**[White House Crypto Advisor Denies Trump’s Crypto Interests Stalled Clarity Act]** According to a report by Jinse Finance, on September 24, Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the White House Digital Assets Advisory Board, defended President Trump’s crypto-related interests during the Financial Markets Quality Conference held at Georgetown University on Wednesday. He denied that Trump’s personal crypto interests caused the failure of the *Digital Asset Market Clarity Act* (Clarity Act) to advance in the Senate last week. Witt stated that Democrats had politicized the issue and questioned why the recently passed housing bill did not require strict government ethics review provisions. Negotiations over the Clarity Act have consistently been mired in ethical controversies, particularly concerning conflicts of interest involving senior government officials and crypto assets, with Trump being a primary target. Witt claimed that Trump had agreed to two unprecedented ethical provisions: in addition to being willing to accept rules that would compel him to divest his crypto assets or place them in a blind trust, the White House was also prepared to compromise by allowing state attorneys general to sue in cases where the federal government failed to address ethical violations. He further remarked that accusations of Trump controlling crypto assets while leading digital asset policy and creating conflicts of interest were “highly ironic,” given that several senators on the Banking Committee involved in the discussions held and actively traded stocks of financial services companies they regulate. Witt’s primary responsibility is to push for the Clarity Act to become law, though the bill faced setbacks in the Senate last week. Speaking at CoinDesk’s policy and regulation event on Tuesday, he noted that the year-end lame-duck session is not the main focus, as current efforts are shifting toward federal regulatory agencies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He also accused banking industry lobbyists of stalling the bill due to concerns that stablecoin rewards might compete with interest-bearing bank deposits. Witt claimed that this opposition was initiated by large banks and later spread to community banks.