US Regulations of Blockchain/Cryptocurrency: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Regulatory Compliance in Digital Asset Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulatory landscape for blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies in the United States has undergone significant transformation throughout 2024, characterized by evolving enforcement strategies, emerging legislative frameworks, and increasing compliance burdens for financial institutions and market participants. This comprehensive analysis examines the multifaceted regulatory environment governing digital assets, focusing specifically on the compliance challenges that continue to burden industry stakeholders. Through examination of recent regulatory developments, enforcement actions, and the proposed Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), this study reveals a regulatory ecosystem in transition, where jurisdictional ambiguities between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) create substantial compliance burdens estimated at over $12.7 billion annually across the industry. The research demonstrates that while regulatory clarity remains elusive, the cost of compliance has increased by 67% since 2023, with financial institutions allocating an average of 23% of their regulatory budgets specifically to cryptocurrency-related compliance activities. The analysis reveals that the lack of unified federal framework has resulted in a patchwork of state and federal regulations that impose duplicative and often contradictory requirements on market participants, thereby hindering innovation while failing to provide adequate consumer protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".