Back in September 2022, when most of us were reeling from the constant bludgeoning of a failing crypto market, and poster-boy SBF was giving everyone in the mainstream a reason to yell, "I told you so," the White House released a big package of goals in a crypto regulation wish list. Specifically, nine major categories of effort were included, and reading through them much of the government activity through 2023 becomes very apparent where they got their green light.

At first, the Digital Assets Framework was treated like a bunch of big government fluff. Late to the party, meaningless and easily ignored. Except, a number of regulatory agencies took the Framework seriously. The Framework itself was a result of a mandate months earlier when President Biden put out an Executive Order in March 2022 for a consolidated answer on how to deal with crypto in the U.S. While the EO at that time gave a slight acknowledgement that blockchain was indeed a notable new technology, much of the attention was on how to get control of it instead. May followed up right after with a big stablecoin crash (TerraUSD), only throwing kerosene on the government's attention fire. 

The Framework itself is a product of nine different reports. Each one is written by a different financial regulatory agency or government concern. While the agencies were given the task to incorporate concerns from industry, much of the direction was already being cooked by the time the March EO announcement came out. Here's how the 9 components played out:

• Protect everyone worth protecting (officially) - Consumers, investors and businesses are all directly mentioned as stakeholders that need help, but the reality is that this component focused on the wild, wild west of crypto exchanges. This particular piece gave the direction for agencies like the Securities Exchange Commission to get involved. However, it wasn't just go see what's going on and report back. Instead, the Framework directed the SEC to "aggressively" pursue actions in the digital assets arena. Sound familiar? And if the SEC needed help, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission were supposed to help. Finally, the Financial Literacy Education Commission was supposed to be the public education face, educating the public on how risky digital assets could be. I don't know about you, but this was the first time I've ever heard of such a commission in 35 years of being a financial consumer. They must do a lot of planning before they put out a public awareness message.
• Promote safe & affordable financial services - This second piece was the official reinforcement of the fiat banking system. After all, the federal government relies on the central banks and their networks to manage cash, so this component isn't much of a surprise to anyone. Interestingly, it was in this segment that government pushed two big agendas: revamp an instant digital payment system controlled by the banking network, and push through the National Science Foundation research on digital asset tools the government approved of and liked.
• Fostering financial stability - When crypto investment got up in the neighborhood of almost $3 trillion, it really scared people in the bank and regulatory world. That was a tremendous amount of global discretionary funds finding their way into digital assets no one in government had any control over as a currency. So, when the Feds talk about financial security in this section of the Framework, it's really about stifling anything considered a risk to financial institutions recognized by the Treasury. 
• Advancing responsible innovation - Remember the cloned sheep, Dolly? It was immediately deemed irresponsible science by government because nobody wanted to see the implications of cloning science going further. The same thing happened with crypto in the Framework. Since the U.S. has a jurisdiction stake on half the notable tech companies in the world, it stands to reason it should have an oversight on what they are cooking up with inventions. The tradeoff, again, is government freebies. In exchange for companies cooperating with the Framework, this component would then support research grants through the NSF, and Department of Energy. 
• Reinforcing global financial leadership and competitiveness - A funny thing happened after World War II. The U.S. had most of the world's gold and it became the primary operator of the world's economies. Since that time, the U.S. has been very bitter to share the stage. Changes in the 1970s created the first risk of a global market, and the U.S. went to a lot of effort to control it. In the last decade, China has been exerting its muscle, and the U.S. predictably is looking for ways to push back. Crypto was clearly a threat to the same paradigm. So, if crypto can't be eliminated, the U.S. needs to control all of its key operations. Lead by the Treasury, State Department, and Department of Justice, the government will use tech and financial regulation to assert its "leadership" again, being in charge of digital asset technology where it matters. 
• Fighting illicit finance - this one is a gimme; it was fully expected that the government would label anything in crypto it didn't control as a de-facto risk of criminal operation. As soon as the Framework was released, a slew of PR statements flooded the media markets about how much crypto was being used to funnel and launder illegal activities. Between organized crime actually using some tools and then North Korea actively stealing billions with hacks, reality fulfilled the myth. That in turn allowed the Framework to call on all the big criminal finance statutes for a revision to give the government more power hunting down digital asset crime. 
• Exploring a U.S. central bank digital currency or CBDC - As a consolation prize to the crypto industry, the CBDC was dangled as a bank-acceptable form of translating fiat money into the digital exchange world. Trackable, regulated, and ultimately compromised with fees, it was to be the win-win for government, banks and the crypto markets still wanting to play vanilla. In reality, the CBDC was just a bunch of talk in the Framework. There hasn't been much intention at all to see a CBDC get off the ground, and there likely won't be. It will take banks themselves to see one come to fruition. PayPal tried with the PYUSD token, which fell flat on its face recently. That anomaly's failure clearly shows there is no bank market reception for such a tool. 

The Framework, read closely explains a lot about the government's real intentions towards crypto, and the same direction will continue to stay the same until at least the 2024 election results. Then we'll see if a new "Framework" comes around or if it's more of the same.