Key points

  • The CLARITY Act is a bill proposed by the United States to clarify when transactions involving digital assets fall within the scope of securities law, when digital assets are eligible to be considered digital commodities, and how responsibilities are divided between the SEC and the CFTC.

  • On September 15, 2026, a Senate vote to end debate under procedure to promote consideration of the CLARITY Act failed, with a 49–50 margin, fewer than the 60 votes needed to proceed with debate.

  • The vote kept the bill at the procedural stage and left open the possibility of reconsidering the motion at a later time.

  • Although primarily applied in the United States, how this bill would handle digital assets on DeFi trading platforms, stablecoin activity, and other market activities could affect the growth of the crypto market globally.

On September 15, 2026, the U.S. Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act after a motion to end debate received 49 votes in favor and 50 votes against, fewer than the 60 votes needed.

After the procedural vote below ended, the text of the bill is focused on issues that lawmakers are still debating—changes in the latest Senate draft and what the failed vote means for the crypto industry.

Senate text voted on

The September 15 vote was a procedural motion to end debate—i.e., a procedural vote on whether to advance consideration of the bill. If at least 60 senators vote to end debate, the Senate may proceed to debate and can still offer additional amendments before the final vote on passage of the bill.

In this case, the motion failed by a 49–50 margin. Then Senator Thom Tillis changed his vote to “no” on procedural grounds, thereby preserving the possibility of asking for reconsideration at a later time. Under Senate rules, reconsideration motions are typically only available to the senator who voted with the winning side—in this case, the “no” side.

What is the CLARITY Act trying to address?

In the United States, lawmakers and regulators have debated for years how to apply existing securities and commodities laws to digital assets. One of the key questions is whether a specific transaction involving a digital asset constitutes an investment contract subject to securities law, and how the underlying asset should be treated when it is later traded.

This distinction is crucial because a project may initially sell digital assets under a capital-raising arrangement subject to securities law, while subsequent transactions involving the underlying asset may raise different legal and regulatory issues. The CLARITY Act aims to establish clearer statutory rules for those situations, as well as for markets and intermediaries where digital assets are traded.

SEC and CFTC: the key difference

The two U.S. regulators play a central role in the debate.

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversees securities markets.

  • The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) manages U.S. derivatives markets and has authority to combat fraud and manipulation in spot commodity markets.

What’s missing is a comprehensive federal mechanism for intermediaries that operate spot markets for digital assets that are not securities.

The CLARITY Act aims to fill that gap. Generally, transactions that constitute investment contracts would continue to be subject to securities law requirements, while eligible digital commodities and platforms supporting secondary trading could fall under a new framework overseen by the CFTC.

This distinction has practical significance because it can affect the regulatory requirements that apply to a particular transaction and the regulator responsible, as well as the conditions for a platform to provide or support digital-asset trading.

What could the CLARITY Act change?

At its core, the bill would establish clearer federal mechanisms for both digital assets and the companies that support trading these assets. Transactions involving digital assets that constitute investment contracts would continue to fall under the securities law framework, while eligible secondary transactions in digital commodities could be conducted through intermediaries regulated by the CFTC.

The bill would also give the CFTC new authority over digital commodity exchanges, registered brokers, and agents operating in spot markets. This is important because currently the CFTC has far less comprehensive authority over spot commodity markets than it does over futures and derivatives contracts.

The result would be a clearer set of federal rules covering areas such as registration, safeguarding customer assets, disclosures, market integrity, and conflicts of interest.

New requirements for platforms and projects

Under the proposed framework, digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers that fall within the CFTC regulatory framework would have to register and comply with requirements related to issues such as customer assets, recordkeeping, conflicts of interest, and market integrity. Specific disclosure and handling requirements would apply to certain issuers, projects, and particular insiders.

The goal is to create regulated pathways for both primary issuance and secondary trading of digital assets, rather than relying mainly on enforcement actions and court rulings to establish boundaries.

Why the bill is controversial

The debate focuses on the details: what the rules should look like, who will enforce them, and whether the bill would leave significant gaps.

Stablecoin rewards

One of the most contentious issues is whether crypto platforms are allowed to provide rewards tied to paying stablecoins. The GENIUS Act would bar payment stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield just because users hold payment stablecoins. However, debate continues over the rewards provided by exchanges and other third parties.

Banks argue that interest-like rewards could encourage customers to move deposits out of the banking system and potentially reduce funding available for lending. Participants in the crypto industry argue that an overly broad ban could limit competition and discourage legitimate incentives based on payment activity, loyalty, and other activities.

The latest proposal from the U.S. Senate would seek to distinguish rewards for simply holding stablecoins from rewards tied to using stablecoins. The proposal also includes a mechanism allowing the Treasury Department to step in if stablecoin activity causes a significant outflow of deposits from community banks and has a negative impact. The compromise has not ended the disagreements, and banking organizations continue to push for tighter restrictions.

Federal framework and state authority

Another area of debate is how much enforcement authority should continue to belong to the states alongside the new federal framework. The latest Senate draft includes provisions allowing state attorneys general to play a role in enforcing certain requirements. Among them are some bill ethics provisions.

Supporters of a stronger federal framework argue that uniform nationwide regulations would reduce fragmentation and provide more certainty for businesses. Others want to ensure that states still retain meaningful enforcement tools in cases of fraud, harm to consumers, or misconduct that directly affects residents.

Conflicts of interest of state officials

Conflicts of interest involving state officials are among the most difficult issues in the final negotiations ahead of the vote. The latest proposal strengthened restrictions related to federal officials and interests in digital assets. The proposal also gives state attorneys general an enforcement role for certain ethics provisions.

Supporters of the compromise argue that it established meaningful safeguards. Meanwhile, some lawmakers continue to say that tighter restrictions are needed. This issue is central to the talks ahead of the September 15 vote and will remain important if lawmakers try to restore the bill, which would require reaching the 60-vote threshold to end debate.

The current status of the CLARITY Act

The September 15 vote on ending debate left the CLARITY Act at the procedural stage rather than moving to debate in the Senate. The 49–50 result did not reach the 60 votes needed to end debate. However, Senate procedure still preserves the possibility of reconsidering the motion. Therefore, the vote has not officially ended the bill.

If enacted into law, the bill would not immediately resolve every regulatory issue. The SEC, CFTC, and other federal agencies would need to implement key parts of the framework through rulemaking activities. However, for crypto businesses, the bill could partially replace current regulatory uncertainty with clearer federal rules on issuance, trading, and the market intermediaries.

If the bill ultimately is not passed, digital assets would not become an unregulated field. Existing laws on securities, commodities, banking, anti-money laundering, and state laws would continue to apply alongside ongoing rulemaking and ongoing court rulings. The difference is that many of the jurisdictional boundaries the bill aims to establish would still not be defined clearly.

Summary

At its core, the CLARITY Act is an effort to replace years of regulatory uncertainty with a clearer federal framework for digital asset markets. The bill not only addresses how different digital asset transactions should be handled, but also specifies who oversees trading platforms, what safeguards apply to customers, and what obligations the projects and associated intermediaries must meet.

For users, the practical impacts could include clearer rules about what assets a platform is permitted to offer, disclosure requirements, and safeguards that apply, as well as who is responsible for oversight. For the digital asset industry, the key question is whether Congress can establish a framework that provides sufficient regulatory certainty for businesses to operate and innovate while still maintaining appropriate safeguards for the market and consumers.

Read more

Please note: There may be differences between the original English content and any translated versions (these versions may be generated by AI). Please refer to the original English version for the most accurate information in case of differences.