The cryptocurrency industry has entered uncharted territory. After years of aggressive SEC enforcement and regulatory ambiguity, the landscape has fundamentally shifted—Congress passed the GENIUS Act regulating stablecoins, the CLARITY Act proposes comprehensive market structure reforms, and federal agencies have adopted a markedly more permissive approach to digital assets. For the first time, crypto companies have legislative frameworks rather than court precedents defining their compliance obligations.

But this new clarity brings its own challenges. State governments are racing to establish Bitcoin strategic reserves. Corporations are adopting Bitcoin treasury strategies at unprecedented scale. DeFi protocols that operated for years in regulatory gray zones are finally facing real legal precedent. And beneath it all lies an uncomfortable truth: regulatory environments change with administrations, and today's permissive framework could become tomorrow's enforcement wave.

The question facing crypto founders, DeFi developers, and institutional investors is no longer simply "how do we avoid enforcement?" but rather "how do we build sustainable operations that can weather future regulatory shifts?" Success requires understanding both the opportunities created by current legislation and the structural vulnerabilities that remain when political winds change.

To navigate this complex moment, we spoke with Bryan Jacoutot, a Member (partner) at Clark Hill PLC and Senior Director of Clark Hill Public Strategies and Clark Hill Economics. Based in Atlanta, Bryan brings a distinctive dual expertise: extensive litigation experience at every level of the federal and state judicial system, combined with deep specialization in Bitcoin regulation, corporate strategy, and public policy advocacy. His work spans both the courtroom—where he's defended election law cases before the U.S. Supreme Court—and the boardroom, where he advises cryptocurrency clients on corporate negotiations, regulatory analysis, and strategic positioning.

In this Q&A, Bryan provides practical guidance on recalibrating compliance strategies for the post-reform landscape, implementing Bitcoin treasury policies with proper fiduciary safeguards, and structuring DeFi operations to manage legal risk as courts finally establish precedent. His insights offer a roadmap for building crypto businesses designed to endure—not just thrive in favorable regulatory climates, but survive when conditions inevitably shift.

The Post-2024 Election Crypto Regulatory Reset

With the Trump administration now in office and a notably crypto-friendly Congress, we're seeing a dramatic shift from the enforcement-heavy SEC approach of recent years. As someone who advises clients through regulatory uncertainty, what are the most significant policy changes you're tracking for 2025-2026? How should crypto companies recalibrate their compliance strategies now that we're moving from a hostile to a potentially permissive regulatory environment?

Prior to the start of President Trump’s second term, the most critical aspect of the crypto regulatory landscape typically revolved around the Securities Exchange Commission and the question of whether the creation and subsequent sale of a cryptocurrency constituted an unregistered securities offerings under applicable law. 

But the second Trump White House and the new agency heads it appointed have taken a much softer approach to the securities question. Although the caselaw that developed in the courts over the last decade largely trended towards a difficult regulatory landscape for cryptocurrency issuers, the Securities Exchange Commission abruptly halted those efforts in 2024. 

Instead, the focus under Trump 2.0 has largely involved efforts to establish a broad and coherent regulatory framework at both the agency and congressional levels. These efforts have been aimed at a variety of different aspects of the cryptocurrency space, but two initiatives stand out. First, Congress recently passed the GENIUS Act regulating so-called stablecoins, which are cryptocurrency tokens pegged to the value of the U.S. dollar. Because they lack the seemingly ubiquitous daily volatility of most other cryptocurrency projects—and involve an area Congress has historically been comfortable regulating (i.e. dollar proxies)—stablecoin legislation achieved broad consensus relatively quickly on the Hill.  

Beyond that, the CLARITY Act has taken a similarly outsized role in the congressional crypto agenda. The Act is the second attempt by Congress to create an overall market structure bill for the cryptocurrency industry and an effort to divvy up jurisdiction over the industry across multiple federal agencies including the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. If passed, this bill would likely supersede and essentially overturn much of the caselaw developed in the courts under prior administrations and start a new, legislatively crafted approach to regulating the industry.

For those operating in this new environment, the best approach to compliance is to keep in mind that although the current landscape is permissive and rather hands off, there's always the looming possibility that a new administration will perform the same about-face that we saw the Trump Administration carry out in 2024-2025.  There is no perfect way to prepare for this, but insulating your project or organization from that possibility will position you to endure any unforeseen regulatory chop that strikes the industry in the years to come.

State Bitcoin Reserves and Corporate Treasury Adoption

Multiple states are now actively pursuing Bitcoin reserve legislation, and we're seeing major corporations adding Bitcoin to their balance sheets at an unprecedented rate. From your perspective advising both government entities and private clients, what legal and fiduciary considerations should state treasurers and corporate boards prioritize when implementing Bitcoin treasury strategies? What lessons can be drawn from early adopters?

When it comes to advocating for and executing on any efforts to purchase a volatile asset like Bitcoin as a strategic reserve against currency debasement and uncertainty, the primary goal should be to achieve a critical mass of consensus among the relevant stakeholders. For governments, that generally takes the form of the passage of (ideally bipartisan) legislation. And for corporations, that will often take the form of robust board and/or shareholder approval. It's no secret that Bitcoin is a very volatile asset, often seeing price swings of 30% or 40% even in so-called “bull markets.” And in bad markets, the price can drop even further. 

Accordingly, it's very important to muster broad consensus and do the hard work of educating stakeholders to facilitate agreement on what the long game is.  Without it, entities that enter this space and succumb to short term volatility may face accusations foul play and failure to carry out fiduciary responsibilities. 

A great example of rallying the stakeholders to a Bitcoin treasury strategy in the corporate capacity comes from the aptly named Strategy, Inc. (formerly MicroStrategy). In 2020, its CEO decided to pursue a Bitcoin treasury policy. As a publicly traded company, the Board offered their shareholders an opt-out premium on their shares to get out before they executed their first purchase. Not only did this remove potentially contentious shareholders who might later challenge the new direction of the company, it had the added salutary effect of enticing new shareholders that believed in making the company Bitcoin-centric. 

Beyond the need for consensus, there is the question of custody and control. Blockchain protocols are unique in that if the keys to the cryptocurrency are somehow lost or mishandled, the asset generally becomes unrecoverable. Governments and corporations purchasing Bitcoin must be aware of this and understand best practices for custody and security over their private keys, including implementing multi-signature storage solutions and/or utilizing enterprise-grade custody providers.

DeFi's Legal Reckoning - 2026 and Beyond

Decentralized finance has operated in a regulatory gray zone for years, but enforcement actions and court decisions are finally creating precedent. With your litigation background, what do you see as the critical legal questions that will define DeFi's legitimacy in 2026? How should DeFi protocols, DAOs, and their participants structure operations to manage legal risk as regulatory clarity emerges?

It is difficult to predict the direction of litigation in a space that evolves as rapidly as DeFi. That said, one area of interest is the question of whether these protocols are actually as decentralized as they purport to be. Although these protocols are incredibly sophisticated, it should be noted that the United States government has become adept at unraveling what appear to be entirely unconnected actors and piecing them together in a coherent scheme to garner either convictions or guilty pleas in recent years. Obviously, not all DeFi protocols are inherently unlawful, but the comfort previously engendered by the technical sophistication of a project is giving way to a reality that exposes the interconnectedness and ultimate control many of these developers retain over DeFi. Going forward, protocol maintainers and developers need to keep this in mind when offering services to clients without complying with the traditional regulatory obligations money service providers are required to implement. The government has shown that it will be aggressive in pursuing the facilitators and maintainers of that protocol when appropriate. 

Want to contribute to our Q&A series? If you're a legal expert in the web3/AI space and would like to share your expertise by joining our Q&A series, please reach out to hi@databirdjournal.com