的機會。第二個變化是加密賬户性質的根本轉變。在過去，許多投資者將加密賬户視為傳統金融體系之外的 “第二賬户”：自由轉賬、税務含糊和最低的記錄保存。然而，隨着監管的明確，加密賬户將越來越像證券賬户：交易記錄將自動生成，税務申報將同步，資金流動將可追溯，賬户將隨時接受合規審查。Coinbase 已與多個司法管轄區的税務系統整合，Robinhood 也將加密賬户納入其證券賬户系統。對於投資者而言，這意味着心態的必要轉變：加密資產不再被視為 “監管框架外的灰色資產”，而是正式納入監管網絡。第三個變化發生在收益結構本身。在過去，大多數零售投資者的盈利邏輯歸結為一句話：低買高賣。然而，在更明確的監管環境中，加密市場的金融屬性將繼續增強，穩定幣利息、質押收益、平台財富管理和結構化產品將逐漸成為重要組成部分。Coinbase 正在增加對 USDC 的投資，並測試收益賬户。這意味着加密投資將從 “押注方向” 轉向 “資產管理”。收益曲線將更加平滑，波動性將降低，但快速致富的回報將越來越稀缺。同時，風險不會消失，只會改變形式。項目崩潰和交易所挪用資金的情況可能會減少，但監管風險將成為新的變量：代幣可能會突然被歸類為證券並暫停交易，某些產品可能因合規問題被下架，賬户可能在審查中被凍結，跨平台轉賬可能受到限制。這些風險不再源於項目本身，而是源於規則的調整和執行。投資者需要關注的不僅僅是股票圖表和敍述；他們還需要考慮政策趨勢、監管聲明和平台公告。最終，一個不可避免的趨勢是，加密投資正變得越來越像傳統金融，越來越 “無聊”。它將逐漸成為資產配置中的標準選項，而不是創造神話的機器。Robinhood 希望成為一種通用投資工具，而 Coinbase 希望成為下一代金融基礎設施的核心組成部分。然而，這兩條路徑最終會匯聚——加密資產最終將融入主流系統。</p>

<p>美國加密貨幣行業正面臨一個關鍵時刻，因為數字資產市場的《明確法案》被推遲，導致主要交易所 Coinbase 和 Robinhood 之間出現分歧。Coinbase 反對該法案，而 Robinhood 則倡導其迅速通過。這一衝突反映了更深層次的商業模式差異和影響普通投資者的監管擔憂。《明確法案》旨在澄清加密資產的監管框架，可能將交易轉變為類似於股票交易的標準化功能。其結果將影響美國加密市場的未來以及零售投資者的進入點</p>

<p>Author: Daniel Li</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Daniel Li</p>
</div><p>2026At the beginning of the year, the US crypto industry ushered in a key turning point—the Clarity Act for Digital Asset Markets was delayed during the Senate review stage. This was supposed to be a systemic project to &#34;end regulatory chaos,&#34; but unexpectedly it ignited the sharpest divisions within the industry.2026 Two of the most representative cryptocurrency exchanges in the US stock market—Coinbase and Robinhood—have unusually taken opposing sides: the former publicly opposes the current version of the bill, while the latter calls for the legislation to be passed as soon as possible. On the surface, this appears to be a debate over regulatory attitudes; but at a deeper level, it represents a direct clash between two business models, two growth paths, and two visions of the future of crypto. For ordinary crypto investors, this is not only about policy direction, but also about where you will trade, how you will make money, what risks you will bear, and whether crypto assets will become the &#34;next-generation financial infrastructure&#34; or just an &#34;ordinary investment category.&#34; Part One: Why Does a Bill Affect the Nerves of the Entire Crypto Market? For over a decade, US crypto investors have lived in a peculiar institutional situation: they can buy coins, trade, and arbitrage, but they have never been able to confirm whether the market they are in is &#34;part of the legitimate financial system.&#34; The same token might be considered a security by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but a commodity by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Different states have different licensing requirements; the same business can operate in New York but might be shut down in California. Companies often only realize they've crossed a line after receiving investigation letters, lawyer's letters, or even fines. The market isn't governed by rules, but driven by litigation. For ordinary investors, this ambiguity in the regulatory framework is not an abstract issue, but rather part of everyday risks: Will a certain token be delisted? Will a certain platform suddenly freeze its functions? Will stablecoin yields be suspended? These are not market fluctuations, but rather &#34;regulatory risks&#34; directly brought about by policy uncertainty. The CLARITY Act was proposed against this backdrop. Its initial intention is not complicated, nor is it simply to &#34;strengthen regulation,&#34; but rather to attempt to solve a long-standing unresolved issue: who should regulate crypto assets, and by what logic? The bill plans to classify digital assets into three categories at the federal level: security, commodity, and utility. It will also redefine the authority boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC, establish a unified national compliance framework for trading platforms, and provide clear legal definitions for new forms such as stablecoins, DeFi, and tokenized assets. In other words, it wants to end the gray order of &#34;develop first, then sue, then supplement the rules&#34;.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>2026 年年初，美國加密行業迎來了一個關鍵的轉折點——數字資產市場的清晰法案在參議院審查階段被延遲。這本應是一個旨在 “結束監管混亂” 的系統性項目，但意外地引發了行業內部最尖鋭的分歧。2026 年，美國股市中兩個最具代表性的加密貨幣交易所——Coinbase 和 Robinhood——異常地站在了對立面：前者公開反對該法案的當前版本，而後者則呼籲儘快通過立法。從表面上看，這似乎是對監管態度的辯論；但從更深層次來看，它代表了兩種商業模式、兩條增長路徑和兩種對加密未來的願景之間的直接衝突。對於普通的加密投資者來説，這不僅關乎政策方向，還關乎你將在哪裏交易、如何賺錢、承受什麼風險，以及加密資產是否會成為 “下一代金融基礎設施” 或僅僅是 “普通投資類別”。第一部分：為什麼一項法案會影響整個加密市場的神經？十多年來，美國的加密投資者生活在一種特殊的制度環境中：他們可以購買幣、交易和套利，但從未能確認自己所處的市場是否 “屬於合法金融體系”。同一種代幣可能被美國證券交易委員會（SEC）視為證券，但被商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）視為商品。不同州有不同的許可要求；同一業務可以在紐約運營，但可能在加利福尼亞被關閉。公司往往在收到調查信、律師函或甚至罰款後才意識到自己已經越界。市場不是由規則管理的，而是由訴訟驅動的。對於普通投資者來説，這種監管框架的模糊性並不是一個抽象的問題，而是日常風險的一部分：某個代幣會被退市嗎？某個平台會突然凍結其功能嗎？穩定幣收益會被暫停嗎？這些不是市場波動，而是政策不確定性直接帶來的 “監管風險”。在這種背景下，CLARITY 法案應運而生。它的初衷並不複雜，也不僅僅是 “加強監管”，而是試圖解決一個長期未解的問題：誰應該監管加密資產，以及以什麼邏輯？該法案計劃在聯邦層面將數字資產分為三類：證券、商品和實用工具。它還將重新定義 SEC 和 CFTC 之間的權力邊界，建立統一的國家合規框架，併為穩定幣、去中心化金融（DeFi）和代幣化資產等新形式提供明確的法律定義。換句話説，它希望結束 “先發展、再起訴、再補充規則” 的灰色秩序。</p>
</div><p>2025At the end of the year, the bill has passed a preliminary version in the House of Representatives; 2026 text=&#34;&#34;&gt;21Robinhood text=&#34;&#34;&gt;The size of funded accounts has reached approximately2600–2700Ten thousand, andthose who prefer to obtain unified, clear, and replicable national rules as soon as possible will transform crypto trading into a standardized and scalable basic function, just like stock trading.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>2025 年年底，該法案在眾議院通過了初步版本；2026 年文本=&#34;&#34; �3e21Robinhood 文本=&#34;&#34; �3e 資金賬户的規模已達到約 2600-2700 萬，而那些希望儘快獲得統一、明確和可複製的國家規則的人，將把加密交易轉變為一種標準化和可擴展的基本功能，就像股票交易一樣。</p>
</div><p>Therefore,CLARITY Actis not just a regulatory act, but also an &#34;institutional lever&#34; that determines the success or failure of a business model.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>因此，CLARITY 法案不僅僅是一項監管法案，更是決定商業模式成敗的 “制度槓桿”。</p>
</div><p>If regulations tighten, stablecoin yields will be limited, DeFi will contract, and tokens will be fully securitized, significantly compressing Coinbase's long-term strategic space. Conversely, if regulations focus on clarifying boundaries, reducing cross-state compliance costs, and encouraging the adoption of standardized financial products, Robinhood's user expansion speed and business replication capabilities will be significantly amplified. However, it should be noted that although Coinbase and Robinhood have significant differences in their specific terms, at a higher level, their goals are not contradictory: they both hope to end the long-standing regulatory gray area through legislation, making the legal attributes, business boundaries, and compliance responsibilities of crypto assets clear and predictable. For Coinbase, this means institutional clients and long-term capital can enter the market with greater peace of mind; for Robinhood, it means that crypto trading can be standardized and scaled up to a wider retail audience, just like stocks. It is precisely because of their different paths and benefit structures that the two companies have formed a public confrontation over the same bill—they are not vying for short-term stock price fluctuations, but for the most core asset in the future US crypto market: the entry point for funds from tens of millions of ordinary investors, and the financial service ecosystem built around this entry point. The final outcome of this competition will not only determine the winner and loser of the platforms, but will also profoundly change the role and way of life of ordinary investors in the crypto market. Part Three: What Will Ordinary Crypto Investors Face After the Regulatory Turning Point? The power struggle surrounding the CLARITY bill, while seemingly between Congress and company executives, ultimately benefits ordinary investors. Once the regulatory framework is implemented, it will not only change the business boundaries of platforms but also reshape individual investment methods, return structures, and risk profiles. The most obvious change is that the market will shift from &#34;free growth&#34; to &#34;rule-based selection.&#34; For the past decade or so, the core characteristics of the crypto market have been low barriers to entry, numerous projects, and rapid pace: any team could issue a token, and any platform could list it for trading. Investors faced a highly open, but equally chaotic, market. The CLARITY bill requires assets to clearly define their attributes and accept corresponding information disclosure and registration regulations. This means that many small and medium-sized projects will gradually exit mainstream platforms, reducing the number of assets available to investors, but increasing overall transparency and verifiability. The practical result of this is that the space for Ponzi schemes and &#34;air coins&#34; to survive is being compressed, but the probability of &#34;100x coins&#34; and &#34;1000x coins&#34; is also decreasing. The market will become more predictable and less likely to offer opportunities for huge profits. The second change is a fundamental shift in the nature of crypto accounts. In the past, many investors viewed crypto accounts as a &#34;second account&#34; outside the traditional financial system: free transfers, ambiguous tax implications, and minimal record-keeping. However, with clearer regulations, crypto accounts will increasingly resemble securities accounts: transaction records will be automatically generated, tax declarations will be synchronized, fund flows will be traceable, and accounts will be subject to compliance reviews at any time. Coinbase has integrated with tax systems in multiple jurisdictions, and Robinhood is also incorporating crypto accounts into its securities account system. For investors, this means a necessary shift in mindset: crypto assets are no longer considered &#34;gray assets outside the regulatory framework,&#34; but are now formally incorporated into the regulatory network. The third change occurs in the revenue structure itself. In the past, most retail investors' profit logic boiled down to one sentence: buy low and sell high. However, in a more clearly defined regulatory environment, the financial attributes of the crypto market will continue to strengthen, and stablecoin interest, staking yields, platform wealth management, and structured products will gradually become important components. Coinbase is increasing its stake in USDC and USDC, and is also testing yield accounts. This means that crypto investment will shift from &#34;betting on direction&#34; to &#34;managing assets.&#34; Yield curves will be smoother, volatility will decrease, but get-rich-quick returns will become increasingly scarce. Meanwhile, risks will not disappear, only change form. Project collapses and exchange misappropriation of funds may decrease, but regulatory risks will become new variables: tokens may be suddenly classified as securities and trading suspended, certain products may be delisted due to compliance issues, accounts may be frozen under scrutiny, and cross-platform transfers may be restricted. These risks no longer stem from the projects themselves, but from the adjustment and enforcement of rules. Investors need to pay attention to more than just stock charts and narratives; they also need to consider policy trends, regulatory statements, and platform announcements. Ultimately, an unavoidable trend is that crypto investing is becoming increasingly like traditional finance, and increasingly &#34;boring.&#34; It will gradually become a standard option in asset allocation, rather than a machine for creating myths. Robinhood hopes to become a universal investment tool, while Coinbase hopes it will become a core component of the next generation of financial infrastructure. However, both paths ultimately converge—crypto assets will eventually be integrated into the mainstream system.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果監管收緊，穩定幣收益將受到限制，去中心化金融（DeFi）將收縮，代幣將完全證券化，從而顯著壓縮 Coinbase 的長期戰略空間。相反，如果監管集中在明確邊界、降低跨州合規成本和鼓勵採用標準化金融產品上，Robinhood 的用户擴展速度和業務複製能力將顯著增強。然而，需要注意的是，儘管 Coinbase 和 Robinhood 在具體條款上存在顯著差異，但在更高層面上，它們的目標並不矛盾：它們都希望通過立法結束長期存在的監管灰色地帶，使加密資產的法律屬性、業務邊界和合規責任變得清晰可預測。對於 Coinbase 而言，這意味着機構客户和長期資本可以更安心地進入市場；對於 Robinhood 而言，這意味着加密交易可以標準化並擴大到更廣泛的零售受眾，就像股票一樣。正是因為它們的不同路徑和利益結構，這兩家公司在同一法案上形成了公開對抗——它們爭奪的不是短期股價波動，而是未來美國加密市場中最核心的資產：數千萬普通投資者的資金入場點，以及圍繞這一入場點構建的金融服務生態系統。這場競爭的最終結果不僅將決定平台的勝負，還將深刻改變普通投資者在加密市場中的角色和生活方式。第三部分：普通加密投資者在監管轉折點後將面臨什麼？圍繞 CLARITY 法案的權力鬥爭，雖然表面上是國會與公司高管之間的較量，但最終受益的是普通投資者。一旦監管框架實施，它不僅會改變平台的業務邊界，還會重塑個人的投資方式、回報結構和風險特徵。最明顯的變化是市場將從 “自由增長” 轉向 “規則導向選擇”。在過去十年左右，加密市場的核心特徵是低門檻、項目眾多和快速發展：任何團隊都可以發行代幣，任何平台都可以上市交易。投資者面臨的是一個高度開放但同樣混亂的市場。CLARITY 法案要求資產明確界定其屬性，並接受相應的信息披露和註冊規定。這意味着許多中小型項目將逐漸退出主流平台，減少可供投資者選擇的資產數量，但整體透明度和可驗證性將提高。其實際結果是龐氏騙局和 “空氣幣” 生存的空間被壓縮，但 “100 倍幣” 和 “1000 倍幣” 的概率也在下降。市場將變得更加可預測，不太可能提供鉅額利潤的機會。第二個變化是加密賬户性質的根本轉變。在過去，許多投資者將加密賬户視為傳統金融體系之外的 “第二賬户”：自由轉賬、税務含糊和最低的記錄保存。然而，隨着監管的明確，加密賬户將越來越像證券賬户：交易記錄將自動生成，税務申報將同步，資金流動將可追溯，賬户將隨時接受合規審查。Coinbase 已與多個司法管轄區的税務系統整合，Robinhood 也將加密賬户納入其證券賬户系統。對於投資者而言，這意味着心態的必要轉變：加密資產不再被視為 “監管框架外的灰色資產”，而是正式納入監管網絡。第三個變化發生在收益結構本身。在過去，大多數零售投資者的盈利邏輯歸結為一句話：低買高賣。然而，在更明確的監管環境中，加密市場的金融屬性將繼續增強，穩定幣利息、質押收益、平台財富管理和結構化產品將逐漸成為重要組成部分。Coinbase 正在增加對 USDC 的投資，並測試收益賬户。這意味着加密投資將從 “押注方向” 轉向 “資產管理”。收益曲線將更加平滑，波動性將降低，但快速致富的回報將越來越稀缺。同時，風險不會消失，只會改變形式。項目崩潰和交易所挪用資金的情況可能會減少，但監管風險將成為新的變量：代幣可能會突然被歸類為證券並暫停交易，某些產品可能因合規問題被下架，賬户可能在審查中被凍結，跨平台轉賬可能受到限制。這些風險不再源於項目本身，而是源於規則的調整和執行。投資者需要關注的不僅僅是股票圖表和敍述；他們還需要考慮政策趨勢、監管聲明和平台公告。最終，一個不可避免的趨勢是，加密投資正變得越來越像傳統金融，越來越 “無聊”。它將逐漸成為資產配置中的標準選項，而不是創造神話的機器。Robinhood 希望成為一種通用投資工具，而 Coinbase 希望成為下一代金融基礎設施的核心組成部分。然而，這兩條路徑最終會匯聚——加密資產最終將融入主流系統。</p>
</div>

The Game at the Regulatory Crossroads: The Covert Battle Between Robinhood and Coinbase

- 美國加密行業面臨監管轉折點，Clarity 法案在參議院審查階段延遲。  
- Coinbase 和 Robinhood 在立法態度上意見相左，反映出兩種商業模式衝突。  
- 法案通過後，平台和投資者的交易方式、投資收益及風險狀況將顯著改變。

監管十字路口的博弈：Robinhood 與 Coinbase 之間的隱秘較量