The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is not dead. But for crypto founders, token issuers, exchanges, and investors making decisions today, the safer planning assumption is increasingly that CLARITY will not become the governing framework in 2026.

Before the Senate left Washington for its August recess, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the CLARITY Act, positioning the legislation for its first major Senate procedural test when lawmakers return in September. The vote is expected around September 15, and advancing the measure will require 60 votes—meaning Republicans will need meaningful Democratic support.

That keeps CLARITY alive. It does not make passage inevitable.

What Is Holding CLARITY Up?

The latest Senate text represents months of negotiation and combines work from the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees. Senator Cynthia Lummis described the current legislative window as potentially the last meaningful opportunity for years to enact comprehensive digital-asset market structure legislation.

But several politically difficult issues remain unresolved.

1. Illicit finance and law-enforcement protections.
Lawmakers continue to disagree over whether the legislation provides sufficiently strong anti-money-laundering, national-security, consumer-protection, and enforcement safeguards. Supporters argue that CLARITY creates meaningful protections against fraud and illicit finance, while critics continue to push for stronger enforcement authority and fewer perceived loopholes.

2. Stablecoin yield and rewards.
The treatment of rewards paid on stablecoin balances remains one of the most consequential commercial issues. The debate centers on where permissible platform rewards end and deposit-like yield begins—a distinction that matters enormously to exchanges, stablecoin businesses, fintech platforms, and traditional banks.

3. Government ethics and crypto holdings.
Provisions addressing digital-asset activities and holdings by elected officials—and particularly President Trump's crypto interests—remain politically contentious. Democratic lawmakers have pushed for stronger restrictions, while disagreements over the scope and enforceability of the ethics provisions continue to complicate negotiations.

Any one of these issues could complicate the coalition needed to reach 60 votes. Together, they make September a significant but uncertain legislative window.

The Bigger Point: Regulators Are Not Waiting for Congress

For crypto companies, the most important development may be what is happening outside Congress.

In March, the SEC and CFTC issued a joint interpretation establishing a federal crypto-asset taxonomy and clarifying how securities laws apply to different types of digital assets and transactions. The framework identifies five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. It also addresses when a crypto asset may be subject to an investment contract and the treatment of activities such as protocol staking and mining.

The SEC is simultaneously developing what Chairman Paul Atkins has described as “Regulation Crypto Assets,” including a potential token safe harbor and tailored framework for crypto capital formation.

That creates an important shift in the regulatory landscape.

Congress may eventually establish the durable statutory division of authority the industry has been seeking. Until it does, however, the SEC and CFTC are building the framework companies actually have to operate under.

Recent reporting underscores that dynamic: with CLARITY stalled, federal regulators are moving ahead with crypto policy through agency interpretations and rulemaking rather than waiting for comprehensive legislation.

What Crypto Founders Should Do Now

The mistake would be to structure a token launch, fundraising round, exchange product, staking program, or other digital-asset business around what CLARITY might permit.

Instead, treat CLARITY passage in 2026 as the upside case—not the base case.

For current structuring decisions, companies should be evaluating their products against the law and regulatory framework that exists now, including:

• the March SEC–CFTC crypto taxonomy and investment-contract interpretation;

• existing federal securities and commodities laws;

• applicable stablecoin requirements;

• current SEC and CFTC guidance and enforcement authority; and

• the developing Regulation Crypto Assets framework.

That means understanding where your token fits within the agencies' taxonomy, documenting the economic and functional characteristics supporting that classification, mapping issuer or developer control, evaluating continuing managerial promises, and determining whether fundraising arrangements independently create securities-law obligations.

It also means building structures that can survive more than one regulatory outcome.

Don't Wait for CLARITY to Create Clarity

CLARITY could still move in September. The cloture filing ensures that the Senate will have another opportunity to test whether a bipartisan coalition exists.

But “still alive” is not the same as “safe to rely on.”

With the midterm calendar approaching and major policy disagreements unresolved, companies making decisions today should assume that the current agency-led framework may remain the operative U.S. crypto regime through the end of 2026.

For founders, the practical question is therefore not simply:

“What will CLARITY allow?”

It is:

“Does our structure work if CLARITY does not pass this year?”

If the answer is no, now is the time to revisit it.

Learn More

This blog post is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Please consult with a Launch Legal attorney regarding your specific situation.