In the early hours of September 16, Beijing time, the U.S. Senate delivered its result on a procedural vote regarding the “Clarity Act” for the digital assets market. The bill failed to clear the 60-vote threshold, so it cannot move on to the next stage of formal consideration. The highly anticipated crypto regulatory legislation—one that the industry had pinned great hopes on—has, for now, been stalled.

One point needs to be clarified: this time, the bill was not directly rejected. Instead, it failed at the procedural step required to advance. The bill remains on the congressional calendar, and in theory there is still a possibility of being brought back for reconsideration. However, given the pace of congressional proceedings, the likelihood of it being enacted again within 2026 has become extremely low.

What problem the bill was originally meant to address

The bill is widely seen as a landmark piece of legislation in the crypto industry. Its core goal is to clarify regulatory authority and responsibilities: to define the jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and the CFTC; to lay out a federal-level compliance path for crypto exchanges and stablecoin projects; and to put an end to the long-standing situation where “regulation relies on enforcement actions and the rules are unclear.”

For a long time, the biggest pain point for the crypto industry has been vague and ambiguous rules. Institutional capital wants to enter the market but lacks a unified legal benchmark. Ordinary investors also face the risk of platform blowups and having no clear path to seek redress. Industry stakeholders from multiple sides have spent significant effort lobbying and negotiating, hoping that this bill could end the regulatory gray area.

Why it ultimately failed to clear the threshold

The bill was stalled due to irreconcilable disagreements between the two parties.

On the Democratic side, the view is that the existing version does not provide sufficient strength on consumer protection, anti-money laundering, and risk controls. They worry that the bill would give the industry overly relaxed space, sowing hidden financial risk vulnerabilities. Some Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are concerned that expanding regulatory authority would raise compliance costs for businesses and dampen the innovative momentum of digital asset development.

Even though the legislative team revised the provisions multiple times and added patches such as interest-constraint measures for public officials, the core conflict still could not be bridged. In the end, the vote margin was clearly insufficient, and it failed to meet the Senate’s hard requirements to advance the bill.