#白宫加密会议 When the referee steps onto the field: How Trump's "Crypto Wallet" Got the Bill's Throat Blocked!

In Washington in February 2026, the cold wind is biting, but the atmosphere in the cryptocurrency market is so heated that it feels unsettling. Just yesterday, a statement from a White House advisor exploded like a deep-water bomb, causing a stir between K Street (Washington lobbying hub) and Silicon Valley. The advisor bluntly stated: The White House will never tolerate any "moral issues concerning the President" included in the crypto legislation. In plain language, this means: We want to pass the crypto bill, but you can't regulate whether the President trades cryptocurrencies or how the coins issued by the President make money. This is not just a simple political shout; it marks that the regulatory game in the crypto industry has shifted from "technical discussion" to the most dangerous "deep water interests." Why would a seemingly ordinary "anti-corruption clause" trigger such fierce resistance from the White House? All of this starts with the elephant in the room — World Liberty Financial (WLFI).

The Elephant in the Room: When the President Becomes a "Project Party"

To understand this fully, we need to trace back the background. As early as the 2024 election, the Trump family launched a DeFi project called World Liberty Financial (WLFI). Many thought it was just a "plaything" or a campaign stunt during the election. But now, in 2026, we see they were wrong — it’s not just a toy, but a vast business empire. Just this week (early February 2026), the media broke a major story: a company closely linked to the UAE royal family just injected a huge amount of funds into WLFI. Now the problem arises. In the traditional financial world, if the President holds a large stake in Boeing and then pushes for legislation beneficial to the aviation industry, that’s called a "conflict of interest." The usual solution is: the President either sells the stock or places the assets in a "blind trust." But in the world of Web3, things become more complicated. Trump is not only the President but also a "spiritual leader" of a DeFi protocol and a potential beneficiary. The current situation is: the President is both the "referee" setting the rules and a "player" on the field, and he just took a big transfer fee from a "foreign sponsor."

"Moral Clauses": A Straitjacket or a Political Assassination?

Legislators in Congress (especially Democrats and some Republican establishment members) are clearly restless. They are trying to add a special "moral clause" to the upcoming "Digital Asset Market Structure Act." The core logic of this clause is simple: To prevent corruption, senior officials in the executive branch (including the President) and their immediate family members must not hold or trade crypto assets within their regulatory scope during their term, or they must disclose extremely detailed on-chain addresses. To ordinary people, this seems like a straightforward "anti-corruption" measure. But in the White House’s view, it’s a carefully sharpened "dagger." There are two main reasons for the White House advisor’s intense reaction: 1. Retroactive attack: WLFI existed before Trump took office. Now, legislative restrictions are effectively forcing the President to "cut his own flesh" or shut down the project, which is an infringement on the President’s private property. 2. Political targeting: They believe this clause is a "political trap" tailored for Trump, aiming to initiate impeachment or legal battles under the pretext of "violating moral standards" after the bill passes. It’s like two people negotiating a deal, and Party B suddenly says, "You can sign the contract, but you must first close your supermarket because you sell the same products." Party A (the White House) would naturally throw a fit.

The Deep Water Game: The "Schizophrenia" of Regulation

What does this mean for us ordinary users and the industry?
First, it exposes the current greatest "schizophrenia" in US crypto regulation. On one hand, the entire industry is eager for regulation to be implemented. We need clear laws to tell the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) what can and cannot be done, we need banks to confidently open accounts for crypto companies, and we need more compliant channels after ETFs. But on the other hand, the biggest driving force behind pushing the bill — the Trump administration — is itself the biggest stakeholder. This creates an extremely awkward "prisoner’s dilemma":
If the bill passes without the moral clause: WLFI might gain a "royal favor" compliance advantage, or even become some kind of "state-owned coin," which would undermine the core principles of "decentralization" and "fair competition" that the crypto world values most.
If the moral clause causes negotiations to fail and the bill collapses: the industry will continue to operate in the gray area, avoiding monopoly risks from "royal relatives," but the door to compliance will close again.
For seasoned investors, it’s like waiting for a long-anticipated bull market (regulation implementation), only to be told that this good news is poisoned (potentially distorting market structure).

The Bill’s Fate and Market Costs

Looking at February 2026, how might the situation develop?
1. The bill is likely to pass "sickly." Political compromise is an art. The White House’s tough stance suggests the "moral clause" will probably be gutted or replaced with a "soft disclosure" mechanism — for example, only requiring disclosure, not asset divestment. The Republican-controlled Senate will not allow the bill to be stalled over this clause.
2. WLFI will become a "regulatory compliance" benchmark.
If the bill passes, the market will closely watch WLFI’s moves. If WLFI can successfully obtain all necessary licenses, then its path will become the "secret recipe" for other DeFi projects to follow. This is a short-term positive (a clear path), but a long-term risk (privilege rent-seeking).
3. The "disenchantment" moment for the market.
This incident will teach all Web3 practitioners: decentralized technology ultimately operates within a centralized power structure.
When code encounters administrative orders, and smart contracts meet the President’s family trust, the so-called "Code is Law" must bow to "Politics is Law."

The US government is undergoing a painful "awakening."

They realize that cryptocurrencies are no longer fringe toys but financial tools that can be directly linked to presidential power. For investors, in the coming months, besides watching the K-line charts, we must also keep an eye on Washington’s negotiation table. Because at that table, the decision is being made about who is the referee, who is the player, and whether this game can still be fair.