This is a major event in crypto today. Senate Republicans have released new text for the Clarity Act, a last-minute proposal ahead of Tuesday's key cloture vote. Compared to last Thursday's text, four main sections were changed, significantly altering the odds of passage this year: Mainly on the ethics side: 1. State attorneys general can enforce three prohibitions: issuing/endorsing digital assets, holding "significant" financial interests, and exchanges listing non-compliant assets. 2. Relevant persons must divest or enter into a qualified blind trust (modeled after the 1978 Ethics in Government Act). 3. Civil penalties: 20% of the transaction consideration, or $500,000 (inflation-adjusted), whichever is higher. 4. Effective date: 360 days after the bill's passage, or 60 days after the implementation rules under Section 10102 are issued, whichever is earlier. What Republicans mean by "Trump nodded to about 80% of Tillis–Gallego" refers to these changes. State attorney general enforcement is a core item Democrats have long demanded, and it has now been written in. However, what remains unsettled: how "significant" is defined, whether family trusts/indirect holdings count, and whether the 2029 sunset is still in place. These three points are enough for Gallego / Alsobrooks to drag out for another day. In addition, On stablecoin yields: If the Treasury determines that community banks have experienced "material" deposit outflows, payment stablecoin rewards may be restricted; the authorization would only last 18 months. This is a simple concession to community banks and some Republicans, not a permanent ban on yields. On BRCA / developers: Developers are retained exemption from being treated as money transmitters/financial institutions; protections are expanded to miners and validators; references to 18 U.S.C. 1960 were removed. The direction is a civil safe harbor, not full criminal immunity. Agriculture Committee section: Strengthen related-party transactions and conflicts of interest for digital commodity exchanges/brokers; clarify that state consumer protection laws apply; developer protections do not touch derivatives law and tribal gaming. A brief summary: This indeed opens up room for negotiation on Tuesday's cloture vote, with clear substantive concessions compared to Thursday's version. However, the key Democratic votes are not necessarily secured, and Tuesday's passage is only "opening the door," with the subsequent calendar still tight. Next, the key is to watch these three people tomorrow: Gallego, Alsobrooks, Tillis. Only if they say yes does cloture shift from "possible" to "tradeable."