Bitcoin case holds despite US congressional shift as regulators press ahead with innovation

A shift in control of the US Congress could stall cryptocurrency legislation without changing the case for Bitcoin, while regulators continue to advance market innovation.

Speaking on Yahoo Finance on November 4, Scott Melker said Democratic control of the House and Senate could bring two years of political conflict. But he argued that Bitcoin’s operation and regulators’ support for innovation should be assessed separately from congressional politics.

Melker raised the possibility of Elizabeth Warren leading the Senate Banking Committee and Maxine Waters chairing the House Financial Services Committee, while stressing that neither appointment was confirmed. He also noted that some Democrats support cryptocurrency and argued against treating Bitcoin as a partisan issue.

He saw little prospect of the Clarity Act advancing. Any subsequent market structure bill could be shaped by lawmakers hostile to the industry, he said, although passage would remain difficult and a presidential veto would be likely. His broader expectation was legislative gridlock over the next two years.

Melker was more positive about regulatory policy, saying existing regulators would continue pursuing positions supportive of cryptocurrency, innovation and markets despite the election result. He pointed to the SEC’s examination of whether digital assets qualify as securities or commodities, and its explanations of those distinctions, as evidence of that direction.

He cited perpetual futures tied to stocks and ETFs as another example of innovation, discussing CFTC approval and a legal challenge from established financial market participants. In his assessment, a trading model developed in cryptocurrency was spreading into traditional markets, with incumbent opposition unlikely to halt the introduction of improved products.

Melker said greater political scrutiny and conflict would not alter Bitcoin’s underlying operation. He described the asset as a hedge against political turmoil, arguing that its investment case should be considered separately from partisan disputes.