The procedural voting results of the Clarity Act in the Senate today may not be optimistic. As of this morning, the overall attitude of the Democratic Party in the Senate towards the "final version" of the Clarity Act announced by the Republican Party on Sunday night is: they do not accept it, believe that the ethical provisions are still insufficient, and are preparing a counter proposal. The Republican Party claims that the text has included 126 Democratic demands and that Trump has agreed to most of the ethical restrictions; The Democratic Party generally believes that the core issues have not yet been resolved. Summarize the latest developments: 1. The attitude and statement of the Democratic Party in the Senate 1) On Monday evening, the Democratic negotiating team held a meeting in the office of minority leader Chuck Schumer and decided to send a counter proposal to the Republican Party. Mark Warner told reporters after the meeting, "Democrats who have been negotiating in good faith are sending counter proposals." Currently, no Democratic leader or key centrist has publicly announced that they will vote in favor in the procedural vote. The Republican side (such as Cynthia Loomis) criticized that "no matter what changes are made, some Democrats will not say yes" and said that "there is nothing left to give up". 2) Specific opinions of the main Democratic senators: Mark Warner (Virginia): Ethical provisions are 'not near enough'. He stated that the three core issues have been delayed for six to eight weeks, feeling frustrated that the Republican Party has only come up with a text now, and confirmed that the Democratic Party will issue a counter proposal. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts, Chief Democrat of the Banking Committee): The strongest stance. The new ethical clause is called a 'weak fig leaf' and 'completely unable to prevent Trump from making another $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency profits'. Her team believes that state attorneys general cannot directly prosecute officials such as the president, but can only sue the Attorney General to enforce the law; The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) appointed by Trump can unilaterally issue an opinion to halt the lawsuit. She plans to speak against it in the Senate before the vote and push her own bill against the presidential banking charter. Raphael Warnock (Georgia): believes that the text does not truly address' opportunities for corruption ', and the Republican response to the counter proposal will determine whether they take feasible paths seriously. Chris Van Hollen (Maryland): The bill is "disguised as protecting consumers," but ethical loopholes, illegal finance, and consumer protection issues have not been fixed and "cannot be passed. He posted a video on Sunday calling for it to be stopped. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut): Calling the restrictions "half measures," Trump is still profiting from the presidency with encryption. Tina Smith (Minnesota): Ethics, illegal finance, and community banking protection have not met the expected standards, and it is' not clear that it can get a ticket '. Ruben Gallego (Arizona) and Angela Alsobox (Maryland): Previously, they were the only two Democrats to support the committee stage, and have consistently made "sufficiently strong ethical provisions" a condition for their support. As of now, neither of them has publicly endorsed the latest text. The seven Democrats (including Also Brooks, Booker, Cortes Masto, Gallego, Hickenlupo, Warner, and Warnock) who previously jointly stated that the text was "inadequate" are still focused on whether ethical enforcement is truly independent of the Trump administration, the extent to which existing crypto interests are forcibly stripped away, illegal finance, and consumer protection. Although the new text adds "significant economic interests must be divested or placed in blind trusts, state attorneys general can participate in law enforcement, and sunset clauses can be abolished," the Democratic Party believes that the enforcement mechanism is still controlled by the federal executive branch. Schumer himself has not yet issued a detailed policy statement, but he convened a meeting and pushed for a counter proposal, indicating that the leadership did not accept the Republican Party's "final offer". 2. Opposing attitudes from other groups and institutions 1) On September 14th, eight industry associations including the American Bankers Association (ABA), Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA), and Banking Policy Institute (BPI) sent a letter to leaders of both parties, requesting that the text be revised before the vote The ban on "rewards/returns" for stablecoins still has loopholes and can be designed to resemble bank deposit interest rates; The "circuit breaker" mechanism of the Ministry of Finance can only be activated after a large-scale loss of community bank deposits, which belongs to "remedial measures" rather than prevention. The bank believes that this will drain community bank deposits and weaken credit to farmers and small businesses. Community bank executives called the circuit breaker mechanism a 'meaningless joke'. Finance Minister Besent defended the text, but the banking industry still demands a prior ban on interest incentives. 2) The State Attorney General Alliance (bipartisan, 18 people) led by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, 18 state/district attorneys general (including two Republicans from Kansas and Ohio) wrote a letter to the Senate Banking Committee calling for the bill to be vetoed or significantly amended. The reason is: Blurring or limiting the enforcement power of states over securities/commodity fraud in text may allow the SEC to prioritize federal application through the definition of "qualified transactions"; It will weaken the ability of states to serve as the "first line of defense" against cryptocurrency fraud; The Republican Party emphasizes that it has given state attorneys general enforcement roles, forced divestment or blind trust, canceled sunset clauses, added stablecoin circuit breakers, and narrowed developer exemptions. The Democratic Party and the aforementioned opponents believe that ethical enforcement can still be sidelined by the White House/Department of Justice/OGE, the stablecoin revenue ban has loopholes, state enforcement powers are eroded by federal priorities, and the overall focus is still on industries rather than fully constraining conflicts of interest. At present, both sides are still making a final game before the procedural vote, which requires 60 votes. The Republican Party has about 53 seats, and at least 7 Democrats need cross party support. Current public statements indicate that this threshold has not yet been reached. Looking forward to a miracle happening A joint opposition letter from 18 state attorneys general yesterday: https://(x.com)/qinbafrank/status/2099525827469947066? s=46&t=k6rimWsEbo2D2tXolYcM-A