What many market participants tend to overlook is that the CLARITY Act still has a large number of regulatory boundaries that remain to be clearly defined: there is no consensus yet on the classification standards for DeFi protocols and NFT-type assets, nor on how regulatory authority should be divided for stablecoin issuers. Under the ongoing inter-party bargaining, relevant provisions still have room for adjustment. In addition, the Act has not yet fully finalized provisions on licensing requirements for crypto service providers and on cross-border transaction regulation, which further increases uncertainty around implementation. Procedural voting alone only indicates whether the bill can proceed to subsequent deliberation stages, and does not mean it will ultimately be passed. The U.S. 2023 crypto regulatory framework bill, for example, stalled in the House of Representatives after passing a procedural vote in the Senate due to partisan differences. This precedent suggests that the market’s optimistic expectations about the bill’s implementation may be subject to correction.

If the procedural vote on September 15 goes smoothly, and afterward the bill advances in the House and the White House does not use its veto power, then once the bill becomes law, it will be the first time to clearly define the regulatory status of BTC and ETH. It will also clarify the division of jurisdiction between the SEC and the CFTC, providing compliance grounds for institutional participation. Large asset-management firms and long-term capital such as pension funds that are currently on the sidelines may accelerate their allocation to crypto assets. The validation criteria are the passage rate of the September 15 vote, the progress of subsequent deliberations in the House, and the White House’s publicly stated stance.

If the vote is not passed or gets stuck in the House afterward, markets may see short-term pullbacks that unwind some optimistic expectations that were already priced in—but there’s no need to be overly pessimistic. Macro factors such as the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy and the trajectory of U.S. Treasury yields still have a greater impact weight on crypto assets than any single regulatory bill. Even if the bill fails, regulators will continue to clarify the regulatory framework through piecemeal rules rather than creating a regulatory vacuum. The validation criteria are whether a substitute bill is proposed after the voting outcome is released, and the subsequent rulemaking developments from the SEC and CFTC.

There are clear constraints in the transmission mechanism from the current macro environment to the impact of the bill: sustained spikes in U.S. Treasury yields and a breakout in oil prices above $100, which raises inflation expectations. If next week’s FOMC meeting sends hawkish signals, then even if the bill passes, overall pressure on risk assets may offset part of the potential upside. Conversely, if the Fed’s stance is more dovish, combined with expectations of regulatory clarity, only then could BTC and ETH potentially move up in tandem. Therefore, you can’t assess the bill’s impact in isolation—you need to make a comprehensive judgment alongside macro policy developments.

In addition, there are two types of downside risks to watch for. First, the final version of the bill could include stricter provisions beyond market expectations—for example, mandatory trading KYC or a crypto asset transaction tax—turning it into an industry negative. Second, if the market has already fully priced in the bill’s passage in advance, then once it is formally implemented, there could be a “sell the fact” scenario, which may increase short-term volatility.

$BTC $ETH #加密监管 #CLARITY法案 #Macro market