This is a major event in crypto today. Senate Republicans have released new text for the CLARITY Act, a final proposal put forward 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 individuals must divest or enter a qualified blind trust (benchmarked against 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 the core item Democrats have been demanding all along, and this time it's written in. However, what's left unresolved: how "significant" is defined, whether family trusts/indirect holdings count, and whether the 2029 sunset remains. These three points are enough for Gallego / Alsobrooks to stall for another day. In addition, On stablecoin yield: If the Treasury determines that community banks have experienced "material" deposit outflows, it can restrict payment stablecoin rewards; the authorization only lasts 18 months. This is a simple concession to community banks and some Republicans, not a permanent ban on yield. On BRCA / developers: Developers are retained with exemptions from being treated as money transmitters/financial institutions; protections are extended to miners and validators; references to 18 U.S.C. 1960 are 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. To summarize briefly: This has indeed opened up negotiating room for Tuesday's cloture vote, with clearly substantive concessions compared to Thursday's version. However, the key Democratic votes are still not necessarily secured, and Tuesday's passage is only "opening the door," with the calendar still tight afterward. Next, the key is to watch these three people tomorrow: Gallego, Alsobrooks, Tillis. Only if they say yes does cloture go from "possible" to "tradeable."