Original author: Tonya M. Evans
Original translation: AididiaoJP, Foresight News
Congress promised to address the issue of regulatory jurisdiction over digital assets last July. A year later, the CLARITY Act is still stuck in the Senate. This delay is no longer just political news; for boards, general counsels, chief compliance officers, and risk committees, it has become a real governance, risk, and compliance deadline. As the rule-making window closes, regulatory vacancies widen, and enforcement actions fill the void, the core issues of market structure remain unresolved—most likely without answers before the August recess.
Just last year, Washington announced the beginning of "Crypto Week." The U.S. House of Representatives passed three landmark digital asset bills in succession: the CLARITY Act (clarifying whether digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC regulation), the GENIUS Act (establishing the first federal framework for payment stablecoins), and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (narrowly passing by 219-217). The CLARITY Act passed on July 17, 2025, by a vote of 294-134, while the GENIUS Act was signed into law the next day.
A year later, two of these commitments have materialized.
The GENIUS Act will hit its first major rule-making deadline on July 18. The provisions against CBDC were once stalled due to their absence from the defense bill but eventually found an unexpected path to realization: the clause prohibiting the Federal Reserve from issuing central bank digital currency before 2030 was included in the 21st Century ROAD Housing Act. Although the president refused to sign due to voting disputes related to the SAVE AMERICA Act, the bill automatically became law on July 10, as Congress had a veto-proof majority (358-32 in the House, 85-5 in the Senate).
As for the third commitment—perhaps the most impactful—it remains stalled in the Senate. More and more observers describe this delay as another example of partisan gridlock in Congress, but that is not the whole truth. For businesses, the CLARITY Act has long transcended political narratives, becoming a compliance deadline that must be faced.
This is not a single product conflict, but a market-wide issue
The legislative path for the GENIUS Act was relatively smooth, as it only targeted a single product in the digital asset economy—payment stablecoins. The CLARITY Act, however, aims to establish rules for the entire market. Stablecoins are merely one category of digital assets; market structure will determine how exchanges, brokerages, custodians, issuers, and all institutional participants operate. The crux of the bill is to answer a fundamental question: does a given digital asset fall under the SEC's jurisdiction as a security, or the CFTC's jurisdiction as a commodity? Registration requirements, custody rules, listing decisions, and disclosure practices will all extend downward from this classification.
Without the CLARITY Act, the classification issue can only be resolved in two ways: by seeing which regulatory agency files suit first and who occupies the White House. Both answers reignite the regulatory uncertainties that have plagued the industry and compliance professionals over the past few years. No company can establish a lasting compliance framework based on jurisdictional lines that shift with each new administration, nor can any board reasonably price regulatory risk when the identity of regulatory agencies is uncertain. This uncertainty has long become a corporate governance issue before it could manifest as a trading problem.
For most large enterprises, digital assets have long gone beyond mere treasury experiments or innovation teams. Vendor relationships, payment infrastructures, tokenized assets, custody arrangements, and counterparty exposures increasingly intertwine with enterprise risk management, regardless of whether institutions directly engage with tokens.
The biggest regulatory question facing the industry is no longer "Will Washington regulate digital assets?" but rather "Who decides who regulates, Congress or regulatory agencies?"
The window in the Senate is quickly closing
The bill has been on the Senate legislative agenda since June 1 and is available for a full vote at any time, but no vote has been scheduled to date. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has prioritized the National Defense Authorization Act for the week of July 13, which means a vote on the CLARITY Act could be pushed to the week of July 20 or 27— the last two windows before the August recess. The House only meets until July 23, and upon returning in September, it has only about three weeks of session left before members fully engage in the midterm elections.
Last weekend, the prospects for a vote narrowed further.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) passed away at the age of 71, and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (R) was absent due to health issues, further weakening the already narrow Republican majority. Additionally, the Republican Party is far from united.
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul are the only Republicans to vote against the GENIUS Act. Paul opposes broad federal oversight of the industry, while Hawley is dissatisfied with the lack of restrictions on Big Tech holding stablecoins in the bill. Galaxy Digital analyst Alex Thorn expects that both will oppose the CLARITY Act as well. If so, leadership will need up to nine votes of bipartisan support from Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold.
Four major controversies and two conditional votes
The Senate Banking Committee passed the bill 15-9 on May 14, with Arizona Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego and Maryland Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks joining the Republican ranks. However, both stated that the committee vote was merely conditional support and not a commitment for a floor vote.
Currently, the four major controversies blocking the bill from obtaining sufficient votes are:
Ethical concerns
On July 13, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling for safeguards to prevent senior officials and Congress members from profiting from the crypto industry. She cited approximately $1.4 billion in crypto-related income disclosed in the President's 2025 financial disclosure. The consolidated banking and agriculture committee draft completely removed the ethical provisions, and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand indicated that enforceable restrictions on official holdings are one of the Democrats' preconditions for support. One of the compromise proposals currently under discussion (mentioned by Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis) is to allow state attorneys general to sue exchanges for tokens issued by public officials that violate the bill. However, it is unlikely that Republicans will push for ethical provisions opposed by the White House.
Opposition from law enforcement agencies
The National Association of District Attorneys approached Senate leadership, stating that Section 604 of the bill (the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act) would seriously hinder criminal investigations involving cryptocurrencies. This provision protects non-custodial software developers from being considered money transmitters solely because they provide software. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden rebutted in a letter on July 8, stating that developers who never controlled customer funds should not be deemed money transmitters just for releasing software. Virginia Senator Mark Warner and Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto have made law enforcement's endorsement a condition of their support.
Stablecoin yield loopholes
Banking trade groups believe the bill's language creates a loophole allowing digital asset platforms to offer equivalent rewards to interest beyond what the GENIUS Act prohibits for issuers. Not all stakeholders are eager to push forward: the American Independent Community Bankers Association even questioned why there was such urgency to advance the bill.
Shortage of regulatory agency personnel
The bill grants the CFTC jurisdiction over the spot market for digital commodities, but there has been only one commissioner since last December, and the SEC also has two vacancies. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar proposed an amendment requiring at least four confirmed CFTC commissioners for the framework to take effect, and some committee Democrats have made staffing levels a condition for a floor vote.
This concern crosses party lines. The bipartisan leaders of the House Agriculture Committee sent a letter to the President back in May, urging a complete committee to be formed, believing that only a fully-staffed agency can create more robust rules. This is also a point that compliance officers should pay attention to: broad rules issued by a single commissioner are very likely to trigger legal challenges, thus recreating the uncertainties the bill aims to eliminate.
Delays are creating compliance costs
If the bill fails to pass in this window, the consequences will far exceed the recess period. Lummis warned that a failure now could delay market structure legislation until 2030. In the interim, "enforcement-based regulation" will remain the default policy model, legal expenses will turn into structural costs rather than project expenses, product and partnership timelines will be extended due to classification uncertainty, and boards will only be able to make capital allocation decisions based on regulatory speculation.
Other jurisdictions are not waiting. South Africa may not be the world’s largest capital market, but its Financial Sector Conduct Authority has approved licenses for over 300 crypto asset service providers under a clear statutory framework (with a total of 512 applications), while the U.S. still lacks a permanent answer to this fundamental question of regulatory jurisdiction.
Two paths for compliance leaders, one common task
Conversely, if the bill passes, a clearly defined registration path and legal categories for digital commodities will reward those businesses that proactively manage their risk exposures. The classification defined through Congressional legislation will not be overturned by the next administration, as regulatory decisions could be.
Regardless of the outcome, a prudent approach remains consistent. Compliance leaders should immediately inventory all digital asset touchpoints and their underlying classification assumptions, document the rationale to demonstrate due diligence under any regulatory agency, prepare two scenario memos for the board now (instead of waiting for a vote), and stress-test custody and counterparty arrangements against both frameworks.
A year ago, Washington promised to bring clarity. Of the three commitments from "Crypto Week," two have now become law. The last and most critical one—deciding how the entire market will be regulated—is still incomplete. The House will hold a hearing on this on the anniversary.
Whether the Senate can deliver the final piece of the puzzle is beyond any agency's control. However, whether boards, compliance leaders, and general counsels are prepared for either outcome is entirely in their hands.
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。
