Crypto Crystal Ball 2026: Will Crypto Lose the Battle for a Market Structure Law?

This year proved to be a surreal, defining and triumphant turning point for a crypto industry that seemed to be on life support just two years ago. But many of the industry’s battles over the past 12 months are not over.

In fact, some are just heating up: 2026 could have even more implications for crypto, on topics ranging from regulation to market movements. Here’s a preview of some of the key questions experts say could shape the year ahead for crypto – and what their answers could mean for you.

We’ll start with the question that’s been driving everyone crazy in the crypto policy space for months: Will the industry be able to pass the coveted market structure law next year, or not?

Although crypto leaders recorded more regulatory victories this year than almost anyone could have predicted, the crown jewel on their wish list remains elusive. A crypto market structure bill would formally – and permanently – legalize the vast majority of token issuers and intermediaries in the United States, finally giving the industry the legitimacy it has long craved.

But in recent months, DC’s crypto lobby has been awash with a certain pessimism about the bill’s chances of passage. Numerous well-connected insiders told it Declutter they feel that, even though it is positive audience signals– the legislation is far too complicated and affects too many political parties sensitive problemsto pass the Senate before Congress essentially comes to a standstill this spring ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In an ironic twist, some of these policy leaders believe that recent aggressive pro-crypto moves by regulators like the SEC and CFTC have exhausted the market structure battle of urgency.

Increasingly, industry stakeholders are too argue that with all these favorable shifts in federal regulations, there is less need to immediately legislate – or pass a bill that isn’t perfect.

“Once we get a token safe haven, it’s over for the market structure,” one crypto policy leader told me Declutterreferring to a SEC Exemption for crypto projects expected to be rolled out in January.

Others are now openly questioning whether a law on market structure is really that crucial at this point. A leading industry insider referred to their colleagues’ fixation on getting the bill passed in 2026 as “market structure distortion syndrome.”

Supervisors are worrying key victories for the sector that will be difficult to unravel under future governments, the source said, and it is worth taking the time to get the market structure right, even if that takes a few more years.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned regulators are going full steam ahead with rewriting the crypto rulebook, while claiming they don’t have to wait for Congress to act.

When asked whether the SEC needs additional powers from a new crypto law to regulate the sector as desired, the agency’s chairman, Paul Atkins, seemed doubtful.

“We have some pretty broad waiver authority, and it’s good that Congress gave it to us,” Atkins said Declutterreferring to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established the SEC during the New Deal.

“That gives us a very solid foundation,” Atkins said.

But other crypto policy insiders are concerned. They say that if they fail to pass a market structure law by 2026, the sector will not only expose itself to future political volatility, but also squander a crucial opportunity to bring in millions of crypto-skeptical investors – who still view the sector as illegitimate.

“I can’t stress enough how important I think it is,” said a senior crypto policy leader Declutter of adopting market structure legislation by 2026 – a goal they believe is still very achievable.

The policy leader highlighted the extent to which the bill could change the current “general public perception” of crypto as a shady casino.

“Can the current government do much to alleviate these problems? Yes, it can,” the policy leader said. “But can it function as well as legislation? Absolutely not.”