On June 26, 2024, Golden Finance cited a report from The Block stating that the U.S. Senate is filled with heavyweight agenda items such as the National Defense Authorization Act, the Agriculture Act, and the Housing Act in July, yet still attempts to hard insert the "Clarity Act" regarding crypto assets into this limited agenda. The legislative window is perceived by the industry as rapidly narrowing. According to public statements, Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis is expected to release the full text of the "Clarity Act" around July 4, and aims to push for a Senate vote within July. However, without the text being publicly available, the maneuvering around key provisions has already taken shape: one is whether to prohibit government officials from participating in crypto trading in the form of an ethical clause, another is how to set up a "safe harbor" for non-custodial developers who only provide software and do not hold user assets, and the third is how to regulate designs related to crypto dollar rewards to respond to the compliance shadows left by previous enforcement actions by U.S. regulatory agencies on yield-generating products. Democratic Senator Alsobrooks has publicly called for the ethical and illegal financial provisions to be appropriately addressed in the bill, while the CEO of the Blockchain Association stated that a July vote is "absolutely achievable." However, many industry insiders warn that if the vote does not take place within the political window of July, the bill is likely to be pushed to the lame duck session after the November elections, which means the regulatory uncertainties surrounding the boundaries of official trading, developer responsibilities, and compliance paths for yield-generating products will be passively extended over a complete political cycle.
The Legislative Race Squeezed by Defense and Agriculture Bills in July
The report on June 26 has already pointed out that the "hard tasks" for the U.S. Senate in July are primarily the National Defense Authorization Act, the Agriculture Act, and the Housing Act—traditional contentious topics. The "Clarity Act" is simply an additional item added to compete for agenda resources within the same time frame. Within the limited periods for debate and voting in the full chamber, defense and agricultural bills tend to have the highest priority, which means that for the crypto regulatory framework to gain a complete hearing, amendments, and voting process in July, it must "hard squeeze" out a time window from an already crowded agenda, rather than assuming a separate legislative channel is available.
Under this premise, Cynthia Lummis chooses to compress the timeline to the extreme: she expects to release the "Clarity Act" text on July 4 and immediately seek to advance the vote in the Senate, effectively trying to complete a vote before defense and agriculture bills fill the agenda by releasing the text early and compressing the negotiation cycle. For the market and industry participants, this "racing against time" approach itself sends a signal—despite some bipartisan consensus on the legislative direction, procedural congestion may still become the biggest obstacle. This directly undermines external confidence in a quick implementation within July: if the "Clarity Act" is marginalized in this round of scheduling, the scenario warned by industry insiders of being "pushed to the lame duck session after the November elections" would become the baseline scenario, pulling the timeline for key rules such as developer responsibilities, boundaries on official trading, and compliance paths for yield-type products from "within a few weeks" to "at least crossing an entire election cycle," creating high uncertainty.
The Partisan Tug-of-War Over Officer Trading Bans and Illegal Financial Provisions
Among the contentious provisions of the "Clarity Act," the ethical clause "prohibiting officials from participating in crypto trading" has been singled out as a core focus, with a clear design purpose: to directly cut off the personal holdings and trading space of officials in Congress, regulatory, and administrative departments, thereby reducing the possibility of betting on regulatory insider expectations and alleviating doubts over conflicts of interest and selective enforcement. For future regulatory pathways, this means that once the provision is established, policymakers' "personal risk exposure" to crypto assets is institutionally compressed, making it easier for any rules favoring or disfavoring this asset class to be seen as coming from public interest rather than from a gray area of "co-regulating and co-trading."
Democratic Senator Alsobrooks publicly emphasizes the necessity of properly addressing the ethical clause and illegal financial clauses in the bill, with the bundling of these two types of clauses reflecting the legislative tier's high sensitivity to issues such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanction evasion: on one hand, it aims to tighten ethical constraints on officials themselves at the textual level, avoiding the suspicion of "trading in the market themselves"; on the other hand, it continues to follow the U.S. long-standing concerns about the illegal financial risks of crypto assets in substantive regulation, reinforcing the compliance obligations and disclosure responsibilities of relevant subjects. However, stricter limits on official trading are viewed by some Republican lawmakers and industry figures as "completely severing policymakers from the market," potentially reducing their actual understanding of technologies and business models; while the Democrats pressing through ethical and illegal financial clauses are interpreted as using ethical red lines to gain stronger discourse power on the industry layout side. The negotiation trajectory surrounding these two sets of clauses will directly determine whether the "Clarity Act" is characterized as a "high-pressure risk prevention framework" or, while maintaining a stringent regulatory tone, leaves predictable policy space for industrial development.
Safe Harbor for Non-Custodial Developers: Boundaries from Code to Compliance
Alongside the official ethical clause, the part of the "Clarity Act" that developers are most concerned about is the "non-custodial developer safe harbor provision." According to currently available information, this provision attempts to answer a core question: should technical teams that only write and publish code and provide open protocol interfaces but do not directly control user assets or operate front-end businesses be considered as providing regulated financial services? In previous enforcement and lawsuits in the U.S., regulators have attempted to bring some software developers under the umbrella of financial service providers, and such cases have amplified developers' concerns about unclear responsibilities and "ex post facto regulatory" situations, prompting the industry to hope that legislation will legally separate code from custody and operational behaviors.
If such a safe harbor is confirmed at the congressional level, it will first rearrange the compliance structures of core teams of DeFi protocols, wallet software developers, and node clients as foundational infrastructure teams: risk assessments will focus more on whether they touch on high-risk segments such as asset custody, yield distribution, and front-end control, and the organizational structure may also more clearly distinguish between "teams that write code" and "entities that provide services to users." For large teams, this means more clearly planning the legal entity and product line boundaries within the U.S., while for small to medium-sized open-source projects, it is hopeful to reduce uncertainties regarding liability. However, currently, the complete text Lummis plans to publish before July 4 has not been made public, and reports only confirm that the "non-custodial developer safe harbor" is one of the contentious focal points, with specific triggering conditions, applicable scope, and exemption boundaries remaining completely opaque. What the market can do now is to only hypothesize scenarios based on the directional statement of "only providing software or protocols without directly holding assets," and the true boundaries of responsibility can only be accurately drawn once the bill's text is released and enters subsequent law enforcement practices.
Revisiting the Reward Rules for Yield-Generating Crypto Dollar Products
The report has listed issues related to crypto dollar reward arrangements as one of the key controversies of the "Clarity Act," with the substantive dispute not centering on whether users are allowed to hold on-chain assets tied to the dollar itself, but rather whether platforms can further provide interest, cash back, or points-based returns to U.S. users on that basis, and how these returns should be legally categorized. U.S. regulators have previously taken enforcement actions against certain crypto yield products (especially interest accounts), requiring unregistered products to be removed or restructured, thus providing direct real-world references for the reward clauses in this bill: if the legislative level regards the "yield + crypto dollar" combination as a highly sensitive structure, any product publicly promising returns in the future may automatically be included in a key inspection list.
In this context, if the "Clarity Act" adopts more stringent wording on the reward clauses, exchanges and fintech platforms designing yield-type products around crypto dollars will likely need to reassemble and repackage in accordance with multiple regulatory frameworks such as securities law and banking law to avoid being classified as unregistered securities issuance or similar deposit businesses, thereby triggering registration obligations, capital constraints, and even business eligibility thresholds. For U.S. users, changes in reward rules will directly rewrite their incentive structures for holding crypto dollar assets: if interest, staking returns, cash back, or point-based arrangements are significantly compressed, the cost-performance ratio of holding "pure accounting" dollar tokens will decrease. In contrast, yield products offered by jurisdictions with lower compliance costs or looser regulation will become relatively more attractive, pushing related businesses and liquidity to be redistributed globally, which may lead to directional changes in the share and discourse power of the U.S. market in the yield-generating crypto dollar sector.
From the July Window to Lame Duck Session: The Uncertain Conclusion of Rule Implementation
Returning to the institutional level, whether the Senate can deliver on discussions and voting for the "Clarity Act" in July 2024 directly determines whether three key boundaries can be etched into a clear federal pathway: first, whether the ethical clause centered on the ban of officials' crypto trading can become a hard constraint on policymakers' own behavior; second, whether the non-custodial developer safe harbor clause can delineate different responsibility intervals for developers and protocol providers in the scenario of "only writing code, not managing assets"; third, whether the regulatory path concerning crypto dollar reward products can provide a predictable compliance framework for interest accounts and yield-type products. The CEO of the Blockchain Association stated that a July vote is "absolutely achievable," interwoven with industry insiders' warnings that "missing July means waiting for the lame duck session post-November elections," making the July window seen as a critical dividing line that impacts project geographical layouts, compliance costs, and product forms. From a retrospective perspective, even if there is a tug-of-war in the legislative process, this round of the game surrounding the "Clarity Act" has already released regulatory signals that emphasize ethical risks, developer boundaries, and yield product risks under the parallel structure of "congressional legislative attempts + regulatory agency enforcement." The real uncertainty lies in whether this signal will ultimately solidify into stable and reliable written rules.
Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: 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。
