Most blockchain teams talk about regulation as if it happens somewhere else. From their p.o.v, the protocol is built, the market goes live, then policymakers start asking questions, and the industry rushes to explain why the rules should not interrupt the momentum. Well, @Injective_ 's latest summit clip below suggests it wants a seat in that conversation. In the video, SummerMersinger discusses the risk that an ethics debate could derail the rest of the U.S. market-structure bill, and Injective attached its own message: “Pass CLARITY Now!” That does not mean the CLARITY Act has passed. It does not prove that every Summit speaker shares the same view. It is advocacy, but the advocacy has context. Injective’s Policy Institute, launched in May, is its Washington-based policy and research arm and it focuses on DeFi, onchain derivatives and perpetuals, and stablecoins. Those are not decorative categories but rather the parts of finance where access, custody, market operation, and settlement rules eventually collide. That’s why I think policy can be read as infrastructure. Code determines what a market can do. Regulation helps determine who can operate it, who can access it, what controls apply, and whether institutions can participate without stepping outside their obligations. None of that guarantees adoption. Clearer rules can still produce weak products, shallow liquidity, or markets nobody wants to use. A policy shop cannot substitute for execution onchain Still, the signal is worth watching. A chain built around financial markets cannot treat the legal environment as background noise It has to engage with the people writing the rules, explain how the systems work, and argue for a framework that does not force new infrastructure into old assumptions. The distinction is simple: Injective is advocating for the market environment its products need. It has not proved that the environment will change. That gap is exactly what to watch $INJ #CMC