The Solana Policy Institute has urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to bring the Clarity Act to the Senate floor, adding pressure on lawmakers to act before the congressional calendar gives way to election-season politics.
In a letter sent Tuesday night, the policy group argued that the Senate’s prolonged delay leaves U.S. digital-asset businesses without a clear federal framework and exposes software developers to uncertainty over whether they could be treated as regulated financial intermediaries. The appeal arrives as Senate leaders weigh a crowded agenda that includes government funding legislation and executive nominations.
Thune indicated this week that a vote on digital-asset legislation remains under consideration. In a Fox News interview on Tuesday, the Republican leader listed the Clarity Act among potential legislative priorities, while acknowledging that Democratic votes would be needed to move the bill through the chamber.
The Senate has only a limited period before lawmakers begin devoting more time to November campaigning. Two Senate committees have advanced separate versions of market-structure legislation over the past year, while a newly consolidated Republican-backed draft was released last week. The competing proposals are now caught between demand for clearer crypto rules and a political dispute over President Donald Trump’s business ties to the sector.
Ethics dispute complicates path to bipartisan support
Democratic concerns have focused on Trump’s cryptocurrency-related ventures, particularly links between the president’s family and World Liberty Financial. Financial disclosures released last month showed Trump had received income connected to the company, intensifying calls for ethics restrictions that would apply to public officials involved in digital assets.
The latest legislative text seeks to address part of that criticism by prohibiting public officials and employees, as well as their spouses, from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. The provision is scheduled to expire on Jan. 20, 2029.
That sunset clause has become a focal point in negotiations. Politico reported that a counterproposal delivered to the White House would alter the enforcement mechanism for alleged violations, moving responsibility away from the Department of Justice and giving state authorities a larger role. Democrats, including lawmakers who have pressed for tougher conflict-of-interest rules, have sought a structure that gives state attorneys general clearer authority to pursue enforcement.
The disagreement reaches beyond a technical drafting issue. A federal market-structure bill would set rules for how agencies classify and oversee crypto assets, but the ethics language has become a test of whether both parties can agree that those rules should not permit elected officials to profit from token projects they can influence through policy.
The current draft’s federal approach limits the role of state courts in enforcing the proposed public-official restrictions. That could make it harder to secure support from senators who view state enforcement as a necessary check where federal agencies decline to act.
Developer protections remain a major industry priority
The policy debate also includes the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, a proposal intended to protect non-custodial crypto developers and infrastructure providers from being categorized as money transmitters solely because they write or maintain software.
Non-custodial services allow users to hold their own private keys and retain direct control of funds. Developers of such tools have argued that they do not take possession of customer assets and therefore should not face the same obligations as exchanges, banks, or payment processors. Law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors have countered that broad protections could make it more difficult to pursue services used for illicit finance.
Section 604 of the newest Clarity Act draft would provide a safe harbor for independent network validators and certain developers. The language aims to distinguish between those who provide code or validate blockchain transactions and firms that actually custody assets, execute transfers for customers, or run financial businesses.
That distinction has become one of the industry’s central legislative demands following enforcement actions against developers associated with privacy and self-custody tools. Supporters say a clear safe harbor would reduce the risk that open-source software work is treated as unlicensed money transmission. Critics warn that the wording must be narrow enough to avoid insulating businesses that play an active role in moving or controlling funds.
Politico reported that organizations representing prosecutors submitted proposed changes to the White House on Tuesday. Their intervention points to continuing negotiations over the balance between developer protections and law-enforcement access.
Floor vote would test Senate appetite for crypto rules
The Solana Policy Institute’s letter frames a Senate vote as a choice between establishing domestic rules and allowing legal uncertainty to shape where crypto businesses and developers operate. The group argues that capital and technical talent could move abroad if the United States does not define the legal boundaries for token issuance, trading, custody, and blockchain infrastructure.
That argument has resonance across parts of the industry, though it does not resolve the harder political questions surrounding Trump’s financial interests and the scope of enforcement powers. A floor vote would force senators to decide whether the underlying market-structure framework is sufficiently separated from those concerns to justify moving ahead.
Thune’s comments suggest Senate leaders see a potential route to a vote, but the measure would need bipartisan backing to clear the chamber’s procedural hurdles. The coming weeks will determine whether negotiators can settle the ethics and developer-liability provisions before the legislative calendar narrows further.
As US lawmakers debate crypto rules, explore how future US crypto regulation could reshape markets and policy.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
