A New Vision for Crypto Regulation in Washington

The debate over how to regulate digital assets in the United States has reached a fever pitch, with prominent investors and industry leaders increasingly concerned about fragmented oversight, shifting enforcement priorities, and the lack of a clear legislative framework. In the midst of this uncertainty, tech investor and entrepreneur David Sacks has put forward a bold proposal: a joint “crypto dream team” composed of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), aimed at harmonizing regulatory authority and paving a clearer path for the industry’s growth.

Sacks’s argument stems from the belief that crypto markets have outgrown piecemeal oversight and episodic enforcement actions. With the SEC and CFTC each staking claims over various aspects of digital asset activity often without clear statutory direction market participants have been left to navigate a maze of compliance signals. Sacks’s framework envisions a coordinated regulatory body drawing on the strengths of both agencies to provide consistent, well-defined rules for securities, commodities, stablecoins, exchanges, custodians and other facets of the digital financial ecosystem.

Why Regulatory Fragmentation Matters

Part of the challenge in U.S. crypto regulation traces back to the foundational structure of financial oversight. The SEC has traditionally claimed jurisdiction over “securities,” while the CFTC regulates commodity futures and derivatives. But digital assets frequently blur the lines between these categories. Some tokens have characteristics of securities, others resemble commodities, and still others defy neat classification altogether.

This regulatory ambiguity has real consequences for innovators and investors. Enforcement actions often retrospective and punitive can chill innovation. Firms must often build products and compliance programs while operating in an environment where the rules of the road are unclear or still evolving. For startups and institutional players alike, the threat of enforcement, litigation or sudden regulatory shifts complicates strategic planning.

Sacks argues that piecemeal enforcement cannot substitute for a comprehensive regulatory structure. A “dream team” approach, he suggests, could help cut through ambiguity by aligning statutory interpretation and coordinating enforcement priorities between the SEC and CFTC. Supporters of this idea see it as less about consolidating power and more about streamlining governance in a way that protects consumers without undermining innovation.

What a Coordinated Crypto Regulator Could Look Like

Sacks’s proposal does not call for dissolving existing institutions. Instead, it imagines a collaborative working group or task force composed of senior leadership and subject matter experts from both the SEC and CFTC. This entity would focus specifically on digital asset oversight, seeking consistent rulings, guidelines and enforcement frameworks that apply across jurisdictions.

Under this structure, key regulatory questions such as how to classify token types, how exchanges should be regulated, and what standards apply to custody and stablecoin issuance would be addressed through joint policy development rather than conflicting interpretations. By aligning the agencies’ regulatory philosophies and expertise, the crypto regulatory framework could become less adversarial and more predictable.

Sacks has framed this as a pragmatic response to the limitations of existing authority. Rather than arguing for extensive new legislation a process that can take years in Congress his approach seeks to maximize the power of existing regulators to deliver immediate clarity. For an industry that operates at technological speed, timely and coordinated guidance might be preferable to protracted legislative battles.

Industry Response: Cautious Optimism and Criticism

Reactions from industry voices have been varied. Some executives and investors express cautious optimism at the idea of a more cohesive regulatory regime. They argue that predictability is essential for institutional capital to flow into digital asset markets. Without clear rules, institutional investors often remain on the sidelines, fearing legal exposure or enforcement risk.

Others remain skeptical. Some critics argue that combining SEC and CFTC authority, even on a specialized task force, could merely consolidate regulatory pain points without addressing deeper statutory questions about jurisdiction. They caution that meaningful reform still requires legislative action that clarifies which assets are securities, how stablecoins should be treated and what obligations exchanges must meet under U.S. law.

Still, there is increasing recognition that the status quo with overlapping claims, shifting enforcement emphasis and ambiguous classification standards leaves innovators in an untenable position. Whether a dream team is the right vehicle for reform or merely a stepping stone toward more comprehensive legislation, the conversation underscores a deep desire for regulatory clarity that has been absent for years.

The Stakes for U.S. Leadership in Crypto

Regulatory clarity matters not just for market participants but also for national competitiveness. Many industry leaders warn that unclear or inconsistent regulation could push innovation overseas, where frameworks may be more welcoming. This dynamic poses strategic questions for the U.S. about whether it wants to play a leading role in shaping the future of digital finance or cede influence to jurisdictions with established tokenization, stablecoin and decentralized finance frameworks.

Sacks’s proposal arrives at a moment when the U.S. is wrestling with several key policy initiatives. Lawmakers are debating bills that could codify crypto regulatory structures, while regulators themselves continue to issue enforcement actions and guidance that are interpreted variously across industry segments.

In this environment, a coordinated regulatory approach might provide a middle path not full legislative reform, but clearer direction for how existing agencies apply their authority. For institutional capital, exchange operators and developers of tokenized products, this kind of predictability could unlock significant capital flows and strategic planning.

What This Could Mean for the Future of Digital Assets

If a crypto dream team were established even informally as a joint task force the implications could be far-reaching. First, firms might be able to build products with a clearer understanding of where they stand under the law. Custodians might adopt uniform security standards. Token issuers could map offerings to clearer classifications. Exchanges could operate under harmonized registration frameworks.

In the near term, this might not resolve every legal question, but it could reduce litigation risk and compliance uncertainty. In the longer run, a coordinated regulatory framework could serve as a bridge toward legislative reform, helping lawmakers and regulators refine statutory definitions and oversight mechanisms based on real, operational experience rather than hypothetical scenarios.

For now, Sacks’s proposal remains a conversation starter but one that highlights the urgency of reform. It underscores that digital asset markets are evolving quickly, and traditional regulatory silos are struggling to keep pace with technological innovation. Whether through a dream team, comprehensive legislation or international coordination, there is a growing consensus that new approaches are needed.