Having one monolith of a supervisor may be a stress-free, one-stop-shop in the short run, but that model also can stance important challenges and risks if that controller gets things wrong. Whereas it may be more multifaceted, the U.S. regulatory system breeds lasting investor and market assurance. 

Given the extensive latitude of regulators, mainly in the regulation of fintech and financial innovation, the results are regulations that can be elastic and flexible as technology develops. The survival of numerous federal financial regulators means that no sole regulator will set the regular for “all things crypto.”? 

These tensions among regulators are annoying at times. For example, it has destined the U.S. has wrapped in the growth of coordinated, comprehensive “regulatory sandboxes” that other authorities, with much thinner regulatory structures, have fostered. But eventually, this exclusively American regulatory landscape may affect a more stable market that can firmly mature in a stable style. Regulators in the U.S. take pride that they have refined an extremely stable financial method that is an envy to the world. Innovation, conversely, prods them to not be left overdue on the global stage. 

The regulatory difficulty is not new. While it might make life more difficult for some crypto businesses, it is reliable with the technique that financial regulators in the U.S. method regulation normally. There is nothing magic about digital assets. 

But why not do left with all of this regulatory edge, and make a single agency to supervise crypto and digital assets at least at the central level? 

This would take an act of Congress. Given the low chance for bipartisan contract on new legislation in a separated Washington, the accountability falls to the regulators to influence their powers and elastic regulations in an inspired way. Direction and announcement, yet, is key and very achievable.