The U.S. House is talking crypto regulation. Again. We need it, right? Clarity, stability... the words drip with promise. As I write from Accra, watching the news flow in sporadically. A knot of anxiety begins to form in my gut. This “clarity” they seek in Washington – is it really going to crush the very people that crypto was meant to empower?

Compliance Costs Kill Innovation

Let's be honest, regulation costs money. Lawyers, compliance officers, specialized software – the cost is staggering. For Coinbase and Binance? Manageable. For the tiny startup in Nairobi that’s creating a more efficient, blockchain-based agricultural supply chain…? Catastrophic. These are not faceless corporations, these are people often bootstrapping just like their private sector counterparts trying to solve real world problems.

Think about it: a small team in Lagos develops a micro-lending platform using DeFi. They need seed money. But if U.S. regulations suddenly require them to jump through hoops designed for Wall Street giants, they're dead in the water. The large incumbents, big in venture capital, will eat those losses and strengthen their market power. The little guy? Gone. Innovation stifled, before it even has the opportunity to sprout. It’s almost as if they’re trying to make entry to the field of their highly exclusive club even more difficult!

Financial Freedom's Future At Risk?

For many in the developing world, crypto isn’t a speculative asset. It's a lifeline. Remittances, cross-border payments, a hedge against hyperinflation – it provides financial liberty where fiat currencies have broken down.

Picture a single mother in Venezuela using Bitcoin to receive remittances from her brother in Miami. Her government’s currency is completely devalued, the banks are unstable. Crypto is her only option. Now, picture a brave new world of draconian U.S. regulations that would complicate her brother’s effort to buy and send that Bitcoin. Perhaps he has to show that he’s an accredited investor – a term completely nonsensical in her world. Suddenly, that lifeline is cut.

This isn't just about hypothetical scenarios. I see it happening around me. People are using crypto to create businesses, pay their bills, take care of their families. We know that overly restrictive regulations in the U.S. can hamper innovation and opportunities right here at home. They harm others around the world who are struggling to stay alive. Is this the awesome, inspiring future we all claim to hope and wish for?

Accredited Investors Only? Seriously?

As the SEC has determined, Memecoins should not be regarded as securities because they lack any utility and are more akin to collectibles. That’s great for the meme enthusiasts. But the accredited investor rule… well, hold on. It basically amounts to, “Well, if you’re already wealthy, go ahead and invest in crypto. If you're not, tough luck." How is this fair?

This isn't about protecting people. This about protecting the already protected. We’re essentially arguing that only those who are already wealthy should be allowed to access the same kind of life-altering investment opportunities. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: the rich get richer, and everyone else is left behind. Where's the joy in that? Where's the empathy?

I am not against regulations. We do need guidelines to protect consumers from scams and fraud. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. We shouldn’t write a system that enables just the rich and well-connected to reap the benefits of the crypto economy. It is anxiety provoking!

The House’s hearing this week, with Chairman French Hill looking for possible legislation by 2025, is a significant inflection point. Let's not be naive. Bipartisan support doesn't guarantee a fair outcome. We need to ask tough questions. Who benefits from these regulations? Who loses? Innovative as they might have been, were we really building a new level playing field, or were we just replicating the existing power dynamics?

We should want smart regulations that encourage innovation and experimentation—not policies that suppress them. Consumer-protection regulations that don’t create barriers to entry for new competitors. It’s true that regulations should take into account the unique potential of crypto to empower individuals and communities the world over.

So it is understandable that the U.S. has repeatedly advocated for greater clarity and stability in the crypto market. I actually think that financial freedom is a bigger deal than clarity. I really don’t know which way they’ll end up deciding.