年内 통과 확률이 50%에 불과, CLARITY 법안이 중간선거 전에 돌파구를 찾을 수 있을까?

Original Author / Galaxy

Translated by / Odaily Planet Daily Golem (@web3_golem)

As the agenda of the 119th Congress draws near, the legislative framework for cryptocurrency market structure is nearing its final stages.

The CLARITY Act passed the House in July 2025 with strong bipartisan support (294 votes in favor, 134 votes against) and has been the focus of intensive Senate negotiations since January. The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is expected to announce a markup hearing this week, likely during the last week of April.

Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R) stated that three key issues remain unresolved: the stablecoin yield provision, the DeFi provision, and securing the support of all Republican members of the committee. Additionally, several other pending issues, including the treatment of non-custodial software developers under the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, ethics provisions related to government officials holding crypto, and matters concerning the SEC, could further complicate the legislative path forward.

After passing through the Senate Banking Committee, the bill still needs to secure 60 votes on the Senate floor, be reconciled with the version from the Agriculture Committee and the House-passed bill, and finally be signed by the President. Each step takes time, and the legislative calendar is rapidly shrinking: the CLARITY Act must compete for limited Senate floor time against debates over the Iran military authorization, a stalled DHS appropriations bill, and a backlog of nominations.

On Monday, Punchbowl reported that Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), a key negotiator on the Senate Banking Committee, has called for delaying the committee's markup until May. If the markup is postponed until after mid-May, the likelihood of the bill passing in 2026 drops significantly. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has warned that failure this year could delay market structure legislation until 2030 or later.

Galaxy believes the probability of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 is roughly 50%, perhaps lower. This uncertainty stems not from any single issue, but from the multitude of interconnected problems that must be resolved sequentially within a tight timeframe.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (left) has called for a markup of the CLARITY Act. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott says three big issues remain.

CLARITY Act Progress Review

The Digital Asset Market Structure Transparency Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act) passed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, with a vote of 294 in favor and 134 against. All 216 voting Republican members voted 'yes,' with none opposed and 4 abstentions. On the Democratic side, 78 members crossed party lines to vote in favor, while 134 voted against.

The bill was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR) on May 29, 2025, and passed a joint markup hearing of the Financial Services Committee (47-6) and the Agriculture Committee (32-19) on June 10.

The overwhelming House vote reflected a broad consensus on the urgent need for a federal digital asset regulatory framework: the bill clearly delineates jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC; establishes a "mature blockchain test" to determine if certain cryptocurrencies are securities; provides a path for token networks to be considered non-securities once sufficiently decentralized; and, for the first time, subjects digital commodity intermediaries to federal registration and AML obligations. The Senate Banking Committee released its draft in July, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on September 18 and referred to the Banking Committee.

In the Senate, work on the CLARITY Act has proceeded in parallel. The Agriculture Committee released its discussion draft in November and on January 29 advanced the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, which primarily focuses on the CFTC's regulatory authority over digital commodity markets, including spot markets, to the full committee.

Furthermore, on January 12, the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Tim Scott with Elizabeth Warren as Ranking Member, released a 278-page Alternative Substitute (ANS) as the base negotiating text for committee work. This text goes far beyond the House-passed bill, covering nine titles related to securities innovation, illicit finance, decentralized finance, banking, software developer protections (the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, or BRCA), customer property protections in bankruptcy, and other matters.

The bill was initially expected to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote in mid-January but was delayed due to disagreements over stablecoin yield restrictions. A second attempt at a vote was also canceled. Before the CLARITY Act can be brought to the Senate floor, the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee versions must first be reconciled. The merged bill must then be reconciled with the House version, all of which must happen before it can be sent to the President for signature.

Since January, the primary obstacle to the bill's advancement has been the dispute between the banking industry and crypto companies over stablecoin rewards. (The GENIUS Act, signed into law last year, prohibits stablecoin issuers from sharing yields directly with holders but allows exchanges to pay rewards to users holding stablecoins on their platforms; banks want to ban such incentives.) On March 20, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) announced a framework agreement brokered by the White House. This agreement would ban yields earned solely from holding stablecoins but permit well-defined rewards tied to activities like payments, remittances, or platform usage.

Since David Sacks' departure in March, Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors on Digital Assets, has been the White House's primary point person for crypto legislation. He described the compromise as durable and confirmed that several previously thorny issues had been resolved behind the scenes. Crypto industry representatives reviewed the text on March 23, finding its language overly restrictive; Coinbase initially opposed it but changed its position on April 10 after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly called for a markup and the exchange's CEO, Brian Armstrong, expressed support.

On April 8, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) released a 21-page analysis concluding that a complete ban on stablecoin yields would only increase bank lending by $2.1 billion, a mere 0.02% of total outstanding loans, while imposing $800 million in consumer costs. This report undermined the banking industry's core argument that unrestricted stablecoin yields pose a structural threat to deposits. As of press time, Chairman Scott has not yet announced a markup date.

He told Fox Business on April 14 that three issues remain unresolved: the stablecoin yield provision, the DeFi provision, and securing the support of all Republican committee members. Senator Tillis, tasked with releasing a revised yield text, said last week that a release was unlikely that week and called on Monday for delaying the markup until May. A markup cannot be scheduled until the text is released and the committee's 48-hour notice period has expired.

U.S. Senator Thom Tillis is a key negotiator on the Senate Banking Committee

The Importance of Passing the CLARITY Act Before the Midterms

The CLARITY Act provides a critical and durable legislative foundation for the digital asset industry: classifying different types of digital assets and their regulatory treatment; clarifying market regulator jurisdiction; protecting non-custodial developers; and providing the Treasury Department with new powers to combat illicit finance, among other things.

The bill provides the necessary legal and regulatory certainty to continue advancing the integration of cryptocurrency markets with traditional capital markets, creating conditions for modernizing U.S. capital markets and providing, for the first time, clear and substantive safeguards, disclosures, and investor protections. It resolves many outstanding issues that have previously prevented institutional capital and infrastructure from entering the market or driven them offshore.

Overall, the CLARITY Act is a strong bill, both technically and politically.

Given the balance of power in the House and Senate (Republicans hold razor-thin majorities), Galaxy believes it is crucial for the CLARITY Act to pass and be signed into law before the November midterm elections. While the bill has garnered significant Democratic support (78 House Democrats voted for the CLARITY Act in 2025), a potential shift in the balance of power in the 120th Congress (convening in January 2027) would significantly reduce the likelihood of this legislation passing after November 2026.

If Democrats gain a majority in one or both chambers, it would mean new committee chairs, new agenda priorities, and a potentially very different approach to crypto legislation. More specifically, the CLARITY Act in its current form would be highly unlikely to pass a Senate Banking Committee chaired by incumbents like Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.

Sherrod Brown, who chaired the Senate Banking Committee in the 118th Congress but was defeated by Bernie Moreno in 2024, is currently running in Ohio's special election in November against Republican candidate Jon Husted. Jon Husted was appointed by Governor Mike DeWine following J.D. Vance's resignation to become Vice President. The winner of this election will serve only until 2028, highlighting how volatile the Senate's power structure is about to become.

Brown's prior tenure might give him seniority over Warren for the Banking Committee chairmanship, though this is not certain. Both senators have historically been hostile to the digital asset industry's priorities.

The CLARITY Act in its current form would be very unlikely to emerge from a future Senate Banking Committee chaired by Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.

The current bipartisan coalition was forged under specific conditions: a pro-crypto White House, a Republican Banking Committee chair, the successful passage of the GENIUS Act (demonstrating bipartisan feasibility), and a crypto industry that actively lobbied and spent heavily to elect crypto-friendly lawmakers and convert previously skeptical ones in the 2024 elections. These conditions may not persist in the future.

Senator Lummis has publicly warned that failure to pass the CLARITY Act this year could delay comprehensive market structure legislation until 2030 or later, as a new Congress would need to restart the legislative process from scratch, with new committee compositions and potentially different political motivations.

Even if Republicans retain their majority, political enthusiasm for complex, multi-stakeholder financial regulation could wane during the lame-duck session or in the early months of the new Congress as leadership focuses on organizing committees, confirming nominees, and setting new legislative agendas. Therefore, the current window is exceptionally favorable and may not present itself again soon.

Even without the CLARITY Act, a pro-crypto regulatory environment may only last until the end of President Trump's term. Regulators have already shown they can advance the crypto industry through executive relief, interpretive guidance, and formal rulemaking. These developments are prompting major banks, brokerage firms, and exchanges to take concrete steps to build blockchain infrastructure and offer digital asset services. The degree of integration achieved by traditional capital market participants over the next two and a half years might be sufficient to prevent a major crypto industry reversal, even under a future hostile administration.

However, the key issue is duration and permanence. The regulatory progress achieved so far, including SEC and CFTC joint interpretive announcements, SEC no-action letters, and OCC guidance on bank crypto activities, falls outside statutory law. Future administrations can reverse these measures without Congressional approval.

While the crypto industry might not be in crisis without the CLARITY Act in 2026, its runway could be shortened. In the long run, a comprehensive market structure bill is essential to govern the digital asset industry for decades to come.

Issues in Ongoing Senate Negotiations

While the "stablecoin rewards" issue dominates headlines and is widely seen as the (perhaps only) major hurdle blocking the bill, several other critical issues are simmering beneath the surface. Here are the main sticking points:

Stablecoin Rewards

We are awaiting the release of the compromise text negotiated between Senator Tillis and Senator Alsobrooks (D-MD).

Galaxy understands that the text still bans rewards merely for holding stablecoins but permits well-defined rewards tied to activities like payments, remittances, or platform usage. If true, this is essentially a similar agreement to the one Coinbase explicitly rejected in January.

However, we need to see the specific text, which the senators have kept under wraps. The White House CEA report released on April 8 stated that a complete ban on yield-bearing crypto would only increase bank lending by $2.1 billion (0.02% of outstanding loans) while costing consumers approximately $800 million, significantly weakening the banking industry's argument about deposit flight.

The American Bankers Association responded almost immediately, arguing that the CEA analyzed the wrong issue, only studying the impact on the current ~$300 billion stablecoin market without modeling a scenario where yield-bearing stablecoins grow large enough to materially compete with banks' $18 trillion deposit base. The framing of the debate is starkly different, and the scope of the analysis will likely determine the final outcome.

Coinbase's CEO changed the company's opposition to the bill on April 10, seemingly removing the biggest obstacle the industry had faced. The bill's text may not have substantially changed from the version Coinbase rejected in January, but the political calculus has: Bessent's public pressure, the CEA report, and Coinbase's application for a national bank charter (which might offer a federal regulatory pathway regardless of the bill's outcome) all likely influenced the shift.

Nevertheless, the underlying commercial tension between exchanges and banks over stablecoin yields remains.

Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA)

Coded as Section 604 of the Senate Banking Committee's ANS, BRCA clarifies that software developers and infrastructure providers who do not hold or control user funds are not money transmitters under the Bank Secrecy Act.

The crypto industry sees this provision as a red line and critical for ensuring open-source development remains in the U.S. The provision is opposed by law enforcement and faces strong bipartisan opposition in the Senate Judiciary Committee. In January, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) co-signed a letter to Banking Committee Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Warren opposing the inclusion of BRCA in federal law.

They argued that the Banking Committee was unilaterally amending Title 18 of the U.S. Code (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1960, which prohibits unlicensed money transmission) without consulting the committee responsible for federal criminal law. They warned the provision would create a "blind spot" for state and local law enforcement agencies that rely on FinCEN registration information to trace money flows when investigating potential money laundering, terrorist financing, and drug and human trafficking.

Furthermore, former Nevada Attorney General and Banking Committee member Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) has been pushing for modifications to address law enforcement concerns. The National Sheriffs' Association and the National District Attorneys Association have also weighed in, warning that the bill's DeFi provisions could limit prosecutors' ability to pursue financial crime cases.

The crypto industry counters that BRCA does not amend the anti-money laundering statutes in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957; does not limit prosecution for fraud or sanctions evasion; and merely codifies FinCEN guidance and the DOJ's recently clarified position that genuinely decentralized, non-custodial software does not constitute money transmission.

Satisfying both Chuck Grassley and Catherine Cortez Masto without substantially weakening the provision is one of the toughest negotiations within the bill.

Ethics Amendments

Democrats have been pushing for provisions within the bill that would prohibit high-ranking government officials, elected officials, and their immediate family members from holding or profiting from crypto assets while in office. This issue directly targets the Trump family's involvement in various crypto projects and has been a Democratic priority throughout the negotiations.

This issue was not included in the Senate Banking Committee's January ANS draft, but multiple Democratic senators have indicated they will push for ethics amendments during the committee markup or on the Senate floor. While unlikely to be a dealbreaker at the committee level, it could become a focal point during floor debate, as any senator can introduce an amendment, and Democratic votes will be needed to reach 60.

SEC Exemptive Authority

Section 505 of the Senate Banking Committee's ANS draft deals with the tokenization of securities and other real-world assets. Some market participants and former regulators believe this provision excessively limits the SEC's ability to use its exemptive and no-action relief tools to foster innovation in digital asset markets.

In short, many fear the provision could render the SEC's "innovation exemption" process unworkable