CLARITY Act (The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025) is proposed United States legislation intended to establish a federal market-structure framework for digital assets. Introduced as H.R. 3633, the bill passed the House of Representatives on July 17, 2025, by a vote of 294–134. In 2026, Senate committees developed a revised version that remained under negotiation and had not received a Senate floor vote as of July 22, 2026. ^{[1] [6] [19]}

The legislation seeks to clarify when digital assets fall under the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as digital commodities and when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) retains jurisdiction. It would also establish registration, custody, disclosure, customer-asset segregation, anti-fraud, and market-integrity requirements for digital asset intermediaries. ^{[1] [8] [22]}

Negotiations over the Senate proposal focused on stablecoin rewards, ethics and conflicts of interest involving public officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, market integrity, and the treatment of non-custodial software developers. ^{[19] [20] [26] [27]}

Overview

The CLARITY Act, introduced in the 119th Congress as H.R.3633, addresses the long-standing debate in the United States regarding the regulatory classification of digital assets. Currently, both the SEC and the CFTC have asserted jurisdiction over various aspects of the digital asset market, leading to regulatory uncertainty often described as "regulation by enforcement" by industry participants ^{[1] [2]}.

The bill proposes a framework where digital assets intrinsically linked to a blockchain system, with value derived from the system's use, would generally be classified as "digital commodities" regulated by the CFTC. This classification would exclude traditional securities, certain derivatives, stablecoins, banking deposits, and non-commodity assets like NFTs ^{[1] [8]}. Proponents argue that this clarity is essential for fostering innovation, protecting consumers, and preventing the U.S. from falling behind other jurisdictions in the digital asset space. Bill Hughes, senior counsel at Consensys Software, stated that while the CLARITY Act is not perfect, it significantly improves the status quo and is the bill Congress must pass to establish the U.S. as a global leader in digital asset regulation. He emphasized that the bill encourages a shift from blackbox intermediaries to transparent computer networks, which would make markets fairer, more transparent, and more secure, and would also bolster the SEC and CFTC by providing them with a clearer statutory landscape for regulation ^[5]. Opponents have raised concerns about potential loopholes and the impact on investor protection, with some Democratic lawmakers describing it as a "rushed, overly complicated bill" that could exempt "some of the riskiest activities" in crypto ^[3].

The legislation aims to provide clear rules for digital asset exchanges, brokers, and dealers, requiring them to register with either the SEC or the CFTC based on the nature of the assets they handle. It also introduces a concept of "mature blockchain systems" and outlines requirements for initial offerings and secondary market transactions of digital commodities that may have initially involved investment contracts ^[1].

History

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (H.R.3633) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 29, 2025, by Representative J. French Hill [R-AR-2] and several co-sponsors from both Republican and Democratic parties. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Agriculture. Both committees held meetings and reported the bill with amendments on June 23, 2025 ^[1]. The US House of Representatives passed the CLARITY Act on Thursday, July 17, 2025, in a bipartisan vote of 294-134, as a comprehensive market structure bill aimed at ending years of regulatory uncertainty around digital assets ^{[6] [7] [12]}.

In a September 2025 op-ed, House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill stated that with the passage of the CLARITY Act and the enactment of the GENIUS Act, "the United States has reversed its hostile approach to the digital asset ecosystem." He argued that the U.S. must establish its own clear regulatory framework to avoid ceding ground to regions like Latin America, which has seen grassroots adoption for payments and savings, and Europe, which has implemented the comprehensive Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation. Hill stressed the urgency, stating, "We must keep pace with the rest of the globe by enacting digital asset market structure by the end of the year" ^[12].

The bill's progression occurred within a period of increased focus on cryptocurrency regulation in the U.S. Congress. Republican House leaders had designated the week of July 14, 2025, as "Crypto Week" to consider several digital asset-related bills, including the CLARITY Act, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, and the GENIUS Act concerning stablecoins ^[3].

Following its passage in the House, H.R. 3633 was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on September 18, 2025. Senate negotiations subsequently focused on developing a revised market-structure proposal rather than passing the House text without changes. Reports at the time questioned whether the legislation retained a viable path through the Senate. ^[1]

The Senate effort stalled in early 2026 amid disagreements over stablecoin rewards and other provisions. A Senate Banking Committee markup scheduled for January 15, 2026, was postponed after Coinbase and other industry participants objected to elements of the draft, including its treatment of stablecoin rewards, tokenized securities, and CFTC authority. ^{[13] [14]}

On May 14, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee voted 15–9 to advance its version of the legislation. Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego were the only Democratic committee members to support it, leaving the proposal dependent on additional bipartisan negotiations before a Senate floor vote. ^{[15] [16] [19]}

On July 22, 2026, Senate Republicans released an updated draft containing revised provisions on government ethics, stablecoin rewards, consumer protection, illicit finance, decentralized finance, and non-custodial software developers. Reports indicated that the legislation had advanced to the Senate legislative calendar, making it eligible for floor consideration, but no floor vote had occurred. ^{[19] [20] [26] [27]}

Seven Democratic senators involved in the negotiations—Angela Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Catherine Cortez Masto, Ruben Gallego, John Hickenlooper, Mark Warner, and Raphael Warnock—said the new text still required stronger provisions covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and market integrity. ^[19]

Key Provisions

The CLARITY Act introduces several key provisions aimed at establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States. The bill amends foundational statutes like the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Commodity Exchange Act to codify its new framework ^[8].

Digital Asset Classification

A core component of the bill is the creation of a functional framework for classifying digital assets to determine regulatory oversight. The legislation would create statutory definitions for different classes of digital assets, distinguishing between digital commodities, digital securities, and payment tokens ^{[11] [8]}.

• Digital Assets: Defined broadly as natively electronic assets issued and transferred using distributed ledger technology, representing value, rights, or access ^[8].
• Digital Commodities: These are digital assets that are part of a decentralized system and do not confer rights to profits, governance, or financial claims against an issuer. Bitcoin and Ethereum are commonly cited examples. These assets would fall under the jurisdiction of the CFTC ^[8].
• Restricted Digital Assets: These are digital assets that function as investment contracts or provide financial rights, such as a claim on a company's profits. These assets would remain under the jurisdiction of the SEC ^[8].
• Permitted Payment Stablecoins: Fiat-redeemable digital assets designed for payments. These would be primarily regulated under the framework of the GENIUS Act, with potential joint oversight from the SEC and CFTC ^[8].

The bill also establishes a certification pathway for issuers to get a formal determination from the SEC or CFTC on their asset's classification, as well as a safe harbor for assets issued before the Act's enactment ^[8].

Regulatory Framework for Digital Commodities (CFTC)

Title II and Title IV of the Act establish the CFTC's authority over the digital commodity spot market ^[8].

• Registration of Intermediaries: Digital commodity brokers, dealers, and trading facilities would be required to register with the CFTC. These platforms must adhere to standards for asset segregation, fair trading, anti-manipulation, AML/KYC programs, price transparency, and cybersecurity ^[8].
• Exempt Offering for Issuers: The Act introduces an exempt offering regime allowing digital commodity issuers to raise up to $75 million annually without full securities registration. This exemption is contingent on meeting detailed disclosure requirements and being tied to a blockchain system that is "mature" or expected to become mature within four years ^[8].

Regulatory Framework for Restricted Digital Assets (SEC)

Title III of the Act confirms the SEC's existing authority over digital assets that are deemed securities ^[8].

• Intermediary Registration: Brokers, dealers, alternative trading systems (ATSs), and clearing agencies that handle Restricted Digital Assets must register with the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and comply with existing rules for customer protection, market integrity, and disclosure ^[8].
• Issuer Compliance: Issuers of Restricted Digital Assets must comply with the registration requirements of the Securities Act unless they qualify for an existing exemption. The CLARITY Act does not create a new exempt offering pathway for these security-like assets, but it does direct the SEC to establish a new registration framework tailored for digital asset issuers and mandates enhanced disclosure standards for crypto exchanges ^{[8] [11]}.

Other Provisions

• Mature Blockchain Systems: The legislation introduces the concept of a "mature blockchain system," defined as a blockchain system and its related digital commodity not controlled by any single person or group under common control. The bill outlines criteria for a blockchain system to be deemed mature and establishes a process for certification with the SEC ^[1].
• Custody of Digital Assets: The Act includes provisions related to the custody of digital assets by registered entities, requiring the use of "qualified digital asset custodians" and outlining standards for such custodians. It also calls for federal custody and safeguarding rules to protect consumer assets held on trading platforms, provisions lawmakers believe could have prevented major collapses like FTX in 2022. Additionally, the House-passed version of the bill includes language affirming a consumer's right to maintain their own hardware or software wallets for self-custody and to conduct direct peer-to-peer transactions ^{[1] [11] [14]}.
• Decentralized Finance: The bill includes provisions to exclude certain decentralized finance activities from being subject to the Act's registration requirements, focusing on activities like compiling transactions, providing computational work, or developing software, while retaining anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authorities ^[1].
• Implementation and Studies: The bill directs the SEC and CFTC to issue final rules within 270 days of enactment. It also mandates various studies on topics such as DeFi, NFTs, financial literacy, and illicit finance ^{[1] [8]}.

2026 Senate Draft

The version considered by the Senate in 2026 expanded upon and amended the House-passed version of H.R. 3633. The revised framework incorporated provisions developed through the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees and added rules addressing stablecoin rewards, government ethics, illicit finance, decentralized finance, software developers, and consumer protection. Because the Senate text remained subject to negotiation, its provisions did not represent enacted law as of July 2026. ^{[19] [27]}

Ethics and Conflict-of-Interest Provisions

The revised Senate draft released on July 22, 2026, introduced restrictions intended to prevent senior public officials from using their positions to profit from digital asset ventures. The provision would prohibit covered individuals, including the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges, and their spouses, from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset in exchange for compensation. The restriction would remain in effect until January 2029. ^[20]

The draft would also require covered officials to divest certain digital asset holdings or place them in a qualifying blind trust. Enforcement authority would rest with the United States Attorney General and the Department of Justice. Reported penalties included civil fines of up to $250,000 for each violation per day, the disgorgement of profits, and an additional penalty based on the compensation received. ^[20]

The ethics debate was shaped by President Donald Trump’s financial interests in the cryptocurrency industry. The New York Times reported that Trump disclosed more than $1.4 billion in income from crypto-related ventures in 2025. Critics argued that the revised provision focused primarily on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets but did not clearly cover every pre-existing business interest, licensing arrangement, revenue-sharing agreement or family-controlled venture. ^{[28] [29]}

The New York Times also reported that nearly one million buyers of the TRUMP memecoin had collectively lost approximately $3.8 billion by the end of June 2026, while Trump reported approximately $636 million in income connected to the token. Critics cited the disparity as part of their argument that the legislation required broader conflict-of-interest protections. ^{[28] [29]}

Other objections concerned the provision’s limited duration and enforcement mechanism. The restrictions were scheduled to expire in January 2029, while enforcement would primarily rest with the Department of Justice. Democratic lawmakers questioned whether a Justice Department controlled by the sitting president would independently enforce the restrictions against that president. ^{[28] [29]}

The ethics language remained disputed after its release. Democratic negotiators argued that its enforcement structure and other provisions required strengthening, while some lawmakers favored allowing state attorneys general to act when the Department of Justice declined to bring a case. ^{[19] [20]}

In a Forbes opinion article, Sean Stein Smith argued that the crypto-specific restrictions also highlighted the absence of comparably comprehensive rules governing stock trading and other financial interests held by federal officials. ^[21]

Stablecoin Rewards

Section 404 of the Senate proposal distinguished between passive stablecoin yield and rewards connected to customer activity. Under the proposed framework, a platform would generally be prohibited from paying interest or rewards solely because a customer held a stablecoin balance. Rewards connected to activities such as payments, transactions, trading, collateral provision, liquidity provision, or other platform use could remain permissible. ^[26]

Banking groups supported restrictions on passive stablecoin yield, arguing that crypto platforms could otherwise offer products comparable to bank deposits without being subject to equivalent capital, insurance, and supervisory requirements. They also warned that higher stablecoin returns could draw deposits away from traditional banks. Crypto industry participants argued that a broad prohibition would reduce competition and prevent consumers from receiving returns on digital assets held through exchanges and other platforms. ^{[25] [26]}

The distinction between passive and activity-based rewards raised questions about how the provision would apply to new financial products. CryptoSlate identified the partnership between Coinbase and Ethena as a possible example. Under the proposed arrangement, USDC could be directed into lending, collateral, liquidity, or trading strategies through Ethena rather than earning rewards solely from being held in an account. Whether similar arrangements would comply with Section 404 would depend on the final statutory language and subsequent regulatory interpretation. ^[26]

Consumer Protection, Illicit Finance and Market Integrity

Consumer protection and illicit finance remained significant areas of disagreement in the Senate negotiations. A group of Democratic senators argued that the July 22 draft required stronger provisions addressing consumer protection, sanctions and illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of digital asset markets. These senators were important to the bill’s prospects because Republican supporters would require Democratic votes to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. ^[19]

Supporters argued that registration, customer-asset segregation, disclosure, custody, anti-fraud, and anti-manipulation requirements would introduce protections that were absent from the existing digital asset market. ^[22] Critics maintained that exemptions and limitations within the draft could leave some activities outside sufficiently strong regulatory or enforcement requirements. ^[19]

Non-Custodial Developers and Law Enforcement

The treatment of non-custodial blockchain developers also became a point of dispute. Proposed protections under Section 604 were intended to prevent developers, validators, software maintainers, and providers of non-custodial infrastructure from automatically being classified as money transmitters when they did not control customer funds. ^[27]

Supporters argued that publishing software or maintaining decentralized infrastructure should not, by itself, subject a developer to the same obligations as a financial intermediary that takes custody of customer assets. Law-enforcement representatives expressed concern that broadly written exemptions could impair criminal investigations or create gaps in anti-money-laundering enforcement. Senators involved in the negotiations sought language that would protect developers while preserving authorities used to investigate illicit financial activity. ^[27]

Regulatory Jurisdiction

A central tenet of the CLARITY Act is the division of regulatory authority over digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The bill aims to provide a clearer distinction than currently exists, where both agencies have asserted jurisdiction, leading to overlapping oversight and enforcement actions.

Under the proposed framework, digital assets that meet the definition of a "digital commodity" would primarily fall under the regulatory purview of the CFTC. This includes establishing registration requirements and core principles for digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers. The CFTC would have exclusive jurisdiction over cash or spot market transactions in digital commodities conducted on or through registered entities ^[1].

The SEC would retain jurisdiction over digital assets that qualify as securities under existing securities laws. This includes investment contracts involving digital commodities, particularly during the initial offering phase before a blockchain system is deemed "mature" ^[1]. The bill also grants the SEC anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority over permitted payment stablecoins and certain digital commodity transactions when brokered, traded, or custodied by SEC-registered entities like brokers, dealers, or alternative trading systems ^[1].

The Act requires the SEC and CFTC to engage in joint rulemakings on various aspects, including further defining key terms, handling mixed digital asset transactions (those involving both a digital commodity and a security), and establishing procedures for delisting assets if their trading is deemed inconsistent with regulations ^[1]. A memorandum of understanding between the two agencies is also mandated to ensure consistent requirements and avoid duplicative supervision for entities registered with both commissions or notice-registered with the CFTC while primarily regulated by the SEC ^[1].

Industry Support and Opposition

The CLARITY Act has garnered significant support from various participants in the cryptocurrency industry. Leading crypto trade associations, including the Blockchain Association, the Chamber of Digital Commerce, the Crypto Council for Innovation, and Coinbase's lobbying arm, Stand With Crypto, have actively advocated for the bill's passage. They argue that the legislation provides much-needed regulatory certainty, which is crucial for fostering innovation and enabling the digital asset industry to thrive in the United States ^{[2] [3]}. Industry proponents believe that a clear legal framework would encourage greater institutional adoption and investment ^[4].

However, the bill has also faced opposition, particularly from some Democratic lawmakers and, more recently, from the traditional banking sector, which has become the central hurdle to the bill's progress in the Senate. The primary conflict revolves around yield-bearing stablecoins. The banking industry views these products as an "existential threat" that could create an "unregulated parallel banking" system. They warn that the higher returns offered by stablecoins (~3.5%) compared to average bank deposits (~0.1%) could lead to massive capital flight from traditional banks, potentially destabilizing the U.S. economy. This concern was reportedly amplified by a U.S. Treasury scenario analysis estimating a potential deposit drawdown of $6.6 trillion ^{[13] [14]}.

Conversely, the crypto industry argues that a prohibition on stablecoin interest would stifle financial innovation, limit consumer choice, and damage America's competitive position in decentralized finance. They frame these returns as "rewards" or loyalty benefits rather than interest. High-level meetings between lawmakers and crypto executives from firms like Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, and a16z have continued in an effort to find a path forward for legislation ^{[13] [10]}. Democratic lawmakers have also raised separate concerns. Maxine Waters, a top Democrat in the House Financial Services Committee, described the CLARITY Act as a "rushed, overly complicated bill" that would exempt "some of the riskiest activities" in crypto and legitimize what she called "Trump’s crypto con" ^[3].

Following the release of the July 2026 draft, crypto industry representatives renewed calls for the legislation to pass. In a July 22 opinion article, a16z crypto founder Chris Dixon argued that the bill would provide rules for blockchain networks, strengthen custody and customer-asset segregation requirements, and create a clearer path for institutional participation. He acknowledged that the legislation was not perfect but described it as preferable to continuing without a comprehensive federal framework. ^[22]

Robinhood Senior Vice President of Crypto Johann Kerbrat also argued that disagreement over stablecoin rewards should not prevent the broader market-structure legislation from advancing. Kerbrat criticized efforts to prohibit stablecoin customers from receiving yield and presented the issue as one involving consumer choice and competition between crypto platforms and traditional financial institutions. ^[25]

Banking-sector opposition remained focused on the treatment of stablecoin rewards. Banks argued that permitting exchanges or affiliated companies to offer interest-equivalent rewards could circumvent restrictions imposed on stablecoin issuers and draw deposits away from regulated banks. The crypto industry maintained that activity-based rewards, lending, and other on-chain strategies were distinct from passive deposit interest and should remain permissible. ^[26]

Democratic opposition to the July 22 draft extended beyond stablecoin rewards. A group of senators who had participated in bipartisan negotiations said the proposal required stronger provisions concerning government ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and market integrity. Their statement indicated that the inclusion of an ethics section had not, by itself, secured sufficient Democratic support for a Senate vote. ^[19]

Following the release of the approximately 600-page revised Senate text, reactions remained divided. Forbes reported that industry advocates regarded the release as progress toward a comprehensive federal framework, while Democratic lawmakers and other critics continued to question the scope of the ethics restrictions, enforcement authority, consumer protections and the legislation’s implications for financial inclusion. ^[28]

Legislative Outlook

As of July 22, 2026, the CLARITY Act had advanced to the Senate legislative calendar, making it eligible for floor consideration, but the legislation had not received a floor vote. Majority Leader John Thune’s office said Senate leadership still intended to move the bill forward, although the chamber was scheduled to leave Washington after August 7 for its summer recess. ^[19]

The legislation would require 60 Senate votes to advance. Because Republican senators could not reach that threshold alone, its passage depended on support from a group of Democratic senators. Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego had supported the legislation during the Senate Banking Committee vote, but their committee votes were not unconditional commitments to support the final bill on the Senate floor. ^{[19] [27]}

On July 21, 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that the White House and a group of Republican senators led by Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno had reached a preliminary agreement on an ethics provision. The development was initially described as clearing a major obstacle to the legislation, although the bill still required Democratic support to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. ^[30]

Reactions following the release of the legislative text showed that the ethics dispute had not been resolved. Democratic lawmakers continued to object to the provision’s scope, its reliance on the Department of Justice for enforcement and its treatment of existing crypto-related business interests. The bill would require at least seven Democratic votes if every Republican supported it and potentially more if any Republican senators opposed it. ^{[19] [28] [29] [31]}

With the Senate scheduled to begin its summer recess on August 7 and the November 2026 midterm elections approaching, lawmakers faced a narrowing window for a floor vote. Barron’s reported that failure to advance the legislation before the recess could delay comprehensive market-structure legislation for years. ^[31]

Failure to act before the August recess could further narrow the bill’s legislative window as Congress approached the 2026 midterm elections. Senator Cynthia Lummis and other supporters warned that a lengthy delay could push comprehensive digital asset market-structure legislation into a future Congress, where the legislative process might have to begin again. ^[27]

Potential Impact

The potential impact of the CLARITY Act, or a successor bill emerging from the Senate, is significant for the digital asset market in the United States. If enacted, the legislation would fundamentally alter the regulatory landscape by providing a statutory definition for "digital commodity" and delineating the roles of the SEC and CFTC ^{[2] [3]}. One of the primary anticipated impacts is increased regulatory certainty, which is expected to encourage greater participation from institutional investors ^[4].

Even if enacted, the CLARITY Act would require extensive implementation by federal regulators. The SEC and CFTC would need to define key terms, establish registration procedures, coordinate supervision, and issue rules governing digital asset intermediaries and stablecoin rewards. Concerns were also raised about whether vacancies and limited staffing at the regulatory agencies could delay implementation or expose new rules to legal challenges. ^[27]

Supporters argued that the legislation would reduce uncertainty surrounding asset classification, encourage investment in United States blockchain infrastructure, and provide clearer custody, segregation, registration, and disclosure requirements. They also argued that a federal framework could support institutional adoption and allow the United States to compete with jurisdictions that had already adopted comprehensive digital asset rules. ^[22]

Critics argued that regulatory certainty alone would not ensure sufficient protection for consumers or the financial system. Democratic negotiators maintained that the July 2026 draft required stronger ethics, consumer-protection, illicit-finance, conflict-of-interest, and market-integrity provisions. ^[19]

The treatment of stablecoin rewards could have a direct effect on exchanges, stablecoin issuers, banks, and consumers. A prohibition on passive rewards could reduce or eliminate programs that pay customers solely for holding stablecoins. At the same time, the continued allowance of activity-based rewards could encourage platforms to develop lending, trading, payment, collateral, and liquidity products designed to fall outside the passive-yield restriction. ^{[25] [26]}

Market Reaction and Industry Implications

Reports of an agreement between the White House and Republican senators produced an immediate market reaction on July 21, 2026. Coinbase shares rose approximately 9.6%, while shares of stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Group increased approximately 8.6%. The Wall Street Journal attributed the moves to optimism that the reported ethics compromise had improved the CLARITY Act’s prospects, while noting that Democratic support was still required. ^[30]

By July 24, Barron’s reported that Coinbase shares had gained 9.7% during the month and Bitcoin had risen approximately 11%. The publication said passage could reduce the risk of a future administration reviving enforcement actions against cryptocurrency exchanges and could make banks and other traditional financial institutions more comfortable entering digital asset markets. ^[31]

Barron’s also noted that greater participation by traditional financial companies could increase competition for established cryptocurrency platforms. Although a larger regulated market could benefit Coinbase and the broader industry, additional competitors could place pressure on Coinbase’s market share and trading fees. ^[31]

The legislative negotiations were also viewed as an indication of digital assets’ growing political acceptance. Analysts cited by Barron’s argued that the fact that the final dispute centered on government ethics rather than the legitimacy of cryptocurrency itself suggested that a return to the previous enforcement-oriented approach had become less likely, even if the CLARITY Act failed to pass in 2026. ^[31]