Hello everyone, welcome to Money in Motion. This is a podcast focused on "how money flows." We discuss not which concept is the hottest, but how money is actually moved, settled, and trusted in the real world.

49 to 50, this is not the voting on the clarity bill itself, but a procedural vote to decide "whether to start the discussion," with a threshold of 60 votes. Charlie's judgment is: this result was well within expectations, and what is truly worth reading is not the number of votes, but the unresolved issues behind the numbers—who gets the profits from stablecoins, whether the coders should be responsible for the money, and whether those who set the rules can profit from the rules.

However, after the failed vote, the SEC and CFTC continue with their frameworks, and the industry has not stopped doing what it should be doing. So the real question this episode addresses is not when the bill will pass, but: when the legislative path is temporarily blocked, how will the cryptocurrency story be told differently?

This episode is also a podcast crossover.

Guests of the episode

Charlie | Founder of Fintechnize, host of the "Dune Road's Furry Lion" podcast, Venture Partner @ Generative Ventures. Formerly the Head of Payments for OSL Americas, and Vice President of cryptocurrency unicorn Strike, involved in El Salvador's Bitcoin bill, responsible for the Latin American Bitcoin Lightning Network and stablecoin payment operations; previously a macro and currency analyst at Franklin Templeton, and an early member of global payment company Adyen.

Hosts of the episode

Will (Ah Wong) | Lawyer at Kenting Law Firm, focusing on Fintech, cross-border payments, on-chain finance, and AI business; host of the public WeChat account "Duke Fintech," measuring value in noise, and depicting flows in time.

Yuki (Liu Yuqing) | CEO of Stablehunter, focusing on Agentic Economy, Agent implementation, and GTM Engineering; host of the public WeChat account "Stablehunter," documenting the changes in financial infrastructure in the Crypto × AI era, and focusing on opportunities in stablecoins, on-chain payments, AI Agents, and digital asset networks.

1.What Does the Recent Failure of CLARITY Really Mean?

The first misconception to dismantle is what this vote was actually about.

Editor's note: On September 15 at 2:15 PM EST, the Senate's motion to end debate on H.R.3633 (CLARITY Act) failed with 49 votes in favor and 50 against, far below the 60-vote threshold, and it failed to achieve a simple majority. Four Republicans voted against: Susan Collins (Maine), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Jerry Moran (Kansas), and Thom Tillis (North Carolina), with no Democrats voting in favor. The Republican leadership issued a revised text with additional ethical clauses the Sunday before the vote.

1.1 A Vote Just to Vote

Charlie: I have been inundated with messages about this all morning; Bitcoin fell to seventy-six thousand, related stocks were already dropping, and everyone was waiting for this vote around 2 PM Eastern time.

But today's vote is not about the bill itself. Congress has a procedure, and this vote decides whether to continue discussing and whether to vote on it—essentially a meeting convened to prepare for a vote.

So first, whether to vote in favor or against involves technique and artistry. A vote of 49 to 50 does not mean the Senate is evenly divided, nor does it mean that those who voted against it do not support it. Second, it does not pass with a 51 to 49 vote, but requires 60 to 40, as this is a somewhat special stage.

Looking back over the past year from today, a lot of preparatory work has actually been done. The 15 to 9 you may have seen reported refers to votes within the Banking Committee. This bill has two versions, one from the Banking Committee, and one from the Agriculture Committee—why agriculture? Because the CFTC oversees commodity futures and spot markets, many of which are agricultural products, falling under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

To keep it short, today’s result, whether you look at Polymarket or the market in general, was basically within expectations.

1.2 The No Vote Actually Left a Backdoor

Charlie: Just to add, the 60-vote threshold is designed to end debate—specifically created to prevent someone from using unlimited speech to kill a bill. So, the outcome of this vote simply means it did not advance as everyone hoped under the new rules, but companies can still operate crypto-related businesses under existing laws; it hasn’t completely shut the door.

Moreover, one person strategically voted against it. Because only those on the winning side can call for reconsideration. With that qualification, when negotiations go well next time, the bill can go directly to vote without going through the lengthy process again.

So this "defection" is a technical defection. Many people previously misread it as "even the core proponents voted against it, so the internal support isn't unified"—that's not the case.

It’s not dead; it still has a pulse.

2.With GENIUS Already in Place, Why Is CLARITY Still Needed?

2.1 One Governs Issuance, the Other Governs Everything After Issuance

Yuki: Last year, the focus was on the GENIUS Act. Now that the GENIUS Act is in place, why do we still need the CLARITY Act?

Charlie: These two bills regulate two different aspects of the financial system.

The GENIUS Act focuses on stablecoins themselves: pegged 1 to 1, backed by collateral, with a series of qualifications and transparency requirements for the issuer. However, once stablecoins are in place, what can be done on the asset side, whether your token is a security or a commodity, what rights are behind it, and what compliance requirements exist—these fall under the governance of CLARITY, which involves the entire financial market structure.

Of course, the two are interconnected, both linked to stablecoins. The GENIUS Act stipulates that issuers cannot distribute dividends or use incentives to attract customers, but it leaves a loophole: distributors can, companies like Coinbase do just that. So, CLARITY can be seen as an attempt after the passing of the GENIUS Act to clarify things that banks believe are not well thought out and try to close this loophole. Each party has its own agendas mixed in, making the bill increasingly complex.

Will: From the user perspective, it’s more direct. When I buy USDC in the U.S., it falls under the GENIUS Act because it regulates who can issue stablecoins. But when I place USDC on an exchange to earn yield, that's governed by the CLARITY Act; when I use USDC to buy ETH or UNI, whether I’m buying a security or a commodity is governed by the CLARITY Act; when I engage in DeFi on-chain, it also falls under the CLARITY Act.

So even though the door for stablecoins is open, a series of interactions on-chain falls under the CLARITY Act. After the passing of the GENIUS Act, it seems that the interests of various parties were not adequately allocated.

2.2 Silicon Valley Talks AI, New York Talks On-Chain

Will: We tend to regard it as news domestically. But in the U.S., especially from the perspective of Wall Street financial institutions, how are they viewing this matter?

Charlie: To be honest, perceptions of this issue vary widely across different regions and circles in the U.S.

I am currently in the San Francisco Bay Area, where everyone in Silicon Valley is focused on AI; it’s rare to meet someone talking about this. Even in activities involving financial payment institutions, such as those with Visa, very few people genuinely discuss stablecoins; most are still talking about FedNow, RTP, and these domestic U.S. issues.

I remember at a large Visa event last year, whenever stablecoins were mentioned, people pointed over to a small table where just three or four people were chatting while everyone else was focused elsewhere. There is quite a temperature difference.

But in New York, the conversation has moved beyond just stablecoins; the hottest topic now is asset on-chain and tokenization.

Today’s takeaway is that the impact of companies like Coinbase and Circle is quite significant in Silicon Valley. Especially since Circle is holding an AI infra conference in Silicon Valley today, they may be focusing more on AI—after all, they are developing financial infrastructure, and financial infrastructure in the AI era is different.

For New York, for my former employer Franklin Templeton and for firms like BlackRock at the forefront of asset on-chain, this presents a non-negligible, temporary dilemma. Their vision is set for ten to twenty years, and such short-term obstacles likely mean delaying some matters and being more rigorously compliant with regulations.

So you can see the fluctuations in the stock prices of Circle and Coinbase. The sentiment of those in secondary markets differs from those actually building and innovating in this industry.

2.3 Are We Buying Certainty for Two or Three Years, or for Ten?

Charlie: The existing regulatory framework can accommodate these matters. The question is: is this a long-term solution for five to ten years, or will the next government turn against it? From Gary Gensler to Paul Atkins, there has been a significant shift. This is a question of stability, not whether "this can be done."

So ultimately, we are buying either stability for the next two or three years, or stability for the next ten years; that’s the distinction. For the current compliance system, there isn't a major issue.

3.Who Is Pushing CLARITY, and Who Is Reluctant to Let It Go?

Behind the bill are people. Charlie pointed out the proponents and also the blockers—among the blocking votes, one was technical, and the others pointed towards the same concern: community banks are worried about losing their deposits.

3.1 Why Wyoming Is Leading the Way

Charlie: Whether discussing the bill, the government, or Congress, there are key figures behind the push. I am particularly interested in two individuals regarding CLARITY.

One is Cynthia Lummis, a Republican senator from Wyoming. Wyoming is seldom mentioned, but in recent years it has made significant strides in the U.S. financial system: it was the first state to introduce a state stablecoin, inviting the CEO of Franklin Templeton as an advisor, drawing numerous voices from Wall Street. Jackson Hole, where the Federal Reserve holds meetings, is also in this state. Its vast land and sparse population allow it to use its advantages to seize a position in fintech.

Lummis has been a core figure from the GENIUS Act to CLARITY. A senator from New York on the Democratic side has consistently partnered with her to push these bills; the two form a crucial duo.

Editor's note: The New York Democratic senator who has long collaborated with Lummis to promote digital asset legislation is Kirsten Gillibrand.

3.2 Technical Defection Mistakenly Interpreted

Charlie: The other is Thom Tillis, who previously said yes and now says no; he is also a Republican from North Carolina. North Carolina is known for basketball and education but is actually a significant state in the U.S. banking sector—Bank of America is headquartered in Charlotte. His voter base is the banking industry.

His switch from support to opposition today is not a sudden betrayal or change of camp, but rather for the technical backdoor laid earlier.

3.3 The True Votes Against Came from Community Bank Districts

Charlie: Today's 49 to 50 represents a few votes lost within the Republican Party. In addition to Tillis' technical defection, there are others like Josh Hawley from Missouri and Jerry Moran from Kansas.

These individuals represent a different concern: banks are worried about reserve loss. And it's not just big banks like JPMorgan and Bank of America—more than half of U.S. banks are community banks, which lack the technical capacity and funds to make these investments. Missouri and Kansas are both states with a high concentration of community banks.

4.Is Trump the Biggest Asset, or Is His Family Business Becoming a Liability?

The host summarizes all the disagreements into a framework: support or opposition ultimately comes down to interests, which involve three accounts. The first account led to the Republican Party losing votes, forfeiting a simple majority; the third account led to the Democrats casting no votes, forfeiting the 60-vote threshold.

4.1 Who Gets the Profits from Stablecoins

Will: I think several financial matters are at play. The first is who ends up with the profits generated by stablecoins, which touches on financial security—when banks and crypto platforms compete for customers, where does the money actually go? The second is, who takes responsibility when DeFi goes wrong? The third is, can the rule-makers profit from the rules?

Charlie: The issue of stablecoin revenues has been quite turbulent in recent months. Earlier this year, when controversies first arose at Davos, the media framed it as Brian Armstrong of Coinbase standing firm against everyone—even people within the crypto industry who sided with banks, arguing that yields should not be given. Companies like Robinhood do not care as much; only Coinbase is very concerned.

Later, I was shocked by the degree of lobbying Coinbase undertook; they showed significant lobbying power. Trump also tweeted multiple times. Now, others in the crypto industry have joined the side of "profits can be returned to everyone," and the pro-yield side is gradually expanding.

4.2 Does Writing Code Count as Handling Money?

Charlie: DeFi is indeed a huge issue, especially since the Tornado Cash incident. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, so some people claim that the code they write is speech and that you cannot dictate their freedom to write code. This matter has been debated many times in constitutional contexts and various cases.

However, when it comes to specific financial applications, whether your DeFi just involves coding or also handling money is another dimension. It's not so much about whether your speech caused a crime but whether your speech—at least led to handling money. Many projects disguised as code and smart contracts involve actual money, and they should also be reasonably regulated like financial institutions. This is where the disagreements lie.

4.3 Can Rule-Makers Profit from the Rules?

Charlie: Returning to Trump, it’s quite astonishing that until this past summer, his interests were not the core issue within CLARITY, but it gradually emerged this summer, as media reported he profited $1.4 billion from it, starting to resurrect old controversies.

The Republicans adjusted several times to accommodate this, and the latest full text released over the weekend also made some concessions. Even at the last moment—late Monday night U.S. time, negotiations were still underway, with new versions being released—reportedly Trump orally agreed to significant limitations on himself, including state governments and attorneys general having oversight and even appeal rights over the president.

But ultimately, a few loopholes were left, which displeased the Democrats.

One is that it does not cover the children of officials—Trump's crypto-related businesses are all managed by his son, while he himself owns only a portion. Another is that it only addresses new issuances and sponsorships, meaning it cannot disregard the substantial profits previously made through World Liberty Financial. Additionally, the pathway for state enforcement is very indirect. Moreover, in the July version, there was a provision that set the timeline for lawsuits against state attorneys general to January 21, 2029, which is after Trump’s term—it essentially means that once he's out of office, a lawsuit would be pointless.

To the Democrats, these seem like superficial measures and do not touch the core issues. This is also the fundamental reason they cast no votes in this cloture vote.

Will: I have previously organized a series of actions relating to the Trump family. USD1 may be his profit engine: initially, 2 billion USD was purchased from Abu Dhabi, with reserves kept under World Liberty Financial, which then applied for an OCC banking license—yield returns circle back to USD1.

The governance token of WLFI is similar to a crypto issuance act. If regulated by the CFTC, disclosure requirements will be fewer. WLFI itself also holds a large portion of crypto assets, similarly lowering disclosure obligations. Plus, there are the tokens related to TRUMP.

Thus, both the CLARITY Act and the previous classifications of digital assets by the SEC can be linked to the series of assets connected to the Trump family. From this angle, it helps him rationally settle those prior so-called gray assets.

Charlie: This brings to mind a scenario where you are the person responsible for a shopping mall, and your family runs a store there. You genuinely want the mall to improve, but others will ask: will you give favorable treatment to your family's store? If something goes wrong at that store, who would dare investigate you?

Will: So on one hand, Trump has pushed the entire crypto agenda into a legislative role, which has a significant effect on the industry; but on the other hand, he has partly become a hindrance in this industry.

5.If the Bill Fails, Whose Business Will Truly Be Affected?

Yuki: Now that it hasn't passed, whose business will genuinely be impacted? For those already in the industry or future entrepreneurs, what impacts will they face?

Charlie: Regarding their current compliance route, I don’t believe the impact is large; mainly the future effects will be greater.

The present impact is that major trading platforms want to become super apps—covering spot, futures, perpetual, everything. Multiple product lines must follow different compliance paths, which will definitely raise compliance costs and slow down product development. This will certainly affect the platforms.

This is why Coinbase's stock price fell by 10% today: it’s not that they can’t earn money now, but the issues are with their future growth.

However, other mainstream financial products within the U.S., even new financial products like Robinhood, were only slightly affected today, and their main businesses were not significantly impacted.

Previously, some believed that once the SEC and CFTC clarified the lines, a federal license from the CFTC would allow bypassing the state MTLs and banking licenses. However, this issue doesn’t require a legal solution. In the past few months, there has been a highly positive and cooperative dynamic between the SEC and CFTC; this framework has been advancing. The question remains whether the next presidential administration will turn against it.

The SEC’s project crypto is still pushing forward, and the CFTC’s innovation continues. This implies that broad reforms for the on-chain financial market in the U.S. haven't been greatly affected.

Will: A clear contrast can be seen: the voting occurred on September 15, and Circle's Arc went live on September 16. Essentially, everyone is looking for certainty; this has been the case from Gary Gensler’s era to now. But even if certainty is not present, it is still possible to operate within the existing SEC or CFTC framework. The SEC's previous assertion of "keeping crypto in the U.S." is a strong signal.

Editor's note: Circle's Layer 1 network Arc was publicly launched on September 16, with founding validators including BlackRock, DTCC, Visa, Mastercard, ICE, Standard Chartered, and others. According to public information from the SEC, the consultation period for its Regulation Crypto Assets framework ends on October 20.

6.How Should the Crypto Story Be Told While Waiting for Regulatory Breakthroughs?

6.1 A Forced Fruit Won't Be Sweet

Charlie: There are several questions right now. By the end of September, Congress is nearly done, and then they will go on vacation; they will quickly return for the midterm elections.

There are even rumors that this matter will expose which members oppose crypto, and there will be campaign funds targeting them. I think the likelihood is low. Some of the Republicans who defected aren’t even seeking re-election, so targeting them would be pointless. On the Democratic side, everyone listens to Chuck Schumer; with no one voting in favor, you can’t target individuals, which would mean targeting them all—this is somewhat conspiracy-like.

Additionally, the most influential crypto Super PAC in the U.S. is bipartisan, with support for both Republicans and Democrats, totaling over a hundred million dollars.

Thus, I don’t foresee many becoming public targets because of this vote. The real change is that crypto's impact on financial markets has become one of the main topics in the midterm elections—not just for the bond and equity markets, but also affecting the banking industry and the real economy in the U.S. The circle seems to have been asking for mainstream influence: they wanted mainstream impact, and now it’s here. Two years ago, when Trump was elected, people were surprised to find that those in crypto had voting power; this time, in the midterm elections, a more grassroots vote will reflect this issue’s influence on mainstream politics. It may not be as significant as AI data centers or power stations, but it is undoubtedly a sensitive topic now.

Moreover, I feel that with CLARITY pushed this far, it’s a bit like forcing a fruit that won’t be sweet.

Another point that hasn’t been examined deeply today is that Ruben Gallego, a Democratic senator from Arizona, mentioned in an interview after the failure that when discussions between the two parties touched on the ethical framework surrounding the Trump family, the Republicans refused to negotiate and interrupted the talks. He wonders if the Republicans simply don't want to vote on Trump-related issues within their party because it might cause division or force them to take sides.

People used to think crypto was not a campaign topic; now it is a very mainstream campaign topic. Since it’s a forced fruit, it may be better to wait until everyone genuinely has consensus before mixing in these sensitive matters.

A bill on financial market structure should not ultimately hinge on “whether to seek accountability from the president” as that risks losing its own meaning. It might take two or three years to introduce a more normal bill at a better time and in a better manner would actually be better for the market.

6.2 Change the Word "Crypto"

Will: I feel that whether from media or other perspectives, linking the CLARITY Act too much with crypto and digital assets isn't beneficial. In our earlier discussions about Circle or Robinhood, we’ve focused on payments, asset clearing, and financial infrastructure. So could we understand this matter from a broader perspective?

Charlie: I think that perspective can help desensitize the issue.

In many markets and regions right now, crypto is still a taboo term. As soon as a business mentions crypto, it loses standing; no one wants to engage in conversation. But fundamentally, it is just a technology that better combines productivity with the relationships of production through code.

If we truly evaluate from a market, payment, and real business scenario perspective, many things that were previously untouchable can become discussable, and those that were once approached with trepidation can seem less frightening.

Anxiety stems from a lack of planning for the future. When you solidify plans into concrete business applications and commercial value, you can actually eliminate about 80% to 90% of the sensitive topics.

6.3 Why Financial Institutions Suddenly Embrace It?

Charlie: This time, we see major American financial institutions beginning to embrace it, but why do they embrace it? What are the core demands? About a year ago at a Coinbase meeting, BlackRock articulated it very well, encompassing several points.

First, consider this as a new asset class, worthy of investment whether from the perspective of spreading risk or creating new wealth. Second, the backend and technological capabilities of financial institutions have reached a point where reducing costs and improving efficiency are now timely.

Third, talent attraction is crucial. When I graduated from college, finance was still the preferred industry for top students in the U.S.; now, it has completely reversed. Computer science majors preferentially seek technology or AI companies. How do financial companies attract talent? The positions focused on financial innovation and AI applications at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and similar firms serve as a great tool.

From a political perspective, they still need votes. Coinbase previously took an important step with "Stand with Crypto," estimating that about fifty million Americans have had crypto experiences. The total U.S. population is over 300 million, with more than 100 to 200 million eligible voters; fifty million is a significant proportion and an important voting demographic.

But why would these individuals cast votes for crypto? If your value is offshore, helping foreign entrepreneurs without bringing opportunities and money back to this country, then for lawmakers, they won't win votes on behalf of crypto.

This is also a moment for consideration: crypto is undoubtedly a technological advance, but can this good thing translate into something genuinely useful for my constituents and my business system? A calm analysis needs to be done, rather than rushing to complete something merely for the sake of completion.

6.4 Within the City Wall, There Are Smaller Walls

Yuki: I find that viewpoint on talent to be quite interesting. I have a finance background, and back in the day, there was a divide where girls studied finance while boys studied civil engineering. By graduation, many still wanted to work at securities firms or financial institutions. Yet, over these past few years, people seem less willing to pursue those once coveted institutions; domestically, people aspire to join big tech companies, the internet, or to work in AI.

In the past year, I’ve spent considerable time in Hong Kong, where I've observed crypto injecting new vitality into the financial sector—some people are willing to re-enter this industry because it appears to transcend the crypto circle and resembles the embryonic form of future finance. Regardless of how long they can stay, good talent entering a sector will undoubtedly lead to change.

At the same time, we've seen many from the Web3 realm shift toward AI. I previously considered this a situation akin to a walled city, with the same group of people moving between different circles. But you can gauge from the rate of movement which industries seem more promising or are likely to undergo greater changes.

Charlie: To add to that, there are actually large and small walled cities. Those jumping into AI, such as teams in top AI laboratories, may be tempted to venture out to start their own businesses and raise funds instead of working in stable big companies—though the situation in those companies is remarkably more appealing than in other industries.

Conversely, those remaining in Web3; I know someone managing all AI affairs at a major exchange, and his team consists of the most motivated people in the company. Everyone is hesitating: should they transition into the AI space, or continue working on AI within their current environment? So even within a larger walled city, there are smaller ones.

6.5 Inflationary Market Companies Acquiring Deflationary Market Assets

Will: Geographically, the regulatory environment in the U.S. is gradually loosening, and significant funding is largely occurring in the U.S. What do you think the future of the market here will look like? Will crypto return to the U.S.?

Charlie: A significant macro background is that the U.S. is currently an inflationary market, while globally, Europe and China are experiencing deflationary markets.

For instance, previously Kraken acquired Reap, with an inflationary market star company acquiring a deflationary market asset, which is quite a smart deal. From that perspective, companies in the U.S. indeed seem more willing, equipped, and capable of acquiring good assets—whether within the U.S. or from other markets. Moreover, the American market particularly trusts in mergers and acquisitions.

This could bode well for the U.S. market. Similar to how Stripe acquired Bridge, which continues to operate independently, Reap is also independently run, but it is already a Kraken subsidiary. This trend may continue, which means more people in various industries could work for American companies.

Editor's note: Kraken’s parent company Payward announced on May 7, 2026, the acquisition of the Hong Kong cross-border payment company Reap for up to $600 million in cash and stock, valuing Payward at $20 billion, with the deal expected to close in the second half of 2026.

Charlie: On the flip side, I spent some time in China during the summer and have seen many entrepreneurs I got to know there focusing on bridging Web2 and Web3 or integrating AI with fintech. They also recognize that there are opportunities in the relatively open system in the U.S. for starting businesses.

Because now mentioning fintech, doing it on the mainland typically falls within the Alibaba system, Byte, or Tencent; entrepreneurial opportunities are exceedingly rare. Over here, companies like Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and Adyen have created a large open system, leaving some small opportunities for startups. It’s a matter of whether you can find unique insights and angles.

This also makes the once-conflicted issue of "am I a coin issuance company or a crypto company" less important—what I’m doing is financial infrastructure. Especially as financial infrastructure can integrate with AI and agents, this could present a new market's opportunity for beta emergence.

Host: Thank you, Charlie. This episode began with a vote of 49 to 50, but its significance lies not in the vote.

Charlie's judgment is that the failure this time was due to the ethical clause, not the market structure itself. Among the three accounts, the stablecoin profit distribution caused the Republicans to lose votes, while the Trump family account resulted in the Democrats casting no votes. A financial market structure bill ultimately hinging on the president's family business has already strayed from its original purpose.

However, the bill did not pass, and things will carry on. The voting failure on September 15 led to the mainnet launch of Arc on September 16. The SEC's framework and the CFTC’s provisions continue. What the industry has acquired is not certainty, but a few years of stability—no one has yet sold them the kind that lasts ten years.

Thus, the true answer in this episode lies in Charlie's final remark: if what you are doing is not issuing coins, not crypto, but rather financial infrastructure, then the term "crypto" is not that important after all. In the years leading up to the bill, this industry indeed needs to reintroduce itself.

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。