The Senate’s review of the CLARITY Act is approaching an August 7 recess deadline without a scheduled floor vote, placing a proposed federal framework for digital-asset markets at risk of slipping into a crowded autumn legislative calendar. The roughly 600-page bill would divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, using a token’s decentralization as the test for which agency takes the lead.
The measure previously passed the House with bipartisan support last year, but Senate leaders have yet to file a cloture motion, the procedural step normally needed to overcome a filibuster and begin final consideration. The bill would need 60 votes to clear that threshold. Its absence from the published Monday floor schedule has added to doubts that senators can complete action before leaving Washington.
Prediction-market pricing has reflected the deteriorating timetable. Polymarket data showed the estimated likelihood of CLARITY Act passage in 2026 falling from a peak of 82% in February to about 30% by late July. Such markets are not a measure of legislative intent, but the drop tracks the growing gap between the bill’s policy ambition and the Senate’s available time.
A framework for tokens that change over time
The CLARITY Act’s central design would address an issue that has long complicated U.S. crypto regulation: some networks begin with concentrated development teams and token distributions, then become more distributed over time.
Under the approach described by Chris Dixon, co-founder and managing partner of Andreessen Horowitz’s crypto division, newly issued blockchain-native tokens would initially face securities-style requirements, including disclosures and lockups. A network that later meets statutory decentralization standards could move into CFTC commodity-style oversight.
That model would preserve SEC authority over tokenized stocks and other instruments already treated as securities. Dixon said tokenized shares would remain subject to existing securities laws rather than entering the new framework for blockchain-native assets.
The proposed CFTC regime would resemble the oversight applied to commodities such as gold, oil and wheat, Dixon said in an interview with Robert Hackett. A transition away from securities supervision would not remove market-abuse rules: manipulation, cornering and related conduct would remain within the regulatory perimeter.
The division of authority could give crypto businesses clearer rules for designing products that may take years to develop, while reducing the chance that an asset’s legal treatment changes through enforcement actions or shifting agency interpretations. The details of the decentralization test will be crucial, since a vague standard could recreate the uncertainty the bill is intended to resolve.
Trading platforms would face federal registration rules
The bill would also extend federal registration and operating requirements to digital-asset platforms that custody customer funds, according to Dixon. Those obligations would include standardized audits, customer disclosures, anti-fraud protections and restrictions targeting insider trading.
Dixon cited the collapse of FTX as an example of the risks created when trading venues handle customer assets without consistent audit and supervisory requirements. Under the proposed system, platforms that do not meet U.S. requirements would be barred from operating in the country.
The legislation seeks to move a large part of the market away from the fragmented structure that emerged when the SEC and CFTC each asserted authority over different assets and activities. It would also give agencies clearer statutory tools, rather than requiring them to rely primarily on cases built under pre-existing securities or commodities laws.
Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz, described the objective as a durable rulebook comparable with the frameworks governing established U.S. financial markets. The bill’s supporters argue that legislative rules would be more stable than agency guidance, which can change with administrations, court decisions or new enforcement priorities.
Dixon said agencies including the SEC, CFTC and Treasury would retain the ability to make rules under their existing powers if Congress does not act. Those measures would offer a less comprehensive solution for companies deciding where to build products and establish compliance operations.
Stablecoins have separate federal rules
The Senate debate takes place after enactment of the GENIUS Act, which established federal rules for stablecoins. Dixon said that law addressed payment tokens while leaving the larger market for blockchain-native assets, trading venues and decentralized protocols without a unified statute.
He said stablecoin transaction volumes have reached trillions of dollars per quarter, comparing their scale with Visa’s network. The comparison reflects the growing use of dollar-linked tokens for settlement and transfers, though payment volumes do not necessarily represent consumer spending in the same way as card transactions.
Stablecoin yield remains one of the contentious policy areas. Dixon said the latest CLARITY Act language would prohibit interest paid on stablecoin balances while allowing consumer reward programs that are not structured as balance-based yield. A retailer could, for example, offer rewards tied to monthly spending rather than to the amount of stablecoins held in a wallet.
The distinction is aimed at limiting stablecoins’ resemblance to interest-bearing bank deposits while preserving promotional and loyalty programs. Banks and some lawmakers have argued that yield-bearing stablecoin products could draw funds away from insured deposits, while crypto firms have sought room for payment-related incentives.
Ethics provisions remain a political obstacle
Negotiations have also been complicated by ethics rules affecting public officials’ digital-asset activity. Republicans released proposed compromise language on July 22, but lawmakers remain divided over whether the restrictions would sufficiently address conflicts involving officials and their families.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has argued that the draft contains loopholes that would allow elected officials to continue accumulating personal wealth through digital assets. Dixon said ethics policy and market-structure policy should be handled as separate matters. Andreessen argued that the bill’s proposed limits on officials’ digital-asset use would be tighter than rules governing stock trading.
That disagreement has become more than a side issue. Any effort to attach ethics provisions to a complex market-structure bill could alter the coalition needed to reach 60 votes, particularly with the recess deadline approaching.
A delay would push the bill into a harder calendar
If no vote occurs before August 7, the bill would return to a September agenda dominated by government funding deadlines. The approaching midterm cycle would further reduce the time available for contentious financial legislation requiring bipartisan support.
Andreessen linked the outcome to where crypto development will concentrate geographically, arguing that predictable U.S. rules would influence domestic technology development and related national-security interests. The claim reflects a broader policy contest over whether digital-asset activity will be governed primarily through U.S. legislation, agency rulemaking or overseas frameworks.
The immediate Senate question is narrower: whether leaders can bring a complex bill to the floor before recess and assemble the votes needed to advance it. Without that step, the CLARITY Act’s proposed SEC-CFTC framework will enter the fall as unfinished business, alongside the same disputes over decentralization, stablecoin incentives, platform supervision and public-official ethics that have delayed it so far.
For deeper context on U.S. crypto rulemaking, explore how Congress regulation matters in the crypto conversation today.
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.
