《Clear Act》 procedural vote failed, with no substantive negative impact
#美参议院否决CLARITY法案
┈➤ Actually it was 50 yes votes, not 49
45 Democratic lawmakers, 1 abstained, and 44 voted against.
2 independent lawmakers, all voted against.
53 Republican lawmakers, 3 voted against.
Originally it was 49 votes against, but one Republican, Thom Tillis, changed his vote to “against.”
At this point, the opposition already had more than 40 votes, so the opposition side would be the winning side. Therefore, Thom Tillis switched his vote to “against,” because only members of the winning side can initiate a “motion to reconsider.”
After Thom Tillis voted, he immediately proposed the “motion to reconsider.” Then what? As long as the Senate has 51 votes in favor of the “reconsideration,” they can vote again—of course still needing 60 votes to pass.
So in reality, the “yes” votes were 50, not the 49 shown on the surface. A one-vote difference, but it accounts for half of the Senate.
┈➤ What was opposed was not crypto
It’s not that cryptocurrency itself was opposed.
Previously, prosecutors from 18 states jointly opposed the “Clear Act” because the current version of the bill has unfavorable factors in enforcement. So what was being opposed was the bill’s content, not crypto.
And what the Democrats opposed were the ethical provisions of the “Clear Act,” such as stablecoin yield, etc. These ethical terms and stablecoin yield are directly tied to the interests of the Trump group.
┈➤ Regulatory plans
Although the “Clear Act” cannot be passed for now, the SEC and CFTC have long been preparing regulatory plans.
For example:
SEC and CFTC are jointly pushing forward Project Crypto. Its main content is to classify tokens—what is a security, what is a commodity, what is a collectible, and so on—clarifying the jurisdictions of the SEC and CFTC.
The SEC’s Regulation Crypto Assets is in the draft stage, providing a dedicated financing regulatory framework for investment contracts involving crypto assets.
Although this kind of regulation is at the administrative level and cannot replace the “Clear Act” at the legal level, compliance pathways for cryptocurrencies are still moving forward.
So there’s no substantive negative impact—at most only emotional negative sentiment.
#美参议院否决CLARITY法案
┈➤ Actually it was 50 yes votes, not 49
45 Democratic lawmakers, 1 abstained, and 44 voted against.
2 independent lawmakers, all voted against.
53 Republican lawmakers, 3 voted against.
Originally it was 49 votes against, but one Republican, Thom Tillis, changed his vote to “against.”
At this point, the opposition already had more than 40 votes, so the opposition side would be the winning side. Therefore, Thom Tillis switched his vote to “against,” because only members of the winning side can initiate a “motion to reconsider.”
After Thom Tillis voted, he immediately proposed the “motion to reconsider.” Then what? As long as the Senate has 51 votes in favor of the “reconsideration,” they can vote again—of course still needing 60 votes to pass.
So in reality, the “yes” votes were 50, not the 49 shown on the surface. A one-vote difference, but it accounts for half of the Senate.
┈➤ What was opposed was not crypto
It’s not that cryptocurrency itself was opposed.
Previously, prosecutors from 18 states jointly opposed the “Clear Act” because the current version of the bill has unfavorable factors in enforcement. So what was being opposed was the bill’s content, not crypto.
And what the Democrats opposed were the ethical provisions of the “Clear Act,” such as stablecoin yield, etc. These ethical terms and stablecoin yield are directly tied to the interests of the Trump group.
┈➤ Regulatory plans
Although the “Clear Act” cannot be passed for now, the SEC and CFTC have long been preparing regulatory plans.
For example:
SEC and CFTC are jointly pushing forward Project Crypto. Its main content is to classify tokens—what is a security, what is a commodity, what is a collectible, and so on—clarifying the jurisdictions of the SEC and CFTC.
The SEC’s Regulation Crypto Assets is in the draft stage, providing a dedicated financing regulatory framework for investment contracts involving crypto assets.
Although this kind of regulation is at the administrative level and cannot replace the “Clear Act” at the legal level, compliance pathways for cryptocurrencies are still moving forward.
So there’s no substantive negative impact—at most only emotional negative sentiment.