On June 6, 2026, Alex Thorn, head of Galaxy Research, broke the previously consistent optimistic tone and revised the expected probability of the passing of the Clarity Act in 2026 from 75% to 60% in the latest public comments. This is not a symbolic decimal adjustment but a repricing of the entire timeline against the backdrop of the bill already passing the Senate committee with a vote of 15 in favor and 9 against, which is viewed as key legislation in the U.S. crypto regulatory framework. Thorn specifically emphasized that the issue is not with the Clarity Act itself—the text has already gained bipartisan support at the committee stage—the real risk comes from the crowded and volatile legislative schedule in the U.S. Senate: budget issues, national security, urgent topics including the FISA reauthorization, and the political cycle collectively crowd out the scheduling window for digital asset legislation. For crypto businesses, the revised 60% still means that "passing" is the baseline scenario, but shifting from content competition to procedural competition means that compliance planning, licensing layouts, and business implementation must start making room for a middle state of "the bill passes but is delayed." This probability adjustment actually clarified the core uncertainty of the U.S. crypto regulatory path from the content of the text to the legislative timetable itself.

Bipartisan Supported Bill Stalled by Senate Schedule

On the textual level, the Clarity Act has already passed the easiest hurdle. Before entering 2026, it had passed the Senate committee with a result of 15 votes in favor and 9 against. This vote structure itself implies that there is at least some bipartisan support, and the content of the bill is no longer regarded as a "fringe proposal," but rather recognized as a digital asset framework that can enter the formal legislative track. For any legislation involving capital markets and emerging asset classes, obtaining such a result in the committee stage is typically seen as a signal that the technical terms and regulatory framework have "passed."

The problem is that the green light from the committee does not automatically send the bill to the Senate’s vote screen. According to the procedure, the Clarity Act must be scheduled for the full Senate’s legislative agenda to move on to the next voting step, and this is where Alex Thorn pointed out the real risk. The timetable of the U.S. Congress is squeezed by urgent issues such as national security, budget, and FISA reauthorization, coupled with the reshuffling of political priorities due to the midterm election cycle, which keeps pushing crypto-related legislative scheduling further back on the agenda, ultimately creating a visible contradiction: a regulatory bill that has already gained bipartisan recognition on the content does not lose out on textual disputes but is blocked by the limited session time and crowded scheduling entrance, and this institutional bottleneck is redefining the actual difficulty of digital asset legislation.

From 75% to 60%: Galaxy Adjusts Legislative Odds

After the bipartisan support for the Clarity Act passed the Senate committee with a vote of 15 to 9, Galaxy Research had given this bill a 75% probability of passing in 2026. For many institutions, this number resembled a risk pricing table: success in the committee was seen as a signal that the true legislative path had opened, and a 75% odds meant that betting on the "bill completing all procedures within the session" was considered the more "cost-effective" side. Until June 6, 2026, Alex Thorn lowered this expectation to 60% based on the latest Senate legislative schedule, which is a negative adjustment of 15 percentage points in numerical terms, and narratively shifts the focus to "the Bill itself is not the problem, but scheduling has become the biggest variable," clearly stated in the research hypothesis.

This "probability expectation" is not an emotional index designed to stimulate retail sentiment but a decision coordinate for institutional investors, compliance departments, and the management of crypto businesses: at 75%, more people would include the Clarity Act in the baseline scenario, planning ahead in business structures post-regulatory framework implementation; when it drops to 60%, the baseline scenario still leans towards "passing," but requires an additional thicker layer of procedural risk discount. For the market, this does not declare the bill's failure but acknowledges the reality that the Senate legislative schedule and limited time window may slow down or even compress the voting process. Under such odds, who can still bet on a single outcome, and who begins to prepare alternative plans for “passing later or not at all,” becomes a direct window to observe the risk appetite of various entities.

Regulatory Uncertainty Weighs on Crypto Businesses

For trading platforms, custodians, and project teams, the Clarity Act was originally seen as a text that could "draw a line"—its aim is to provide a clearer regulatory framework for digital assets, consolidating the ambiguity scattered across different rules and standards in the past, allowing businesses to know which products should fall under which rules, who to report to, and what type of licenses are required. The fact that the bill has already gained bipartisan support with a vote of 15 in favor and 9 against at the committee stage led the market to initially regard it as a reference for business structure, compliance costs, and licensing planning in the coming years: whether to continue betting on high compliance costs of a national license or to make light-asset arrangements around "low-touch regulation" greatly depends on whether this path can truly land.

However, after Alex Thorn lowered the passing probability from 75% to 60%, businesses had to face a harsher reality: in the absence of unified and clear rules, they still need to continue "walking the line" under the multiple regulatory frameworks of existing securities laws, commodity laws, etc., while simultaneously responding to various institutional regulatory requirements with the old system that does not fully match the characteristics of digital assets, bearing the risks and responsibilities of new business. The pace of licensing applications has become difficult to determine, whether to reserve compliance margin for "those which might be deemed securities," or to bet on the definitional space of "closer to commodities"; product design is also forced to split versions according to different scenarios to accommodate multiple possible outcomes, including the bill's passage, delays, or even prolonged indecision. In this state of institutional gaps and multiple bets coexisting, the so-called “compliance roadmap” itself has become the most uncertain variable.

How Senate Scheduling Consumes Crypto’s Time Window

For the Clarity Act, the real opponent is not the opposing votes, but the schedule on the Senate wall. In the limited legislative session, national security-related legislation, annual budget, and authorization bills take precedence, while urgent reauthorizations like FISA continually cut in line, putting crypto issues at a natural disadvantage in such rankings. What Alex Thorn pointed out in his June 6 public comments is precisely this: the issue is not with the text of the bill, but whether the Senate can squeeze out a full discussion and voting time for it. The 15 to 9 vote at the committee stage shows that a certain bipartisan consensus on the content has already been reached, but from being scheduled for the full agenda to actually hitting the voting gavel, every step must find a point within this crowded timetable.

The midterm election cycle further compresses this "allocable time." As elections approach, lawmakers are more inclined to use their limited legislative time on security and economic issues that can be directly communicated to voters rather than on a technically complex crypto regulatory framework. Against the backdrop of other urgent matters and election arrangements continually occupying the agenda, the procedural risks of the Clarity Act being postponed or pushed out of the voting window have risen, leading Galaxy to consequently lower the passing probability from 75% to 60% on June 6. This figure still means that "passing" is regarded as a high-probability event, but the narrative focus has shifted from "can the content reach a compromise" to "does the Senate have enough time," and for crypto businesses, the real risk to hedge against is the possibility of the bill being consumed by time rather than being defeated.

Still Hopeful: Compliance Bets Under 60% Expectation

Under a 60% passing expectation, the Clarity Act is still seen as a regulatory framework likely to materialize, just with a less smooth timing and path: it has already gained bipartisan support with a vote of 15 in favor and 9 against in the Senate committee but lacks a clear legislative deadline, meaning the bill might "eventually arrive," but no one can promise when. For crypto businesses and institutional investors, this is not a range that can continue to wait and see, but a need to pre-arrange compliance and product routes under the scenario of "delayed yet possibly passing"—on one hand, allocating resources according to the existing uncertain environment to avoid early betting on a single set of rules; on the other hand, leaving enough flexibility so that once the bill progresses to full voting and passes, they can swiftly switch to a clearer regulatory track. What truly needs to be closely monitored next is not whether the bill text continues to be rewritten, but whether the overall Senate agenda leaves a voting window for it, because after Galaxy lowered the expectation, the consensus on the bill's content has been sufficient to support a 60% win rate, with the decisive variable remaining whether that line will be written into the agenda.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-Chain Telegram Community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-Chain Community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-Chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。