Donald Trump’s return to the presidency of the United States has reignited the debate on the
future of crypto assets in one of the world’s largest economies. In a speech increasingly
aligned with the sector’s demands, Trump has repositioned himself as a pro-crypto figure,
signaling a break from the previous regulatory model and promising to foster a more open
environment for financial innovation.
However, one hundred days after taking office, the scenario is more complex than his
campaign rhetoric suggested. Strategic political appointments, announcements involving
artificial intelligence, symbolic events, and institutional decisions form a landscape that
blends enthusiasm with caution. While the sector celebrates some advances, the geopolitical
and economic context imposes significant challenges to the consolidation of a truly favorable
environment for the crypto economy.
What was promised and what has been delivered so far
Since the beginning of his new term, Donald Trump has adopted an emphatically pro-crypto
rhetoric, in direct contrast to the more restrictive regulatory approach of the previous
administration. However, this pro-crypto discourse has materialized in a selective manner,
sometimes with symbolic progress and sometimes with practical measures that still have
limited reach.
One of the main moves has been the appointment of figures with a more liberal background
regarding financial innovation to key positions in regulatory agencies such as the SEC
(Securities and Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission). The selection of less hostile profiles to the sector, although still under political
scrutiny, signals a potential shift in regulatory direction.
Another highlight is the creation of a task force dedicated exclusively to formulating public
policies related to digital assets, which gained attention for recommending an official ban on
the creation of a digital dollar. This measure was presented as a defense of individual
freedoms and financial privacy, in line with the decentralized vision held by a significant
portion of the crypto community.
The proposal to create a strategic reserve of Bitcoin, akin to a “digital stockpile,” also
generated buzz. Although still in its infancy and unconfirmed in terms of practical execution,
this initiative points to a reconfiguration of the role of the state regarding digital assets with
geopolitical implications that extend beyond the short term.
In a highly symbolic gesture, Trump announced his intention to grant clemency to Ross
Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road, the platform shut down in 2013 and central to debates on
aligned with the sector’s demands, Trump has repositioned himself as a pro-crypto figure,
signaling a break from the previous regulatory model and promising to foster a more open
environment for financial innovation.
However, one hundred days after taking office, the scenario is more complex than his
campaign rhetoric suggested. Strategic political appointments, announcements involving
artificial intelligence, symbolic events, and institutional decisions form a landscape that
blends enthusiasm with caution. While the sector celebrates some advances, the geopolitical
and economic context imposes significant challenges to the consolidation of a truly favorable
environment for the crypto economy.
What was promised and what has been delivered so far
Since the beginning of his new term, Donald Trump has adopted an emphatically pro-crypto
rhetoric, in direct contrast to the more restrictive regulatory approach of the previous
administration. However, this pro-crypto discourse has materialized in a selective manner,
sometimes with symbolic progress and sometimes with practical measures that still have
limited reach.
One of the main moves has been the appointment of figures with a more liberal background
regarding financial innovation to key positions in regulatory agencies such as the SEC
(Securities and Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading
Commission). The selection of less hostile profiles to the sector, although still under political
scrutiny, signals a potential shift in regulatory direction.
Another highlight is the creation of a task force dedicated exclusively to formulating public
policies related to digital assets, which gained attention for recommending an official ban on
the creation of a digital dollar. This measure was presented as a defense of individual
freedoms and financial privacy, in line with the decentralized vision held by a significant
portion of the crypto community.
The proposal to create a strategic reserve of Bitcoin, akin to a “digital stockpile,” also
generated buzz. Although still in its infancy and unconfirmed in terms of practical execution,
this initiative points to a reconfiguration of the role of the state regarding digital assets with
geopolitical implications that extend beyond the short term.
In a highly symbolic gesture, Trump announced his intention to grant clemency to Ross
Ulbricht, the creator of Silk Road, the platform shut down in 2013 and central to debates on
freedom, anonymity, and justice in the digital context. The political signal, which has not yet
materialized, was interpreted by many as an ideological milestone rather than a legal one.
Finally, the administration announced two emblematic initiatives: the “Stargate AI” program,
aimed at integrating artificial intelligence and blockchain into innovation policies, and the first
“Crypto Summit” at the White House, scheduled for the second half of the year. Both events
seek to reinforce the narrative that the United States intends to lead the new digital
economy.
Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these promises, the reality is still marked by institutional
limitations, internal resistance, and a challenging macroeconomic environment. The balance
so far is one of rhetorical advances, with practical impacts still in the early stages of
development.
Reality checks: geopolitical risks and economic setbacks
Despite the favorable discourse and some concrete actions, the environment for crypto
assets in the United States is still marked by reality checks that challenge initial optimism.
Global volatility and internal tensions make clear that the regulatory and institutional
advancement of the crypto economy does not occur in a vacuum, it happens within a highly
unstable geopolitical and economic context.
The resumption of the trade war with increased tariffs on strategic partners such as China
and the European Union directly impacts production chains linked to mining, digital
infrastructure, and cutting-edge technology. In a sector that depends on global integration,
this protectionist repositioning may limit access to critical inputs and slow technological
adoption.
At the same time, macroeconomic instability (driven by inflationary pressures, monetary
policy decisions, and fiscal uncertainties) affects the pricing of risk assets. Bitcoin, despite its
narrative as a store of value, still responds sensitively to cycles of risk aversion. This
contributes to a fragile environment that contrasts with the promise of institutional stability for
the sector.
From a regulatory standpoint, there are still criticisms regarding the lack of clear guidelines
and a cohesive legislative framework. The decentralization of powers among agencies like
the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, and the Fed generates legal uncertainty and hinders the
advancement of more complex projects and products, particularly for companies that seek to
operate transparently in U.S. territory.
On the international front, there is also growing concern about the risk of concentration of
influence in the United States. The perception that the country could use its political and
economic dominance to shape global standards unilaterally raises questions about the
neutrality of the digital environment and fuels regional regulatory movements in other
financial hubs.
Finally, the administration announced two emblematic initiatives: the “Stargate AI” program,
aimed at integrating artificial intelligence and blockchain into innovation policies, and the first
“Crypto Summit” at the White House, scheduled for the second half of the year. Both events
seek to reinforce the narrative that the United States intends to lead the new digital
economy.
Despite the enthusiasm surrounding these promises, the reality is still marked by institutional
limitations, internal resistance, and a challenging macroeconomic environment. The balance
so far is one of rhetorical advances, with practical impacts still in the early stages of
development.
Reality checks: geopolitical risks and economic setbacks
Despite the favorable discourse and some concrete actions, the environment for crypto
assets in the United States is still marked by reality checks that challenge initial optimism.
Global volatility and internal tensions make clear that the regulatory and institutional
advancement of the crypto economy does not occur in a vacuum, it happens within a highly
unstable geopolitical and economic context.
The resumption of the trade war with increased tariffs on strategic partners such as China
and the European Union directly impacts production chains linked to mining, digital
infrastructure, and cutting-edge technology. In a sector that depends on global integration,
this protectionist repositioning may limit access to critical inputs and slow technological
adoption.
At the same time, macroeconomic instability (driven by inflationary pressures, monetary
policy decisions, and fiscal uncertainties) affects the pricing of risk assets. Bitcoin, despite its
narrative as a store of value, still responds sensitively to cycles of risk aversion. This
contributes to a fragile environment that contrasts with the promise of institutional stability for
the sector.
From a regulatory standpoint, there are still criticisms regarding the lack of clear guidelines
and a cohesive legislative framework. The decentralization of powers among agencies like
the SEC, CFTC, Treasury, and the Fed generates legal uncertainty and hinders the
advancement of more complex projects and products, particularly for companies that seek to
operate transparently in U.S. territory.
On the international front, there is also growing concern about the risk of concentration of
influence in the United States. The perception that the country could use its political and
economic dominance to shape global standards unilaterally raises questions about the
neutrality of the digital environment and fuels regional regulatory movements in other
financial hubs.
These factors reveal that, despite the pro-crypto narrative, the sector still faces structural
obstacles. Political enthusiasm does not eliminate systemic barriers, understanding this
difference is crucial for assessing the future of the industry with realism and depth.
Global crypto market impacts
The U.S. government’s decisions regarding crypto assets have reverberated beyond its
borders, influencing strategic moves by global players, shaping risk perceptions, and altering
institutional dynamics in both emerging and developed markets.
In the U.S., miners and exchanges have shown cautious optimism. The appointment of
regulatory leadership more aligned with the sector and the rhetoric of promoting digital
sovereignty have spurred investment in infrastructure and the relocation of operations. At the
same time, the expectation of a more predictable regulatory environment has led
international exchanges to resume their expansion plans in the country, although significant
operational barriers remain.
Globally, there is an asymmetric regulatory reaction. While some jurisdictions (such as the
United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, and Hong Kong) are accelerating their legal frameworks
to attract players dissatisfied with U.S. uncertainty, others, like the European Union, are
tightening control over stablecoins and autonomous wallets in response to fears of a crypto
hegemony led by Washington. The contest for digital influence between geoeconomic blocs
thus becomes a new chapter in global rivalry.
In terms of capital flows, the impact is ambivalent. The signaling of institutional openness
has attracted new investors, especially those with a more daring and technological profile.
However, traditional investors, conservative funds, family offices, and large institutional
allocators, continue to adopt a defensive stance due to the absence of clear legal
guarantees. The result is a market that is growing in depth but still lacks the structural
stability necessary to secure the long-term entry of capital.
Compared to previous administrations, the current government adopts a discourse more
aligned with the founding values of the crypto ecosystem: decentralization, financial
sovereignty, and innovation. However, the gap between narrative and practical execution still
limits the effectiveness of this approach. The Biden era, characterized by a more technical
and cautious posture, contrasts with the current moment, where political symbolism takes
center stage, but concrete advances are still gradual.
The global landscape, therefore, reflects both the United States’ power to influence the
sector and the limits of this leadership in an essentially decentralized environment. It is up to
the market to closely monitor the developments.
What is the real outcome for the crypto sector?
difference is crucial for assessing the future of the industry with realism and depth.
Global crypto market impacts
The U.S. government’s decisions regarding crypto assets have reverberated beyond its
borders, influencing strategic moves by global players, shaping risk perceptions, and altering
institutional dynamics in both emerging and developed markets.
In the U.S., miners and exchanges have shown cautious optimism. The appointment of
regulatory leadership more aligned with the sector and the rhetoric of promoting digital
sovereignty have spurred investment in infrastructure and the relocation of operations. At the
same time, the expectation of a more predictable regulatory environment has led
international exchanges to resume their expansion plans in the country, although significant
operational barriers remain.
Globally, there is an asymmetric regulatory reaction. While some jurisdictions (such as the
United Arab Emirates, Switzerland, and Hong Kong) are accelerating their legal frameworks
to attract players dissatisfied with U.S. uncertainty, others, like the European Union, are
tightening control over stablecoins and autonomous wallets in response to fears of a crypto
hegemony led by Washington. The contest for digital influence between geoeconomic blocs
thus becomes a new chapter in global rivalry.
In terms of capital flows, the impact is ambivalent. The signaling of institutional openness
has attracted new investors, especially those with a more daring and technological profile.
However, traditional investors, conservative funds, family offices, and large institutional
allocators, continue to adopt a defensive stance due to the absence of clear legal
guarantees. The result is a market that is growing in depth but still lacks the structural
stability necessary to secure the long-term entry of capital.
Compared to previous administrations, the current government adopts a discourse more
aligned with the founding values of the crypto ecosystem: decentralization, financial
sovereignty, and innovation. However, the gap between narrative and practical execution still
limits the effectiveness of this approach. The Biden era, characterized by a more technical
and cautious posture, contrasts with the current moment, where political symbolism takes
center stage, but concrete advances are still gradual.
The global landscape, therefore, reflects both the United States’ power to influence the
sector and the limits of this leadership in an essentially decentralized environment. It is up to
the market to closely monitor the developments.
What is the real outcome for the crypto sector?
Donald Trump’s return to the presidency reignited expectations in the crypto sector, and, at
the same time, exposed the limits of state influence over an essentially decentralized
ecosystem. While political signals are relevant, they have not yet translated into consistent
structural advances. Regulatory gaps, geopolitical tensions, and economic uncertainties still
limit the maturation of the institutional environment.
By observing global market movements from the reactions of exchanges and miners to
legislative adjustments in other jurisdictions, it becomes clear that the sector is moving in
search of clarity, security, and coherence. Rhetoric alone does not sustain the confidence
needed for the definitive entry of long-term capital.
Stay updated on trends and innovations in the crypto sector with Cryptic. Connect with the
future of the digital market.
ecosystem. While political signals are relevant, they have not yet translated into consistent
structural advances. Regulatory gaps, geopolitical tensions, and economic uncertainties still
limit the maturation of the institutional environment.
By observing global market movements from the reactions of exchanges and miners to
legislative adjustments in other jurisdictions, it becomes clear that the sector is moving in
search of clarity, security, and coherence. Rhetoric alone does not sustain the confidence
needed for the definitive entry of long-term capital.
Stay updated on trends and innovations in the crypto sector with Cryptic. Connect with the
future of the digital market.
