Democrats Back Bipartisan Path on Market Structure Bill

The group of Democratic senators, including Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Catherine Cortez Masto, Ben Ray Luján, John Hickenlooper, Raphael Warnock, Adam Schiff, Andy Kim, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks, released a framework describing the digital asset sector as a ~$4-trillion global market. They argue this scale calls for thoughtful, bipartisan regulation rather than rushed action, and their framework outlines seven key pillars for what any market-structure bill should contain.

The framework outlined by the Democratic senators identifies seven areas they believe any market-structure legislation for digital assets must cover. It begins with a call to close the gap in the spot market for non-security digital assets, an area they describe as lacking adequate oversight. The second pillar seeks clear legal definitions of digital assets and explicit designation of which agencies hold jurisdiction, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. A third pillar highlights the need to bring issuers of digital assets into the regulatory framework to ensure accountability and disclosure obligations comparable to those found in traditional finance.

A fourth area focuses on digital asset platforms, which the senators argue should be incorporated into the broader regulatory framework to provide stronger oversight of trading, listing, and related services. The framework also stresses the importance of preventing illicit finance, citing risks of money laundering and fraud that persist in the sector. This is paired with a sixth priority, preventing corruption and abuse, by ensuring that regulatory gaps or opaque systems cannot be exploited by bad actors.

Finally, the senators emphasize the need for fair and effective regulation that both protects investors and supports innovation. They call for rules that are transparent, consistent, and enforceable, balancing the potential of new technologies with safeguards against systemic risk. In their view, such regulation would provide clarity for responsible market participants while strengthening resilience in a sector now valued at around $4 trillion globally.

Alongside their framework, the senators asked their Republican colleagues for a genuine bipartisan authorship process. They emphasized that legislation on digital assets should not be rushed and must involve input from both parties. Their statement highlights that issues like classification of digital assets and regulatory design are complex and warrant shared responsibility. They also urged that reasonable requests from Democrats be considered to ensure meaningful collaboration, warning that moving forward without it risks producing weaker or ill-considered policy.

The push by the senators reflects broader strains in the digital-asset sector. With the global crypto market recently estimated at around $4 trillion, digital assets are increasingly involved in both retail investing and institutional activity. Meanwhile, legal uncertainty remains over which tokens qualify as securities, provoking litigation and uneven enforcement. Observers warn that ambiguity in classification and regulatory jurisdiction may create risks for investors and platforms alike, and that without clear policy action, existing gaps could leave consumers and the financial system more vulnerable.

The framework cites risks such as fraud, market manipulation, illicit finance, and corruption among the potential harms of weak oversight. The senators also argue that clear, predictable regulation can support innovation by giving market participants certainty and healthy ground rules. While the text does not frequently use the phrase “national security,” the emphasis on preventing illicit finance and ensuring system integrity suggests concern for broader threats. Additionally, although the framework does not explicitly say the U.S. is falling behind, it calls for clarity and consistency, implying that fragmented or unclear rules may weaken competitiveness and invite regulatory arbitrage.

Despite broad support for regulation, serious challenges remain. Parties in Congress continue to differ over how to balance safeguarding investors with promoting innovation, and over which regulatory agency should have primary oversight. The technical complexity of digital assets, especially with DeFi protocols and stablecoins, complicates efforts to slot them into existing financial law. Moreover, because digital assets operate beyond national borders, U.S. regulation alone cannot cover all risks, making international coordination essential.

If the framework becomes law, it could mark a turning point in how the U.S. regulates digital assets. By offering clearer rules and regulatory jurisdiction, the legislation could reduce risks for retail investors and help open the sector more fully to institutional participants. Moreover, such a move would likely signal globally that the U.S. is committed to a comprehensive regulatory approach, potentially serving as a model for other countries grappling with how to balance innovation with investor protection.