AI and crypto are moving fast, but being treated very differently
getty
For several years policymakers, investors, and business leaders have debated two technologies that are reshaping markets, business models, and even public policy itself: AI and cryptoassets. Although both technologies have generated headlines, attracted billions in investment, and prompted debates around consumer protection and national security, the federal government’s approach to oversight of these innovations has diverged in a substantial way. Recent developments surrounding artificial intelligence highlight just how different these approaches have become.
On June 2, President Trump signed an executive order focused on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Rather than imposing mandatory pre-approval requirements on AI developers, the order establishes a voluntary framework that encourages AI firms to provide models to federal agencies for cybersecurity testing before public release. Agencies would have up to 30 days to evaluate these systems, with a specific focus on cybersecurity and critical national security risks. The Trump administration has emphasized that the objective is to enhance national security while avoiding regulations that could undermine American competitiveness in the global AI race.
The order is notable not only for what it contains, but also for what it omits. Earlier proposals reportedly contained longer review periods and more oversight. The final version instead reflects a preference for voluntary cooperation between government and private industry, consistent with broader efforts to maintain U.S. leadership in AI development while lowering regulatory burdens. This is a decidedly different approach from the U.S. federal government has treated cryptoassets since they achieved mainstream adoption.
Crypto Oversight Remains Compliance Focused
For much of the last decade, federal oversight of crypto has centered on enforcement, compliance, and jurisdictional disputes. Rather than creating a unified framework from the outset, different agencies have asserted authority over different aspects of the marketplace. The SEC has focused on securities-related questions, the CFTC has emphasized commodities oversight, while Treasury Department and FinCEN have concentrated on anti-money laundering compliance.
The result has been a regulatory environment that many market investors and policy advocates viewed as fragmented and reactive rather than coordinated and pro-innovation.
Even as policymakers have become increasingly supportive of digital asset innovation, crypto businesses continue to operate within a framework that prioritizes reporting, disclosure, registration, custody standards, and financial surveillance. Rules such as 1099-DA reporting requirements, expanded broker definitions, anti-money laundering obligations, and tax compliance expectations demonstrate that the government’s primary concern has historically been transaction monitoring and financial integrity.
AI Has Bigger Picture Implications For Policymakers
Federal AI policy throughout 2025 and 2026 has consistently emphasized innovation, infrastructure development, and global competitiveness. Administration policy statements have repeatedly focused on maintaining American leadership in AI, reducing barriers to development, and creating a national framework that avoids a patchwork of state-level regulations.
Bitcoin and cryptoassets are fundamentally financial technologies. As a result, regulators naturally view them through lenses that have traditionally governed money, securities, commodities, and financial markets. Artificial intelligence raises a different set of questions. Policymakers are increasingly concerned about cybersecurity, military applications, workforce impacts, economic competitiveness, and geopolitical leadership.
That distinction helps explain why federal agencies appear willing to collaborate with AI developers through voluntary testing programs while simultaneously maintaining detailed compliance frameworks for crypto firms. Neither approach is necessarily right or wrong, as each reflects the perceived risks associated with the underlying technology. Organizations implementing AI should expect increasing scrutiny around cybersecurity, governance, model risk management, and operational controls. The focus will likely remain on responsible deployment rather than direct regulation of every use case.
Legislative Differences Might Not Last
Crypto businesses face a different reality. Even as legislative initiatives such as stablecoin legislation and market structure reform continue to advance, firms should expect ongoing emphasis on tax reporting, transaction monitoring, custody controls, and financial disclosures. In other words, Washington increasingly views AI as an innovation challenge and crypto as a financial oversight challenge.
The long-term question is whether these paths eventually converge. As AI becomes embedded within financial services, capital markets, payments, and investment decision-making, regulators may find it increasingly difficult to separate technology oversight from financial oversight. For now, however, the message from Washington is clear: artificial intelligence is being governed primarily through a lens of national competitiveness and cybersecurity, while bitcoin and crypto continue to be governed through the established frameworks of financial regulation and compliance.
That difference may prove to be one of the most important policy trends shaping both industries over the next several years.