On September 15, the U.S. Senate voted on a motion to end debate on the CLARITY Act (the Digital Assets Market Structure Act) 49–50. It was 11 votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to advance—didn’t even secure a simple majority. All votes in favor came from Republicans, while Democrats as a whole opposed it. Republicans such as Collins, Hawley, and Moran broke ranks. One of the bill’s principal drafters, Lummis, said bluntly that the next realistic window may not arrive until 2030.
More than the vote count, what’s worth watching is how probabilities are being priced. On Polymarket, the chance of passage in 2026 was still 82% in February; about a week before the vote it was around 34%; by the morning of voting day it dropped to 18%; and after the vote it was left with single-digit percentages. Over the past half year, the prediction market has basically been the best thermometer for this legislative cycle—it tells you the outcome earlier than the news.
The failure wasn’t technical; it was a triple political equation. First, crypto-related income of roughly $1.4 billion for the Trump family in 2025 made the “ethics provisions” a deadlock. Second, the boundary for stablecoin yield—prohibiting interest on idle balances but allowing DeFi rewards—offended both the banking industry and the industry itself. Third, with the general election on November 3 only seven weeks away, neither side was willing to compromise.
The real change happens after the vote. SEC Chair Atkins and CFTC Chair Selig both signaled that they would make rules based on existing statutory authority—such as the SEC’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and the CFTC’s spot listing regime. This is how “rulemaking driven” replaces “legislation driven.”
The difference is crucial: once legislation is passed, it tends to remain relatively stable. Under administrative rules, the next administration can overturn them—and they’ll be repeatedly tested in court. Even more importantly, the question of “which tokens are commodities and which are securities” can’t be answered by legislation; without it, the only way is through case-by-case and enforcement discretion.
I tend to believe the cost of this failure isn’t immediate—regulatory vacuum hasn’t become stricter—but rather that the whole asset classification issue has been pushed back by a few years. $BTC fell about 4% that day and even dipped to around $75,000; the market pricing reflected exactly “certainty of delay.”
A question to leave you with: would you rather have a set of administrative rules that could be overturned at any time by the next Congress, or keep waiting for a piece of legislation—one you may never see? Do you believe the “2030 window” claim?
# U.S. Senate Rejects the CLARITY Act
More than the vote count, what’s worth watching is how probabilities are being priced. On Polymarket, the chance of passage in 2026 was still 82% in February; about a week before the vote it was around 34%; by the morning of voting day it dropped to 18%; and after the vote it was left with single-digit percentages. Over the past half year, the prediction market has basically been the best thermometer for this legislative cycle—it tells you the outcome earlier than the news.
The failure wasn’t technical; it was a triple political equation. First, crypto-related income of roughly $1.4 billion for the Trump family in 2025 made the “ethics provisions” a deadlock. Second, the boundary for stablecoin yield—prohibiting interest on idle balances but allowing DeFi rewards—offended both the banking industry and the industry itself. Third, with the general election on November 3 only seven weeks away, neither side was willing to compromise.
The real change happens after the vote. SEC Chair Atkins and CFTC Chair Selig both signaled that they would make rules based on existing statutory authority—such as the SEC’s regulatory framework for crypto assets and the CFTC’s spot listing regime. This is how “rulemaking driven” replaces “legislation driven.”
The difference is crucial: once legislation is passed, it tends to remain relatively stable. Under administrative rules, the next administration can overturn them—and they’ll be repeatedly tested in court. Even more importantly, the question of “which tokens are commodities and which are securities” can’t be answered by legislation; without it, the only way is through case-by-case and enforcement discretion.
I tend to believe the cost of this failure isn’t immediate—regulatory vacuum hasn’t become stricter—but rather that the whole asset classification issue has been pushed back by a few years. $BTC fell about 4% that day and even dipped to around $75,000; the market pricing reflected exactly “certainty of delay.”
A question to leave you with: would you rather have a set of administrative rules that could be overturned at any time by the next Congress, or keep waiting for a piece of legislation—one you may never see? Do you believe the “2030 window” claim?
# U.S. Senate Rejects the CLARITY Act